Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Revealing trends in consumption
The latest annual Family Expenditure Survey from Britain’s National Statistics gives some idea of how living standards have increased over the past 50 years.
For example, according to the official release: “In 2006 most homes had central heating (95 per cent), a washing machine (96 per cent), a microwave (91 per cent) and a telephone or mobile phone (99 per cent).”
Even the bottom decline (poorest 10th) of the population is benefitting. According to a BBC report on the survey 31% of the bottom decline have computers, 21% an internet connection and 56% a mobile phone.
From a 50 year perspective the trends are also revealing. For instance, in 1957 food and non-alcoholic drinks took up 33% of the household budget compared with 15% in 2006.
In contrast, food and travel costs have risen from 8% to 16%. This suggests more people have cars and they travel more.
For example, according to the official release: “In 2006 most homes had central heating (95 per cent), a washing machine (96 per cent), a microwave (91 per cent) and a telephone or mobile phone (99 per cent).”
Even the bottom decline (poorest 10th) of the population is benefitting. According to a BBC report on the survey 31% of the bottom decline have computers, 21% an internet connection and 56% a mobile phone.
From a 50 year perspective the trends are also revealing. For instance, in 1957 food and non-alcoholic drinks took up 33% of the household budget compared with 15% in 2006.
In contrast, food and travel costs have risen from 8% to 16%. This suggests more people have cars and they travel more.
Labels: affluenza, consumption, inequality, progress
Time to celebrate meat consumption
The New York Times has pubished a feature by Mark Bittman arguing that excessive consumption of meat is damaging the planet (27 January). A few years ago such an uncritical piece would more likely be in the Ecologist than a mainstream newspaper.
Near the start of the article he argues that: “Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.”
Towards the end the article quotes a 2006 study from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on “Livestock’s long shadow”: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.” So for the FAO the solution is self-restraint.
The possibility that rising meat consumption should be celebrated as an expression of increasing affluence does not seem to occur to anyone quoted. And the associated environmental problems are generally viewed as insurmountable rather than difficulties to be overcome.
Near the start of the article he argues that: “Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.”
Towards the end the article quotes a 2006 study from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on “Livestock’s long shadow”: “There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.” So for the FAO the solution is self-restraint.
The possibility that rising meat consumption should be celebrated as an expression of increasing affluence does not seem to occur to anyone quoted. And the associated environmental problems are generally viewed as insurmountable rather than difficulties to be overcome.
Labels: consumption, environment, food
Sunday, January 27, 2008
A stimulating discussion
Barbara Ehrenreich makes an unusual analogy when she discusses the American economy in an article on The Nation website (posted 22 January): “With all the talk about how to stimulate it, you'd think that the economy is a giant clitoris.”
Her initial target is the recently announced fiscal stimulus. She makes the fair point that it looks likely to benefit the rich more than the poor. But then she moves on to a broader attack on what she calls “economy fetishism”. She goes on: “If we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that the economy is no longer an effective measure of human well-being. We've seen the economy grow without wage gains; we've seen productivity grow without wage gains. We've even seen unemployment fall without wage gains.”
In her conclusion she argues: “My point is just that our economy--with its dizzying bubbles, wild lending sprees, reckless downsizings and planet-wide hyper-sensitivity--has gotten too far disconnected from ordinary human needs.”
As I have argued before it is a mistake to use the undoubted existence of inequality as an argument against economic growth. If anything there needs to be even more importance attached to the economy and more growth so that everyone can benefit. The problem is not too much emphasis on growth but too little.
Her initial target is the recently announced fiscal stimulus. She makes the fair point that it looks likely to benefit the rich more than the poor. But then she moves on to a broader attack on what she calls “economy fetishism”. She goes on: “If we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that the economy is no longer an effective measure of human well-being. We've seen the economy grow without wage gains; we've seen productivity grow without wage gains. We've even seen unemployment fall without wage gains.”
In her conclusion she argues: “My point is just that our economy--with its dizzying bubbles, wild lending sprees, reckless downsizings and planet-wide hyper-sensitivity--has gotten too far disconnected from ordinary human needs.”
As I have argued before it is a mistake to use the undoubted existence of inequality as an argument against economic growth. If anything there needs to be even more importance attached to the economy and more growth so that everyone can benefit. The problem is not too much emphasis on growth but too little.
Labels: economics, growth, inequality
Friday, January 25, 2008
Review of the Affluent Society
spiked has published a review by me of John Kenneth Galbraith’s Affluent Society. I argue that the book, which was first published 50 years ago, anticpates many of the key themes of contemporary growth scepticism.
