Thursday, July 03, 2008
Happy Danes - again
The annual World Values Survey by the United States National Science Foundation once again finds that Denmark is the world’s happiest nation. Puerto Rico and Colombia completed the top three while Zimbabwe was the least happy. The study was directed by Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan.
Meanwhile, Alan Wolfe has reviewed books on happiness economics (by Bruno Frey) and behavioural economics (by Dan Ariely) for the New Republic. Wolfe sees the new economics as a revival of utilitarianism. He also cites a paper by Norbert Schwart and Fritz Stark which he says leave the validity of subjective reports of happiness “in tatters” (in a book called Well-Being published by the Russell Sage Foundation in 1999).
Meanwhile, Alan Wolfe has reviewed books on happiness economics (by Bruno Frey) and behavioural economics (by Dan Ariely) for the New Republic. Wolfe sees the new economics as a revival of utilitarianism. He also cites a paper by Norbert Schwart and Fritz Stark which he says leave the validity of subjective reports of happiness “in tatters” (in a book called Well-Being published by the Russell Sage Foundation in 1999).
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The aim of this site
This is a temporary version of my site. Over time I hope to develop a fully-fledged website. In the meantime this site brings together my writing and other resources on "growth scepticism": the tendency to call the benefits of mass affluence into question.
The Guardian’s “green squeeze”
Following Sunday’s post the Guardian has lauched a comment series on “the green squeeze”. In motivating the series it asks: “Will the credit crunch usher in a green backlash, as people abandon environmentalism in favour of what they consider more pressing economic concerns, and how should the green movement respond? Throughout the week, leading thinkers assess the lessons of history and the changing tactics necessary to deliver their agenda during a recession.”
My answers are (a) no, people will not abandon environmentalism (b) it is a pity. Environmentalism represents an outlook that favours austerity so is well suited to a period of economic restraint.
My answers are (a) no, people will not abandon environmentalism (b) it is a pity. Environmentalism represents an outlook that favours austerity so is well suited to a period of economic restraint.
Labels: consumption, economics, environment
Monday, June 30, 2008
Greening of Asia should be halted
The following comment by me appeared in today’s issue of Fund Strategy:
The trend towards the "greening of Asia" represents one of the most retrograde developments of our time. Asia has benefited enormously from its rapid economic growth and could gain a lot more in the future. Anything that threatens such growth should be resisted staunchly.
It is only because of the deeply pessimistic times we live in that the greening of Asia is taken seriously. The benefits of growth tend to be grossly under-appreciated while the prospect of environmental damage prompts panic.
From the relative comfort of a developed nation it is easy to forget how beneficial growth has proved. Among other things it has led to greatly improved longevity, lower infant mortality, increased education, vastly better infrastructure, more consumer goods and more leisure time.
Yet much of Asia remains relatively poor. Even China, although it has grown rapidly over the past 30 years, still has much lower income per head than developed economies.
Under such circumstances, growth should remain a top priority. If the region chooses to use "dirty energy", rather than go to the extra expense of "going green", it should be free to do so. Fossil fuels are legitimate ways of meeting Asia's energy needs.
As it happens, growth generally provides the resources to clean up the environment. Typically, countries go through an "environmental transition" as they industrialise.
The early days of industrialisation are often heavily polluting. But as the economy grows it becomes able to generate the resources to produce goods and services more cleanly.
The developed world has already experienced this transition. America and Britain produce more than ever in absolute terms, yet the environment is generally much cleaner than it was in the earlier industrial period.
If the developed world is that worried about dirty energy it can always provide the latest technology to developing countries. No doubt if it is freely or even just cheaply available to them they are likely to make good use of it.
But it is important not to lose sight of the over-riding importance of growth. It would be wrong, from both an economic and moral perspective, to impose the use of particular technologies deemed "green" in the West.
The trend towards the "greening of Asia" represents one of the most retrograde developments of our time. Asia has benefited enormously from its rapid economic growth and could gain a lot more in the future. Anything that threatens such growth should be resisted staunchly.
It is only because of the deeply pessimistic times we live in that the greening of Asia is taken seriously. The benefits of growth tend to be grossly under-appreciated while the prospect of environmental damage prompts panic.
From the relative comfort of a developed nation it is easy to forget how beneficial growth has proved. Among other things it has led to greatly improved longevity, lower infant mortality, increased education, vastly better infrastructure, more consumer goods and more leisure time.
Yet much of Asia remains relatively poor. Even China, although it has grown rapidly over the past 30 years, still has much lower income per head than developed economies.
Under such circumstances, growth should remain a top priority. If the region chooses to use "dirty energy", rather than go to the extra expense of "going green", it should be free to do so. Fossil fuels are legitimate ways of meeting Asia's energy needs.
As it happens, growth generally provides the resources to clean up the environment. Typically, countries go through an "environmental transition" as they industrialise.
