Doughnut Economics – Quam Oeconomica

The Search for Oeconomica Phase III

The essence of Kate Raworth’s excellent book, Doughnut Economics, is that economics has to move from an understanding of the world in 18thor 19thC terms (based on a mechanical set of analogies) to a 21stC understanding based on how we understand evolution, our knowledge of systems theory and complexity.

Doughnut-Economics

In simple terms, the book suggests, that in order to develop from a perpetual journey to increase GDP and move to a world economy that “Thrives in balance”, we focus on critical issues such as inequality, changes in banking, CO2, new metrics and many other changes via a vast number of small experiments that will, under conditions of complexity, generate changes in our direction and potentially move us from this Phase of our economic experience (Phase II) via a phase transition to another. However, the range of changes that may be needed (this vast number of small experiments) do not appear to be extremely hopeful and each one is tiny compared to the enormous background material in which it exists. Any one may be successful or not and many, if successful together, may generate enough traction to propel society to the phase transition that it needs. However, it, or they, may not!

 

The dynamic set of changes that forged the industrial revolution, the move from a rentier society based around the ownership of land, to a capitalist-driven society based on the ownership of ideas, of speeding up production, of creating demand for goods and services, took on the form of a phase transition (if the continued use of analogies can be permitted). This dramatic change occurred over many years, but traction was firmly in place by the 1830’s in England. Years after this, by the time Karl Marx was writing das Kapital, capitalism had transformed the countries of western Europe and would do the same for the USA and elsewhere. While land remains a high value commodity, the demand for goods and services and the ability to pay for them has transformed most of the world and continues to do so.

 

However, this phase transition (Phase II) remains, even today, in a variety of stages of development. In the USA and western Europe, it is well entrenched. In India and China, it is feverish in its intensity. In sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan, it is well hidden. This means that prescriptions for moving beyond this Phase are unclear as different sections of the globe are at such different stages. No mention was made in the book of the Maslow hierarchy (that provides at least some analysis of the individual’s search for sustenance, from meeting purely physical needs to those of mental well-being) and it would be useful to seek some sort of understanding based on regional access to the Phase Transition of the industrial revolution before experimentations can be determined as useful.

 

This is because, while so much attention is given in the media, universities and in books, to the second and third industrial revolutions (supposed to be via computing and then via robotics, AI and bio-engineering), the real focus of Doughnut Economics is beyond this towards a third Phase – a post-capital-only phase. In driving towards that new Phase (if humans are to make it successfully), Doughnut Economics properly focuses on the Georgescu-Roegen notion of entropy being sufficiently understood so that the world  focuses on energy use and utilisation as the crucial underlaying of society, rather than the traditional notion of productivity (the making of goods and services in progressively more ‘economical’ ways). This is right but it is debatable whether this is the prime driver for change, at least from a human viewpoint. Humans exhibit potentially destructive tendencies when caught in a particular way of thinking. Kate Raworth described this in within the book (Easter Island as one example) and it seems that humans need to actually see and feel danger before they react. A good analogy is how the UK reacted to Germany before 1939. Rearmament did not take place until the enemy was rampaging through Europe. Why? Possibly, because the human tendency is not to give up on ways of life (having reached a reasonable plateau) unless forced by external change. Complexity theory would suggest that a plateau of living is only change when externalities require it – with ‘require’ being highly operative.

 

Phase II was driven by, as the book states, the notion of economic gain for those in charge of capital and ideas, focused on the desire of perceived need. This economic gain argument has been transformed over the last 200 years to permeate all of society not just through the notion of GDP at the macroeconomic scale but through accounting at the micro-level. Thus, financialization of the world at both micro- and macro-scales underpin everything that we do. Everything is priced and our utility (our desire for something) is only respected when it has a number against it. Recently, a charity worked out the value we place on parks. This notion of £974 per person per year is then used somehow to justify spending on parklands. The whole notion of natural capital flows from a need to show value of the aspects of life that make life worth living so that even companies and accountants can evaluate them in discounted cash flow techniques. This is where Phase II shows it has conquered the world or it may be showing that Phase II is nearing its end.

