“AS IF PEOPLE MATTERED”

E.F. Schumacher’s ideas in Small is Beautiful have come as a revelation to me. I honestly believe that if the political will existed to apply these ideas, the problems associated with climate change, poverty and social breakdown would be ameliorated. It is not a case of not being able afford to do these things - "economically." We can't afford NOT to.

Schumacher exposes the craziness of narrowly-defined economic thinking, and criticises progress viewed merely as a “forward stampede”. I couldn’t help thinking of Tony Blair when he characterises people who hold this view, but it would be equally true of all politicians in the post-Thatcher mould. That's all of the major parties, isn't it? “You cannot stand still, they say; standing still means going down… we must take our fight forward and not be fainthearted… if there is trouble with the environment, we shall need more stringent laws against pollution, and faster economic growth to pay for anti-pollution measures… if there are problems about fossil fuels, we shall move from slow reactors to fast breeders.” etc.

By contrast, Schumacher’s humanistic economics wants to give the idea of growth “a qualitative dimension”. We need to take stock and see that we are destroying the very basis of our existence. Then, using the courage of our convictions, decide which things we want to help grow, and which we'd like to see less of.

BUDDHIST ECONOMICS

Here are his ideas on labour (from Wikipedia):

1. “From the point of view of the employer, it (labour) is in any case simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it cannot be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of view of the workman, it is a 'disutility'; to work is to make a sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice.”
2. “From a Buddhist point of view, this is standing the truth on its head by considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the worker to the product of work, that is, from the human to the sub-human, surrender to the forces of evil.”
3. The Buddhist view, “takes the function of work to be at least threefold”: “to give a man a chance to utilize and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his egocentredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence.”
4. “to organize work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence”.

TECHNOLOGY WITH A HUMAN FACE

“Modern technology has deprived man of the kind of work that he enjoys most, creative useful work with hands and brains, and given him plenty of work of a fragmented kind, most of which he does not enjoy at all.”

Schumacher suggested superimposing on large-area states a cantonal structure of modest size so that vast industrial concentration (with all this entails in imbalance, ineptitude, and diseconomies of scale) becomes not only unnecessary but also impractical and inefficient. Once the development district is 'appropriately' reduced, it becomes possible to fulfill a society's material requirements by means of less expensive and simpler equipment than computerized, labour-saving machinery. This is the famous “intermediate technology”.

The reduced efficiency of intermediate technology provides the same amount of goods, but at a higher cost in labour. However, since this can be achieved only by full rather than partial employment of the available labour force, it represents no additional cost at all, socially. It is, in fact, a benefit. (adapted from Wikipedia)

Well, does it sound hopelessly idealistic, or just idealistic? As for a concrete plan for how to get from here to Schumacher’s kind of social, agricultural and industrial organisation, I’m not sure. (I’ll have to answer Neb’s points on Pol Pot! To be continued...) Meanwhile, it would help if the Department For International Development started prioritising people rather than mere productivity.

Here are some short videos of the Schumacher approach in action. Small is Working