I recently attended a lecture entitled “Reconsideration of Gandhian Economics,” to which I decided that perhaps I would only be considering and not reconsidering, since I didn’t realize he had anything substantial to add to the field. Apparently, my initial reaction was correct, and he really had very little to offer, at least in a conventional sense.
The tagline that stuck was this: “Production by the masses instead of mass production.” This roughly summarized his opinion on the direction in which India’s young budding economy should take as they pulled away from the British in the 40s. The idea was that industrialization-led machines dehumanized many Indian sectors–not just in the typical ways of fiercer competition commonly derided by anti-capitalist banter, but also by literally taking humans out of the production process all together. He didn’t want machines to come in and spin threads when it could just as easily be done by everyday people in their spare time with their own hands. He understood then, as is the case now, that India’s greatest asset and most significant problem would always be how to empower its burgeoning population economically and socially.
Thus, Gandhi typically sat outside the realm of day-to-day economics. Though not going as far as saying capitalism was bad for the world, he did believe that in many cases it was simply bad for India. He hoped that Indian problems could be solved by Indians. He understood that traditional economics relies on the idea that resources are scarce and people’s wants are limited. Rather than worry about how to distribute this effectively, efficiently, or equitably (as is the goal of most modern economists), he espoused the limiting of people’s wants instead. He believed that if Indians could only be happy to settle for more basic and plain lifestyles, that the needs of all could easily be met. Of course this sounds a lot like a Utopian ideal, and of course Jawaharlal Nehru (the first Indian prime minister who was very close to Gandhi and hand-picked to lead the country) refused to attempt the implementation of Gandhi’s ideals. Gandhi, himself, had actually implemented such plans both in South Africa and India, but only on limited bases; certainly not on the mass aggregate level of an entire national economy. If you think the current Indian bureaucracy and corruption are bad, imagine if the government was supposed to be acting on such a closely “supervised” national agenda…
Regardless, believe it or not, there are a lot of practical implications for what Gandhi discussed–especially on an international level. It becomes ever-more apparent that humanity’s means of living are quickly outstripping our actual resource allotments. It seems that we return to the above argument that Gandhi attempted to counter–humanity will be faced with two options. First, we can go the route of traditional economics and focus on what can be done from a technology/production perspective to continue to support our excessive lifestyles, or second, we can go the route of Gandhi and begin to limit ourselves in all that we do–whether we’re talking pollution, emissions, resource degradation, deforestation, or just consumption in general from food to the broad item of “convenience.”
I believe that technology, though quickly adapting, is only adjusting to the needs of yesterday’s society and isn’t on pace to satisfactorily rectify the problems of today, or really even tomorrow for that matter. Thus, Gandhi’s ideal of curtailing our “unlimited wants” comes into play such that if we can begin to accept the realities of our world and our responsibilities within it, perhaps we can improve our habits alongside technology to put ourselves on pace for global sustainability. Is this possible? Well, this is something haughtier Europeans would argue that they’ve been doing all along – though realistically, they are little better than the Americans if you take into account the number of historical and geographical differences that has caused their societies to develop differently. Paris doesn’t even have a system of recycling. Rural Germany requires cars just like rural Alabama. And if you’ve been on a Greyhound where a crazy woman spoke to someone that didn’t exist and there were stories about filming beastiality, you might see why those cars are so necessary. Without casting blame in too many directions (though many could and should argue the United States deserves at least a special mention), the point is that we all must agree that we’ve overstepped our natural bounds in our ecosystem to a very dangerous degree. And please don’t tell me that the Bible says God has given us dominion over everything and ordains it.
Regardless, I’ll close by saying that I see a potential way out. I think the solution could come naturally, but probably at too slow a pace for many including myself to be comfortable with. But at the end of the day, I believe that Economics and Gandhi, or technology and restraint will meet together in an awkward harmony. I envision a world where it is cool to pay extra to support the environment or fellow human beings in developing nations; where items that save energy, emit less, are more sustainable, or could better ourselves will become a strong factor on the demand side that will be met with the latest technological developments from the supply side; where the proper markets will develop for that which we really need, instead of what Gandhi believed we must begin not to want. Will it happen soon? Yes, and in some cases it already has, but hardly for the masses. Is it possible on a national or global scale? Probably, but steps are assuredly going to be painfully delayed. So then I ask: What can be done to foster this process and enhance our opportunities to move forward with hope and dignity? Am I even right? Will humanity be able to adopt the mindset necessary to restrain itself? How can this be done? Without the demand for change, will the hoped-for technology even develop, and will it be even enough to curb our current path? I wish I could say yes, but my current black-sooted coughing due to India’s “Development Race to the Bottom” with China is really making me wonder…
Jpm1000000pmMon, 21 Jan 2008 19:22:04 +000008 20, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Gandhian economics stems from Gandhian philosophy. It essentially views as all humans to be moral and virtuous, or at least capable of being so. However, according to the three main philosophers in the history of the human race, Confucius, Buddha and Aristotle, all individuals are fundamentally corrupt. They can be made honest and virtuous either by designing institutions around them or by spiritual preaching. Now economics does not incorporate the preaching part, however, it does revolve around institutions and markets to check human behaviour. So, for fears of over consumption and consequent depletion of resources, the elixir does not rest in Gandhian way of life. It does however require an economically sound solution. That can come from markets or even trade agreements. Telling people what to do is analogous to intellectual superiority and is no less and fascism. However, self correcting price mechanisms and regulatory frameworks in case of market failures are the more pragmatic ways out. With trade in carbon credits, worldwide initiatives like IPCC and certain regulations by international organizations, there is a starting point in sight.