 

Changing this is an enormous challenge but Doughnut Economics, while preparing the way, seems to suggest that the world can be redirected by an understanding by economists about how the world is different to their theories and through the use of diagrams.

 

A more detailed analysis of the changes that induced the phase transition in England in the industrial revolution to Phase II would indicate the scale of the challenge now. The doughnut diagram is highly useful and the concepts that underpin Doughnut Economics are highly positive in that they speak in the language of the new century, even if hampered by the limits to our knowledge that such analogies provide.

 

However, if a phase transition in our model of living is required, and the book strongly argues in that way, then we need to assess how this can be done successfully in a world that it markedly at variance region by region and where, as a result, different nations and regions will adopt different attitudes. For example, those countries lower on the Maslow hierarchy (if it or something similar can be utilised on a national scale) will retain their pursuance of basic needs via growth in GDP for far longer than those countries that have reached higher levels of economic maturity, where post-quantitative norms may be considered. If this is the case, and it is highly likely to be, then how do the latter set of nations decide how to remain sufficiently competitive in productive means, assuming that they will not simply give up their desire to at least maintain a level of economic security in a world that will reward economic gains for many years because it is measurable?

 

Doughnut Economics posits, amongst many other things, repeated changes in GDP, up, down, level in no particular order and through a variety of changes in taxation from income and employment to energy usage or externalities. However, different countries will adopt different measures and taxes and there will be a vast range of unintended consequences in such a complex environment that will continue to drag down the impact of the desired moves to a new phase.

 

Of course, we do not even know what a new phase will look like. Doughnut Economics suggests some thoughts on this and they relate to the quality of life beyond the quantity of life that mature economies are building, where, having gained the basics (food, shelter, clothing), we have moved towards the second tier of luxuries (goods and services) and towards Maslow’s higher tiers of self-actualisation (although we would need to see this is national terms rather than individualistic).

 

What can economists and accountants (macro and micro) do for this future? Perhaps the role for such narrow providers of data is disappearing in the same way that the role of horses changed when the motor car appeared. To take us to the next Phase needs a whole new school of thought that understands the different levels of Phase II that has been achieved on a global scale and will address the new mix of qualitative and quantitative requirements of Phase III (against the background of natural resource despoliation and global warming). If the concept of ‘natural capital’ is the last cry of Phase II as an attempt to take a grip of the natural world by the accountants of Phase II, then Phase III has to develop a new breed of expert that can show how humans can retain the dynamism that ‘gain’ provided for many (although by no means all or even the majority) and moves us away from numeric (or financialized) gain towards a qualitative framework, from the historical meaning of economics – the art of managing a household (which, arguably, humans now understand) – to the art of managing quality of life.

 

This is likely to be back to the area of ‘political economics’, the relationship between the production of goods and services and the society within which they are produced and then forward towards an inclusion of the qualitative aspects of life (as individuals and communities) – ‘quam oeconomica’.

Advertisements

The Second Great Wall of China

Reading Martin Jacques’ “When China Rules the World” during a week when the New York Times’ website was taken offline in China after it published claims about the wealth of Wen Jiabao. News about Mr. Wen’s alleged fortune of £1.7bn was characterized by the Chinese as a “smear” and resulted in news blackout on the subject. The BBC was similarly off air for months after its detailing of the Bo Xilai case.

 

Jacques’ well-documented book shows China as a “civilization state” that the West will not be able to challenge in its essential ideals based on 2,000 years of civilization and then Confucianism. The desire of its people – massed in a vast area with one-third of the world’s population – for solid government and their Confucian appetite for family connections leads many to believe that their form of government and control is the only way for China and that the rest of the world will not be able to change it.