The early days of industrialisation are often heavily polluting. But as the economy grows it becomes able to generate the resources to produce goods and services more cleanly.
The developed world has already experienced this transition. America and Britain produce more than ever in absolute terms, yet the environment is generally much cleaner than it was in the earlier industrial period.
If the developed world is that worried about dirty energy it can always provide the latest technology to developing countries. No doubt if it is freely or even just cheaply available to them they are likely to make good use of it.
But it is important not to lose sight of the over-riding importance of growth. It would be wrong, from both an economic and moral perspective, to impose the use of particular technologies deemed "green" in the West.
Labels: Asia, environment, Fund Strategy
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Growth scepticism and economic slowdown
A couple of people have asked me what impact I think the current economic slowdown will have on growth scepticism. The assumption behind the question seems to be that economic restraint will somehow make people see the benefits of growth again. In my view the answer is not straightforward but, on balance, the growth sceptics are likely to be strengthened.
It is true that cuts in living standards, or even slow increases in living standards, can generate resentment among those involved. Worrying about the consequences of wealth in the abstract is one thing but adjusting to the reality of lower living standards is another.
But in the current cultural climate it is likely that growth scepticism will be strengthened on balance. For example, striving for growth is likely to be seen as coming into conflict with environmental limits. Or it could also lead to fears of the destabilising consequences of inequality.
Growth scepticism can be seen, at least in part, as a negative and fearful response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For example, it was the economic crisis of the early 1970s that played a key role in first popularising the idea of the “limits to growth”.
It is true that cuts in living standards, or even slow increases in living standards, can generate resentment among those involved. Worrying about the consequences of wealth in the abstract is one thing but adjusting to the reality of lower living standards is another.
But in the current cultural climate it is likely that growth scepticism will be strengthened on balance. For example, striving for growth is likely to be seen as coming into conflict with environmental limits. Or it could also lead to fears of the destabilising consequences of inequality.
Growth scepticism can be seen, at least in part, as a negative and fearful response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For example, it was the economic crisis of the early 1970s that played a key role in first popularising the idea of the “limits to growth”.
Labels: consumption, economics, growth
Friday, June 27, 2008
American pundit joins China bashers
Evidently Fareed Zakaria, one of America’s most influential commentators on international relations, expresses concern about the impact of China’s economic growth on the global environment in his new book. Although he welcomes poverty reduction in China he is concerned that rapid growth will lead to such problems as climate change and water shortages. According to Sean Collins writing in the latest spiked review of books:
“In viewing growth as problematic and potentially destructive, Zakaria raises a common theme of our time. Rather than celebrate the benefits of growth, such as a reduction in poverty, Zakaria and others emphasise the downsides that accompany development. This gloomy outlook reveals more about the commentator than the reality on the ground. Zakaria refers to the predicted increase in the number of cars in China from 26million to 120million in 2020 as an environmental problem rather than a cause of celebration, as the Chinese people gain greater freedom of movement. In doing so, Zakaria joins in with today’s growing China-bashing chorus.”
“In viewing growth as problematic and potentially destructive, Zakaria raises a common theme of our time. Rather than celebrate the benefits of growth, such as a reduction in poverty, Zakaria and others emphasise the downsides that accompany development. This gloomy outlook reveals more about the commentator than the reality on the ground. Zakaria refers to the predicted increase in the number of cars in China from 26million to 120million in 2020 as an environmental problem rather than a cause of celebration, as the Chinese people gain greater freedom of movement. In doing so, Zakaria joins in with today’s growing China-bashing chorus.”
Labels: America, climate, environment, review, spiked
Indians and chickens
After writing my piece on the campaign against the use of Indian child labour by suppliers to Primark (see 24 June post) an interesting parrallel occurred to me. It seems to me there are similarities between the campaign to “save” Indian children with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign for chicken welfare at Tesco. Both sets of campaigners see themselves as superior beings protecting lower creatures from the forces of greed.
Labels: consumption, ethics, food, india, television
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Against ethical consumerism
Spiked has published an article by me on the recent documentaries on child labour in India. It argues that ethical consumerism is nauseatingly elitist.
Labels: consumption, ethics, india, spiked, television
Sunday, June 22, 2008
On consumerism and globalisation
Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, writes that the contemporary world as besieged by two forces: consumerism and globalisation. Both of them, in his view, lead to the erosion of national autonomy. Consumerist capitalism is driven by an ethos of infantalisation which encourages narcissism and an obsession with consumption (he identifies key critics of this trend as David Riesman, Theodor Adorno and Jean Bauldrillard). Meanwhile, globalisation encourages privatisation This again, in his view, leads to an unhealthy atomisation of society.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Labels: consumption, economics, ethics, modernity
Economist on energy
The Economist has published a special report on energy in its current (19 June) edition.