Labels: book, consumption, economics, growth, review, spiked
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Backdrop to Fed cut
spiked has run a short article by me on the backdrop to the surprise cut in interest rates by America’s Federal Reserve earlier this week.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Attitudes towards inequality and car use
The annual British Social Attitudes survey contains some insights into changing perceptions of inequality and of the environment.
On poverty it is clear that there is widespread concern about the existence of inequality. Some 76% say the gap between those on high and those on low incomes is “too large”. However, this concern about inequality tends not to translate into sympathy for the poor. For example, the proportion who say the government should redistribute from the well-off to the poor has fallen to 34% compared with 47% in 1995. One in four say poverty is the result of laziness or lack of willpower.
On the environment there is a split on attitudes towards car use. Almost one in four say they should be able to use their cars as much as they like irrespective of damage to the environment. But 66% say everyone should reduce their car use for the sake of the environment.
On poverty it is clear that there is widespread concern about the existence of inequality. Some 76% say the gap between those on high and those on low incomes is “too large”. However, this concern about inequality tends not to translate into sympathy for the poor. For example, the proportion who say the government should redistribute from the well-off to the poor has fallen to 34% compared with 47% in 1995. One in four say poverty is the result of laziness or lack of willpower.
On the environment there is a split on attitudes towards car use. Almost one in four say they should be able to use their cars as much as they like irrespective of damage to the environment. But 66% say everyone should reduce their car use for the sake of the environment.
Labels: environment, inequality
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Two more Worldwrite films
Worldwrite has produced two new short films. Cash Back is a look at the importance of remittances to economic development in the third world. For the poorest countries it can be several times the amount of official development assistance or foreign direct investment. I’m a Subsistence Farmer Get Me Out of Here is an attack on those who romanticise the lives of those who are tied to the land (itself a shortened form of a more substantial documentary made by Worldwrite). Both films can be viewed online by clicking on the links.
Labels: aid, development, economics, film, Worldwrite
Thursday, January 17, 2008
In praise of melancholy
Eric G Wilson, a professor of English at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, has written a wonderful essay on the value of melancholy as opposed to happiness in the Chronicle Review (18 January). It is adapted from his book Against Happiness which is about to be published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in America (and is also reviewed in the issue of the Economist that is about to be published).
He starts with the observation that, in recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, almost 85 percent of Americans said they were very happy or at least pretty happy. Then he goes on to argue:
“Surely all this happiness can't be for real. How can so many people be happy in the midst of all the problems that beset our globe — not only the collective and apocalyptic ills but also those particular irritations that bedevil our everyday existences, those money issues and marital spats, those stifling vocations and lonely dawns? Are we to believe that four out of every five Americans can be content amid the general woe? Are some people lying, or are they simply afraid to be honest in a culture in which the status quo is nothing short of manic bliss? Aren't we suspicious of this statistic? Aren't we further troubled by our culture's overemphasis on happiness? Don't we fear that this rabid focus on exuberance leads to half-lives, to bland existences, to wastelands of mechanistic behavior?”
He later goes on:
“Melancholia, far from a mere disease or weakness of will, is an almost miraculous invitation to transcend the banal status quo and imagine the untapped possibilities for existence. Without melancholia, the earth would likely freeze over into a fixed state, as predictable as metal. Only with the help of constant sorrow can this dying world be changed, enlivened, pushed to the new.”
At the end of the article also reproduces the “Ode on Melancholy” (1919) by John Keats.
He starts with the observation that, in recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, almost 85 percent of Americans said they were very happy or at least pretty happy. Then he goes on to argue:
“Surely all this happiness can't be for real. How can so many people be happy in the midst of all the problems that beset our globe — not only the collective and apocalyptic ills but also those particular irritations that bedevil our everyday existences, those money issues and marital spats, those stifling vocations and lonely dawns? Are we to believe that four out of every five Americans can be content amid the general woe? Are some people lying, or are they simply afraid to be honest in a culture in which the status quo is nothing short of manic bliss? Aren't we suspicious of this statistic? Aren't we further troubled by our culture's overemphasis on happiness? Don't we fear that this rabid focus on exuberance leads to half-lives, to bland existences, to wastelands of mechanistic behavior?”