 

The Wall of Legalism

 

Francis Fukuyama in his excellent book “The Origins of Political Order” http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Origins-Political-Order-Revolution/dp/1846682576/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351345981&sr=8-1on focused how the origins of the rule of law was central to the proper governing of a state. Success, where no government or leader was above the law, is contrasted with such states as China, where, except for brief period, the ruling elite has been above the law.

 

Many believe that a state with Confucianism on the outside and Legalism on the inside is how China is governed today. Legalism, a creed formulated and emerging properly in the Warring States Period up to 221bc, seeks to ensure that strict laws keep dissent down and people equal. The Emperor was in place because of the law and was above it – but had to be flexible in intent to ensure that the leading cliques were satisfied.

 

Coming forward 200 years and the so-called Communist Party has assumed the role of Emperor. A Communist Party that that no longer believes in Communism but in power from the centre; that not just tolerates corruption but uses it throughout China to keep its leading cliques in check; that exports corruption to its supply-chain (its raw materials suppliers) throughout the word in order to keep them sweet; that deals harshly with any dissent and criticism; that only reacts to the worst crimes and then only when it has to (such as with Bo Xilai – who became too much of a burden).

 

Legalism as a creed best describes the current Chinese government style – no longer driven by the equality of Communism – where a ruling elite has taken over the State and drives it according to their own requirements.

 

The post-World War II political and economic direction of the West has been democracy and capitalism. Human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml has been a solid framework on which political thought has been based. The development of the European Union (notwithstanding economic upsets through the Euro) was based on this political fulcrum and a liberal economic system.

 

This post-war consensus in the West has also been the basis on which we have tried to hold the rest of the world to account – to develop democracy and capitalism on a worldwide basis.

 

No use for Wallpaper

 

Now, the western consensus is threatened by China. Having taken the economic principle of capitalism and thrown the centralized system of communism into the gutter, the Chinese are rapidly gaining economic muscle. This was not surprising once the shackles of the communist economic model was broken and Deng XiaoPing was able to redirect the Chinese to a better economic future.

 

This had already had enormous impact in China as wealth has increased and will continue to do so. But, a country with huge numbers of people but limited natural resources (apart from their own intelligence and rare earth minerals) has to then engage with the rest of the world in order to maintain that direction of travel.

 

This is now breaking down the political and governance consensus that the West has tried for the last sixty-seven years to impose. What does this mean? It means that the Chinese are overturning the route to democracy and democratic institutions. It means that elites in developing countries now have huge financial backing from the Chinese – through sales of raw materials to China and through the fact that they are witnessing another political model.

 

The West cannot wallpaper over the political cracks in the political wall. While capitalism is clearly now shown to be the best worst system of improving our material wealth, democracy is no longer the only political product on sale. After the bloody years of fighting against communism and fascism, which World War II was supposed to have won, the challenge is not so much religious fundamentalism (which we have been understandably so fearful of) but the enormous influence that China will have on a world where the most serious challenge to democracy is arising.

 

Taking a brick from the Wall

 

The battle for ideas is just starting. China needs a healthy west and a healthy India and Brazil and rest of Asia and it needs the raw materials from across the planet. Apart from the environmental catastrophes that are likely to be exacerbated by the drive for material growth (upon which the Chinese legalist approach relies in order to keep its people happy), the influence of Chinese political thought is likely to grow exponentially.

 

Recent riots in Ningbo –   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20109743 – against a chemical plant expansion and the Chinese authorities’ methods of dealing with it (which includes the hiding of road signs so that journalists won’t find their way to the riots!) are a simple sign that Tiananmen Square was by no means a low point.

 

As the world waits for the US Presidential election, a change of at least equal importance will be taking place in Beijing and no-one will know who has come out on top until the new politburo of the Chinese Communist Party is unveiled around 15 November.

 

Not that this will change anything. In the US, the economics will be substantially changed by the possible election of Romney and (Ayn Rand influenced) Paul Ryan. The political system will not change.