Jam1000000amTue, 22 Jan 2008 09:21:21 +000008 20, 2008 at 9:21 am
A number of great points, too many to respond to each, so here’s a few:
It seems that most people will agree with Daly in regards to the basic economic assumption that the economy can grow forever and ever. The trouble is, if we acknowledge that a boundary exists around the macro-economy, we introduce a new set of philosophical questions that politicians and economists are not prepared to deal with, so we instead dismiss the viewpoint that gives rise to these questions.
For example, since the macro-economy can be described in terms of population multiplied by per capita consumption, if an ecological carrying capacity exists, then we acknowledge that the economy is in fact zero-sum, and thus that over-consumption today forsakes future generations, or that over-consumption in the developed world limits current consumption levels in the developing world. Yet somehow we promote growth to everyone, even though we know that this is NOT ecological sustainable and that we are consuming ecological capital to which future generations have a fundamental right of ownership.
Irrationally, our jiminy-cricket reliance on technology convinces economists, politicians and the general public that the global economy can continue to grow forever. For politicians, it’s obviously easier to espouse growth than discuss the necessary actions of population control and redistribution of income. For economists who have built careers based on these assumptions, the emerging ecological economics paradigm challenges the neo-classical foundations.
Speaking of Gandhi vision of limiting frivolous consumption, this is the ideal framework in which to open a discussion about the aims of our growth-centered economy. Regardless of where politicians, economists, policy-makers, or the average person falls on the issue of limited/limitless growth, perhaps we should step back and question the success of a growth-centered economy in delivering utility to the average person. After all, isn’t economics primarily concerned with utility maximization (e.g. happiness)?
If a growth-centered economy does potentially risk causing irreparable environmental damage, we should at least hope that at a bare minimum the economy delivers increased utility to the average person. Does this hold true for the developed world? No.
Recently, the field of economics has begun asking some pertinent questions related to economics and happiness, producing surprising results. Economists have found a strong positive correlation between income and happiness up to $10,000 (not surprising because this income is spend on services such as food, basic health care, education, etc.). However, beyond this value, the statistical relationship disappears, as expenditures beyond this threshold appear to satisfy positional rather than necessary goods. See:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8401269
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8450035
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TJSQTPJ
Finally, let me quote Herman Daly regarding technological optimists:
“Technological optimists counter the above argument by claiming that technology can increase resource productivity without limit, and that therefore all nations can become richer. Even if technology could increase resource productivity without limit, so that the same physical resource flow would yield an ever greater value flow, we would still face the problem of keeping physical flows within ecological limits, and still could not generalize the current U.S. industrial economy to the whole world. We might generalize some new, as yet unknown system that made much more efficient use of resources, but that is more a concession to the impossibility hypothesis than a refutation of it. If the technological optimist really believes in unlimited increase in resource productivity, then limitation on the volume and distribution of the physical resource flow would be seen as desirable, since this would force technological effort in to increasing resource productivity and away from the path of increasing intensity of resource usage.”
Good stuff Rob, keep it coming.
Jpm2000000pmSun, 03 Feb 2008 16:55:05 +000008 20, 2008 at 4:55 pm
‘imagine if the government was supposed to be acting on such a closely “supervised” national agenda…’
that’s an incorrect reading of gandhi’s prescription. his formula also included ‘gram swaraj’ or autonomy for the villages. this was opposed on the ground that given greater autonomy, the indian village would revert to perpetuation of all the prejudices, ‘localisms’ of the past, as ambedkar put it. doesn’t that mean gandhi wouldn’t have supported the state-led development model that nehru later adopted?
Jpm2000000pmSun, 03 Feb 2008 18:15:23 +000008 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Obviously Gandhi would have opposed the state-led development model, and I thought I already adequately paid tribute to that concept by mentioning his attempts at Utopian-like local cooperative projects. The point I was making wasn’t that he would espouse a massive supervised national agenda, or even that he agreed with Nehru (which I mentioned they were at odds), but that the only way his “economic” ideas could be projected to the country would have to be through a something excessively extreme like a tightly controlled government platform. Yes, that’s undesirable, infeasible, and impractical, but that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise there would be no way to push villages into his type of economic arrangements nationwide without forcing most of them to do so. Giving them autonomy is one thing, but making sure that the autonomy follows through is another. It takes a special locality to agree to his prescriptions, just as it takes a special country to do so on a global scale. Frankly, it defies countless centuries of human nature.
Maybe I went too far by claiming villages would not accept these arrangements. Maybe I have misrepresented Gandhi, and for that I apologize only to the point that it actually matters to the actual argument (which I wonder if it really does). The fact is that I’ve never been too concerned with such assumptions on an overall theory that seemingly has little applicational value. I was trying to make some of his ideas relevant to today’s world on a whole, and if indeed I have failed there, I would be curious to hear further comment in regards to the global situation I have highlighted.
Jam2000000amSun, 10 Feb 2008 05:10:48 +000008 20, 2008 at 5:10 am
Never underestimate the power of a charismatic leader to inspire people to subvert self interest in pursuit of a higher goal—-happiness can come from self-sacrifice for the common good.