He later goes on:
“Melancholia, far from a mere disease or weakness of will, is an almost miraculous invitation to transcend the banal status quo and imagine the untapped possibilities for existence. Without melancholia, the earth would likely freeze over into a fixed state, as predictable as metal. Only with the help of constant sorrow can this dying world be changed, enlivened, pushed to the new.”
At the end of the article also reproduces the “Ode on Melancholy” (1919) by John Keats.
Labels: affluenza, book, happiness
Therapy culture not selfish capitalism
Brendan O’Neill has an article on the BBC online website on Oliver James’s The Selfish Capitalist. After letting James explain his argument it quotes myself and Simon Wessely, professor of epidemiological and liaison psychiatry at King's College, London, giving a contrary view.
I will leave readers to look up my remarks if they want to but Wessely is worth quoting at length:
‘[He] believes that cultural factors, not capitalism itself, have created a situation where more people define themselves as mentally ill.
‘"In this country, rates of actual mental illness are not increasing," he says. "Studies by the Office for National Statistics, repeated over a decade, do not show an increase in all neurotic disorders, depressive disorders or depression."
‘"It is true that rates of self-reported symptoms are on the rise," says Wessely, but that has to be seen in a context where "more human experiences" are seen as illnesses nowadays.
‘"In my trade, for example, states of sadness are now seen as 'depression', shyness has become 'social phobia', and all sorts of variations in childhood temperament, personality, emotions and behaviour have become characterised as diseases that need treatment, be it Asperger's autism or ADHD."
‘Mr Wessely believes that this "therapy culture" means that people now regard as abnormal things that "previous generations regarded as part and parcel of normal variations in personality and emotion". So what earlier generations saw as an everyday struggle to make ends meet might now be referred to as stress or workaholism.
‘"I would lay the blame less at the door of Margaret Thatcher's selfish capitalism, and more at the door of Richard and Judy or Oprah," says Mr Wessely.’
I will leave readers to look up my remarks if they want to but Wessely is worth quoting at length:
‘[He] believes that cultural factors, not capitalism itself, have created a situation where more people define themselves as mentally ill.
‘"In this country, rates of actual mental illness are not increasing," he says. "Studies by the Office for National Statistics, repeated over a decade, do not show an increase in all neurotic disorders, depressive disorders or depression."
‘"It is true that rates of self-reported symptoms are on the rise," says Wessely, but that has to be seen in a context where "more human experiences" are seen as illnesses nowadays.
‘"In my trade, for example, states of sadness are now seen as 'depression', shyness has become 'social phobia', and all sorts of variations in childhood temperament, personality, emotions and behaviour have become characterised as diseases that need treatment, be it Asperger's autism or ADHD."
‘Mr Wessely believes that this "therapy culture" means that people now regard as abnormal things that "previous generations regarded as part and parcel of normal variations in personality and emotion". So what earlier generations saw as an everyday struggle to make ends meet might now be referred to as stress or workaholism.
‘"I would lay the blame less at the door of Margaret Thatcher's selfish capitalism, and more at the door of Richard and Judy or Oprah," says Mr Wessely.’
Labels: affluenza, happiness, inequality
Monday, January 14, 2008
China as "green peril"
I will be giving a talk on China as the new “green peril” at the London School of Economics at 2pm on 5 March.
Labels: Asia, china, environment, speeches
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Inequality in America
The New York Times has a useful topics page on the debate on income inequality in America. It includes links to the newspaper’s key articles on the subject.
Labels: America, inequality
For competition and cooperation
Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, rails against competition in an article in the Autumn 2007 edition of the Wilson Quarterly. In his view:
“Competition skews the balance, and threatens real democracy. More fundamentally, it fails to comprehend freedom’s true character. In the human balance, given that we are creatures of nature and artifice, of both rivalry and love, we normally live in parallel, mutually intersecting worlds of competition and cooperation, if not quite as grimly or definitively as Ruskin imagined. Competition may not be the law of death, but as the law of the marketplace and the radically individualistic people who populate it, it distorts and unhinges our common lives and slights the necessary role of cooperation and community in securing liberty. In construing ourselves exclusively as economic ¬beings—¬what the old philosophers used to call homo economicus—we account for ourselves as producers and consumers but not as neighbors and citizens. We shortchange real liberty.”
There is plenty wrong with his argument. Most fundamentally it is wrong to counter-pose competition and cooperation. For example, the strongest cooperation can come about as a result of competition. Genuine politics depends on a vigorous battle of ideas between competing sides. But such competition can also generate strong solidarity among those involved in the debate.