 

In China, nothing will change and the political, legalist system will continue internally and externally. This is a continuing challenge that is currently seen as economic but will eventually be seen as dramatically political and on a world scale. For Chinese economic growth will challenge the democratic ideals built up by the West and hard fought for by millions. It is now ranged against 2,000 years of Chinese centralism legalism.

 

How (or if) the West reacts to this will be a far bigger story than the economics – and arguments over tariffs and who owns Treasury bonds. We need to start taking the brick from the Wall before it is built around us.

“Everyone should be allowed to bribe”

I had an interesting discussion the other day at a Fundraising event. Sitting opposite me was a businessman who also does a tremendous amount of work for charity. We got into a discussion on corruption – specifically, bribery. The discussion centred on how “the Bribery Act was causing business a lot of trouble” and that the UK “as always” was taking it seriously whereas other countries would not. We would therefore be undermined and lose business.

I argued differently. Working for Global Witness since 2007 (I left in late 2011), I had played a small part in working to get the Bill into law, then to ensure the guidelines made sense and have since worked with organizations like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) to provide guidance (I wrote their guidance on the Act) and chaired their Bribery Act conference at St Paul’s Cathedral in 2011.

The businessman, actually a very interesting, successful and intelligent individual, suggested that, to make it fair, “everyone should be allowed to bribe” as much as they liked.

It was a Fundraising event, so not the time for a row – nevertheless, it reminded me sharply about how the world works and how it is split between those who understand the chaos that endemic bribery causes and those that see only the micro-economy (through the eyes of individual businesses) rather than the macro-economic chaos and individual misery that bribery causes.

We live in a disjointed world

I have recently been involved in the filming of a documentary on corruption that will go out later this year. So, although I have left Global Witness (which campaigns against natural resource-related corruption and conflict), I have stayed in touch with the issue.

It is easy when involved within an NGO to forget how business folk (as I counted myself for many years) can disassociate themselves from wider issues. I spent most of my career in business and those who are very successful are completely focused – like an athlete focused on winning a gold medal at the Olympics. The best are relentlessly single-minded in the pursuit of gold – the best business people are similar. This means that they are completely focused on what benefits their business.

This is why the US Chambers of Commerce have been waging a war on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for some time. The USA has, since the FCPA was brought into being in 1977, been way ahead of the field in anti-bribery law. This has heated up recently as the US authorities have piled into those who are believed to have breached the Act and, mainly through out of court settlements, have gained hundreds of millions of $ in fines and caused real change in US companies and how they operate outside the US especially.

But, the Chambers of Commerce believe that this puts the US at a disadvantage as other countries don’t have similar laws, they believe, or flout them.

Of course, this is no longer the case in many parts of the world. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was signed up to by 39 countries and the Convention is a tough one. As a result, the UK was eventually shamed into all-party support for anti-bribery legislation and the Bribery Act was the outcome – which came into law in July, 2011. It is actually a tougher law than the FCPA – making facilitation payments illegal, for example, and making the bribery of anyone (including government officials) a criminal act if it affects a decision. However, if a company has good processes and trains its staff well (Adequate Procedures), Directors of the company are unlikely to be prosecuted. Let’s face it, the funding of prosecutions is also likely to mitigate against major cases being developed.

However, the Act has led to a large industry being developed in training and in new processes. I was on the working group in the UK that brought in guidance for the not-for-profits (charities and NGO’s) in the UK (under the auspices of Transparency International and Mango) so saw very clearly how every organization (business or not-for-profit) could be affected by the Act.

This new anti-bribery industry has seen a number of lawyers move from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to private industry – confirmation if needed for business people that the whole thing is a cash generator for law firms and those in them and nothing more.

The equivalent of the “revolving door” that has been denigrated for years when politicians or civil servants enact laws or make project decisions and then move to senior positions in companies, is now taken as a serious concern by business people who see the same situation used against them! There is an irony there somewhere.

