 |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editorial:
Faith in the Future? From
the director: Finding ourselves in the City Traveller,
the road is made by walking it The
Word made Flesh: A Sign and Foretaste in Limerick Comment:
The Architecture of Faith The
Word made Flesh: Down and Out in Dublin The
Word made Flesh: Cork Methodist Church, Ardfallen The
Word made Flesh: Reflections from the Maiden City Cathedral
Quarters: Interviews with Rev Dr Houston McKelvey and Very Rev Hugh
Kennedy Review:
Journey Towards Holiness Economics
and the economy: what are they for? Bible
Study: Beyond Silver Coins Reflection:
The 'F' word Review:
Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living Difficult
Conversations: Looking for God in the City... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
TO PITCH IN to a full-scale defence of my dissent would take too long, and I have no wish to go “head-to-head” with Dr Birnie. I shall try to make a few points, however, which I hope can promote a constructive discussion. Firstly, by insisting on a “sound understanding of economic theory and statistics” as a prerequisite for comment, Dr Birnie appears to be saying that there exists a solid, agreed and well-founded body of knowledge which will rescue modern Christian leaders from economic naivety. I cannot agree. There are a number of partial and competing descriptions – sometimes even explanations – of the working of the economy. They are culturally defined1, often support a particular political viewpoint, and rise (and also become discredited) as time passes. Typically, they are based, rather like Euclidean geometry, on reasoning from a set of assumptions, such as “most people put themselves first”. This (and others) are, to put it mildly, questionable. Secondly, I am not clear what statistics can do for us. In Hard Times, Charles Dickens offers some scathing criticisms of those who would judge the state of a nation’s well-being by numerical data alone2. In more recent times, it was thought that “model building” – bringing together statistical theory and numerical data on aspects of the economy – would uncover some “laws” of economics and perhaps even bring enlightenment. But not all that is important can be measured, and such laws as have been discovered have proved to be unstable over time. The assumptions required to make mathematical models, like the assumptions of economic theory, have been too simple. Economics, as an academic discipline and as a basis for determining policy, carries too much baggage from its own past. Words like “competition” and “efficiency” are sprinkled around by politicians, policy makers and commentators in the media, without ever asking about their deeper implications. Money is assumed to be the measure of all things. There are (and always have been) some thoughtful economists: E F Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful comes to mind. But in general, the “profession” is marked by a certain intellectual arrogance which, in the opinion of one author, has left us with a system which:
Overstatements? Perhaps – but each has at least a limited justification in reality. What can
we say about economics and the economy? In the conventional story, these demands are met from what economists call “resources”, generally called “land”, “labour” and “capital”. Capital is usually interpreted as the durable hardware – machinery, buildings, etc. – which provides us with services. Labour is people – a description which avoids attributing any of the best aspects of humanity: aspirations, ethical concerns, emotion, the ability to care for each other, creation or for the future. We are simply an “input” into the production process, and collectively we form the “labour market”. We emerge at the other end as “consumers”; we make demands and the resources to supply those demands meet in the market. The transactions are mediated by money. Consumption of goods and services are what satisfies us, by delivering “utility”. And our demands are insatiable! Because of this presumption of insatiable demand, “economic growth” has become the only serious objective of economic policy. This comes dangerously close to making greed into a virtue! Dr Birnie recognises this and other dangers when he says, “…mainstream economics (especially some of the unnuanced stuff taught at A Level and to first year undergraduates) can be pretty utilitarian.” But there is more to it than that – and it is more serious in its consequences. As the author Steve Keen3 puts it: “…since this textbook rendition of economics is also profoundly boring, the majority of those exposed to introductory course in economics…go on to careers in accountancy, finance or management – in which…many continue to harbour the simplistic notions they were taught many years earlier.” Can there be a “Christian” economics? I believe so, and it would appeal to anyone who holds ethical or moral principles. It requires that we look at the world and see the needs within it; it requires that we respect all living systems, recognising both what they do for us and that there are NO human-created substitutes for these services. It recognises limits to what we can demand. At present, we (at least in “The West”) are consuming resources faster than the natural systems can replace them. It recognises the value of a well-ordered and morally guided public sector which attends to the needs of all and sees the necessity of taxation to maintain these services. It sees value in many kinds of work – perhaps going back to the monastic tradition of “work as a form of prayer”. It does not scorn profit, but rather asks, “What is the profit used for?” And the concept of “needs” would be widened4, beyond that which is simply traded in the market. Perhaps, above all, it would see that “free market economics” does not solve moral issues. “Economic theory” – in its present over-formalised style, preoccupied with measurement and mathematical reasoning – would have a smaller part to play and might even lose some prestige as issues in ethics and moral philosophy become the real challenges. There is a recent movement in economics, small at present, which is beginning to see “well-being” rather than consumption (with concomitant “growth”) as an objective to be aspired to. The London based New Economics Foundation5 has published papers on this, which are available for free from the website. Margaret Legum, Chair of the South African New Economics Network6 has proposed that the fostering of “human creativeness” should be the main objective of economic policy. Over the last forty years or so, economics as a field of enquiry and a basis for policy making has enjoyed considerable prestige and a surprising consensus as to what is “correct” thinking. The banking crisis in the late summer of last year, and the evidence of resource depletion particularly (but not only) with respect to fossil fuel is causing that consensus to be questioned. What can
we do? We need to support the debate about “well-being” both as an objective of public policy and as a matter of our own spiritual growth. I would be pleased to engage with worshipping communities concerning the issues and ideas in this article. TONY WEEKES lives in Belfast and is an Elder of South Belfast Friends Meeting. A former academic economist, he is now the Ferguson Fellow at Woodbrooke Quaker Studies Centre in Birmingham. In writing this article, he wishes to acknowledge the warm support and generosity of the Fellowship. 1 EF Schumacher, in his book Small is Beautiful describes Buddhist economics. More recent writers are endeavouring to present economics from a feminist perspective. 2 Mr M’Choakumchild (in Hard Times) says to his school class “…Now this schoolroom is a Nation. And in this Nation, there are fifty millions of money. Isn’t this a prosperous nation? Girl number twenty, isn’t this a prosperous nation, and a’n’t you in a thriving state?” To which girl number twenty (Sissy Jupe) replies “…I couldn’t know whether it was a prosperous nation or not, and whether I was in a thriving state or not, unless I knew who had got the money and whether any of it was mine.” 3 Page 5, Steve Keen, Debunking Economics, Pluto Press Australia, 2001. Keen is Professor of Economics in the University of Western Australia. The final chapter is entitled “There are alternatives”. 4 The Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef suggests there are nine basic human needs: subsistence, protection/security, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity/meaning and freedom 5 Website: www.neweconomics.org 7 The Ethical Consumer magazine has now been published six times a year for around twenty years. It is lively and informative; its purpose is not to set an ethical code but to inform. Website www.ethicalconsumer.org |
|||
 |
|