Corruption hurts

Business people see anti-bribery legislation as a problem. It makes business (in their opinion) more difficult in the same way that early 20th Century business people saw health and safety legislation as a problem. I am sure that many business people in the 19th Century saw government money being used to build the sewer system in London as a huge drain on their wealth and a public use of funds that proved that their wealth creation was being used against them – even if for the public good.

So, it must be galling to see anti-bribery legislation (which is international in concept and which is aimed at benefitting the poor in the poorest countries) put into force. In the USA, business is working to erode the law that has been in place successfully for 35 years – a law that has led the world. In the UK, there is irritation (maybe mounting anger) at the Bribery Act. And its implementation costs.

Business folk (and I was one for many years) see the short term and their bottom line. They find it hard to associate themselves with the wider questions about how corruption transfers wealth from the mass of people to a few – as, say, in Angola; how it ensures that money is spent on items that are not needed – very expensive air traffic control systems  in Tanzania, for example; how it adds to the price that poor nations pay; how nations like Nigeria are completely beholden to corruption as was England in the 18th Century – a nation where every job, every hospital appointment, every legal decision is likely to be subject to payment / bribes. Look at Greece and its current malaise – not paying tax is a symptom of a society corrupted – so much of the economy is bribery-induced – the black market is a corrupt market and leads to short-term benefits and long-term disaster.

Values are not for sale

The Bribery Act is now in place in the UK; the FCPA has been tried and tested in the USA for 35 years; 39 countries have signed up to the OECD convention. Yet, we probably face a bigger problem. The growth of nations such as China, India and Russia face us with enormous challenges as each nation is, in its own way, a centre of corruption.

China has adopted a Confucian posture – hit hard at home to rid itself of the endemic corruption that is at the centre of its totalitarian heart while allowing corruption to exist where it trades – such as in Africa. The Confucian spirit allows it to leave alone the nations with which it does business at the same time as Western nations attempt to apply governance to aid budgets. This is a time of real challenge and western countries should be working more than ever to instill values not just trying to compete for short-term gains. It used to be “if we don’t bribe, the French will”;  now the same phrase is directed at China, Russia and India (the home of www.Ipaidabribe.com).

We should not allow our values to be for sale for short-term benefits even in times of economic stress.

Is Bribery good for Business?

There are examples of businesses that have high values and most do not engage in bribery. Usually, those with the highest values are large businesses that know their CSR will be shaken by reputational problems. It makes business sense not to take the risk – bribery is bad for business.

Medium to small businesses, where the main opportunity for employment growth exists in most countries, are less concerned with CSR – which most think of as meaningless nonsense. Societal issues are way down the list of priorities – international issues are nowhere.

Hemmed in (in their view) by unjust legislation on all sides that seeks to choke off the spirit of enterprise, small businesses fight to survive daily. To them, bribery may be a necessary part of life. So what if people overseas suffer as a result – jobs are created for British firms and if we don’t do it, someone else (like the Chinese) will.

Globalisation in this context means nothing but cheap supply chains, cheap overseas labour and opportunities for exports. Globalisation does not mean we should take account of international problems.

Like 19th mill owners who fought sanitation bills as bad for business, who (in the main) were not interested in the health of their workers, who were only constrained by legal changes, many business people will only react to changes in the law because they are focused on their business and anything that adversely affects that business is bad – by its very nature. Bribery may allow business to take place – if a British company is not allowed to do it, business may well be lost.

Is bribery good for business? Of course not – just like the death of a worker because of shoddy safety systems, just like the gradual reduction in bullying at work because most acknowledge it is not needed – we inherently know that bribery (the corruption of people to make decisions go our way) is abhorrent. The impact is grotesque and cannot be justified even for a few extra short-term jobs.

Relentlessly focused business leaders know that bribery is wrong (at least most do) and, apart from the most extreme libertarians, understand that globalization means that the rules of business engagement are going to be made international. We cannot for long assume that developing countries will, for long, expect to be treated as the working class of 19th Century England. The class structure of international business will, over time, lessen just as we have made changes to our own class structure in Europe and North America and elsewhere.

Good business cannot “allow everyone to be bribed”. It is not just an ethical position, but a business one. Business should be undertaken on a level playing field where no-one bribes – we should be striving to ensure that bribery is minimized not allowed everywhere. Rules or norms are basic for societies to function. In a global society, the norms need to be widely applied. Bribery is bad – we all know it. Business leaders, here and in the USA, should be leading the fight – not over-reacting and running in the opposite direction.

Strangling Inherent Dignity – How we retain (regain) Self-Respect

Orhan Pamuk, today on the BBC, talked about how the military in Turkey have been moved away from the centre of political decision-making. Their threat has been diminished, resulting in a feeling of relief or release. He also remarked on the Arab Spring and how in Tunisia and elsewhere people had regained some dignity – maybe threatened by Islamic re-awakening (but “that would be the people’s decision”).

In China, the escape of Chen Guangcheng from house arrest and his televised pleas to Wen Jiabao to halt the rampant corruption in China points to a state that is gnawing away at its soul.

In the USA, the economy is dangerously tilted towards the highest 1% who now own around 50% of its assets.

In Spain, 24.4% of people who are seeking work are without a job.

Charles Taylor is found guilty of by the International Criminal Court of aiding war crimes – yet, he remains popular in much of Liberia for his ability to dole out cheap bread at the right times to local populations.

Organisations and People – The fight for Dignity

 

Whether as individuals or members of an organization or a region or a nation, the human instinct is to reach for a minimum level of dignity. The need to attain a degree of self-respect is fundamental to the human condition. Whatever our economic attainment (whether we are wealthy or poor) each of us retains the need for self-dignity and the self-respect of those closest to us.

Attainment of dignity is a basic need and we continuously fight for it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts its preamble with the following:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

Yet, across the world, as we grow economically across a wider population, there is little evidence that we understand much more about a central issue that continuously confronts us – the attainment of “inherent dignity”.

If dignity means the attainment of freedom, justice and peace as the most important elements of our civilization (and we should be careful to ensure that our freedom does not blind us to the needs of a wider responsibility – to the planet as a whole), then what do we do daily that reminds us of our need to provide dignity and who is it who has this responsibility?

Responsibility

Leaders – whether of nations, businesses, local authorities , families or whatever – have a responsibility to those that they lead. This responsibility includes the establishment or reinforcement of cultural norms that strengthen the central idea of dignity to all its members.

This central tenet has been forgotten – we hear it infrequently amongst the babble of noise that comes from politicians and economists, business leaders and social leaders.

There is no question that where poverty is extensive, a crucial role for leaders is to ensure that economic growth is secured and poverty is minimized.

There is no question that where health and safety is jeopardized that better ways have to be found to minimize danger and secure life.

There is no question that where housing is poor that people must be housed and clothed.

But, the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and safety are at one with the need for self-respect or dignity. The drive for better gross domestic product (GDP) has, in our enthusiasm to generate more wealth, left behind the basic understanding of what it is that propels the human spirit.

Setting dignity at the centre

While this is not a simple issue (dignity may be seen have different connotations to different people) the need for self-respect is the driver that propels individuals to fight back in so many cases.

The lack of dignity of those who are deprived of respect range widely. We see it constantly as we mentally note how individuals compare to certain societal norms – those who are poor are given less respect than those who are wealthy; those who have special needs are likely to be given less respect than those who are “OK”; those who are amongst the led are given less respect than those in power; those without the vote are seen as demanding less respect than those commanding political heights; the unwell lose dignity when maltreated; the unemployed lose dignity by the nature of unemployment and an assumption of laziness – the list goes on.

The problem is that self-respect is not normally a subject that is discussed or considered when key decisions are made. We are trampled by the rush to mend economic fences so easily that we ignore the affects. An example is Iraq. Here, not only was the rationale for entering Iraq wrong – there were no weapons of mass destruction – but the dignity of the Iraqis as a nation (or several nations within borders created by Europeans who cared nothing for the self-respect of those within them) was not an issue despite what should have been the lessons of history. Economics (through oil) and maybe the stated threat of terrorism (maybe) dampened the pressure to think through the impact of a complete eradication of self-respect amongst the Iraqi people – a self-respect oddly (to us in the west) retained with a strong man at the helm (Saddam Hussein) and then not replaced. In Afghanistan, self-respect has, through the ages, turned out many who would think to rule the country. It is the demand to self-rule that has been constant.

Corruption tears away at dignity

The danger in China is that corruption (an economic and power game) is tearing away at the nation’s credibility and self-respect. Recently, university students in Beijing were asked by the BBC what careers they wanted and one answered they wanted to be a senior local politician because that is where the money (through corruption) goes. The lack of self-respect that enables this response is intense and is leading to a potential fracture of the system in China as recent events in Chongqing highlight.

In India, one of its best-known websites is www.Ipaidabribe.com . This is a self-understanding of the rampant corruption in the country and mirrors a loss of dignity that brutalizes that society.

As a result of its alleged dealings in Mexico, Wal-Mart is under investigation by the US authorities through the Foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) over millions of $’s of facilitation payments (not in themselves individually illegal under the FCPA but maybe through the gross flouting of corporate norms will be found to be). Mexico, riven by many drug cartels and corruption, lacks a dignity and self-respect because money is at the centre and seen as the only response. Wal-Mart helps to encourage that loss of self-respect.

National dignity or the dignity and self-respect of any business or individual is destroyed by corruption. When dignity is destroyed, then the basic ability to enjoy a life of “freedom, justice and peace” is also destroyed.

Economics cannot be isolated from self-respect

A cornerstone of self-respect is the ability of individuals to reach a level of basic self-attainment – the ability to feed oneself and one’s family; to house and clothe at least. In the rush towards austerity the macro-economic arguments are destroying the micro-economic disasters that are being generated. Poverty in wealthy nations is on the increase and the unevenness of wealth is growing. This is leading to a loss of self-respect amongst large sections of society. The impact of this change is uncertain – but, we can judge that the effects will not be positive.

John Rawls, one of the best-known and best-respected philosophers of the 20th Century considered self-respect as “perhaps the most important primary good” and how lack of self-respect leads to a growing disenchantment with the society and an estrangement with its ideals.

In the UK, maybe more prosaically, Ian Duncan Smith has highlighted the need for self-esteem amongst those on welfare and why jobs are the answer to bringing them out of the cycle of poverty.  This cycle of poverty is being exacerbated by the sovereign debt crisis which has transferred bank debt to national debt and enabled bankers to reap the rewards.

This crisis is now endemic in Europe and threatens stability and progress. The lack of dignity of nations (Greece, Spain, Portugal) as the Eurozone centre demands they commit to more austerity is misunderstood or ignored at the Eurozone’s peril. It is a fall-off in self-respect that eventually reaches a tipping point. It was a fall-off in national self-respect that catalyzed the German nation towards fascism in the 1930’s – a lack of national dignity that was caused by the war reparations following the 1st World War and heightened by the torments of the depression of the 1930’s. At some point, shattered self-respect will require repair – sometimes in brutal ways.

Democracy, Corruption, transparency and Economics

There are many ways in which dignity is destroyed – through lack of involvement in decisions, through corruption and lack of a chance for basic economic fairness.

There is no single answer but the key problems facing us today should all consider the issue of dignity before the answer comes rattling out. Clearly, real democracy, eradication of corruption, better knowledge of and openness about what is being done (transparency) and a new economics based on an understanding of the economics of self-respect are overall responses to ensure that we enjoy the basic dignities enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”