It is also worth noting that Barber links competition closely to the law of the marketplace. But things are not so simple. To the extent that the market has brought increased productivity it has brought enormous benefits to humanity. At the same time the current market is obsessed with ways for firms to curb competition. For example, corporate social responsibility can be seen as a way of restricting competition.
“Competition skews the balance, and threatens real democracy. More fundamentally, it fails to comprehend freedom’s true character. In the human balance, given that we are creatures of nature and artifice, of both rivalry and love, we normally live in parallel, mutually intersecting worlds of competition and cooperation, if not quite as grimly or definitively as Ruskin imagined. Competition may not be the law of death, but as the law of the marketplace and the radically individualistic people who populate it, it distorts and unhinges our common lives and slights the necessary role of cooperation and community in securing liberty. In construing ourselves exclusively as economic ¬beings—¬what the old philosophers used to call homo economicus—we account for ourselves as producers and consumers but not as neighbors and citizens. We shortchange real liberty.”
There is plenty wrong with his argument. Most fundamentally it is wrong to counter-pose competition and cooperation. For example, the strongest cooperation can come about as a result of competition. Genuine politics depends on a vigorous battle of ideas between competing sides. But such competition can also generate strong solidarity among those involved in the debate.
It is also worth noting that Barber links competition closely to the law of the marketplace. But things are not so simple. To the extent that the market has brought increased productivity it has brought enormous benefits to humanity. At the same time the current market is obsessed with ways for firms to curb competition. For example, corporate social responsibility can be seen as a way of restricting competition.
Labels: economics
Saturday, January 12, 2008
It’s our brain what done it
A new spin on growth scepticism from John Naish, a health journalist, in an extract from his book Enough in today’s Times (London). He takes two of the usual charges from the growth sceptic litany – humanity is destroying the environment and making it unhappy – and blames them on our primitive human brains.
The opening passage of the extract argues that: “Over the past decade, two facts have become increasingly obvious – that our ever-increasing consumption is wrecking the planet, and that continually chasing more stuff, more food and more entertainment no longer makes us any happier. Instead, levels of stress, obesity and dissatisfaction are spiralling.” Of course these may appear to be obvious “facts” to Naish but they are far from straightforward or beyond dispute.
However, Naish does not waste any time. The next passage gives his explanation for what he sees as our terrible social maladies: “So why is our culture still chasing, consuming, striving ever harder, even though we know in our sophisticated minds that it’s an unrewarding route to eco-geddon? New scientific studies are helping to reveal why. It’s our primitive brains. These marvellous machines got us down from the trees and around the world, through ice ages, famines, plagues and disasters, into our unprecedented era of abundance. But they never had to evolve an instinct that said, ‘enough’.”
By a few paragraphs down it is becoming pretty silly: “The desire-driven wiring of our primitive brains evolved in the Pleistocene era, between 130,000 and 200,000 years ago. It was moulded by half-starved hunter-gatherers and farmers whose crops frequently failed. Those who kept going survived to give us their yearning genes. That wanting instinct gets fixated on material goods. We evolved to desire possessions as no other creature does. Neolithic cave sites may partly explain why. Many contain millions of hand-axes – far more than cave-dwellers ever needed. Anthropologists believe that the best axes were not just prized tools, but precursors of Ferraris and Jimmy Choos. Owning Stone Age bling displayed your high reproductive value.”
So whereas the likes of Oliver James blame “selfish capitalism” for our alleged plight John Naish points to the primitive human brain as the culprit.
The opening passage of the extract argues that: “Over the past decade, two facts have become increasingly obvious – that our ever-increasing consumption is wrecking the planet, and that continually chasing more stuff, more food and more entertainment no longer makes us any happier. Instead, levels of stress, obesity and dissatisfaction are spiralling.” Of course these may appear to be obvious “facts” to Naish but they are far from straightforward or beyond dispute.
However, Naish does not waste any time. The next passage gives his explanation for what he sees as our terrible social maladies: “So why is our culture still chasing, consuming, striving ever harder, even though we know in our sophisticated minds that it’s an unrewarding route to eco-geddon? New scientific studies are helping to reveal why. It’s our primitive brains. These marvellous machines got us down from the trees and around the world, through ice ages, famines, plagues and disasters, into our unprecedented era of abundance. But they never had to evolve an instinct that said, ‘enough’.”
By a few paragraphs down it is becoming pretty silly: “The desire-driven wiring of our primitive brains evolved in the Pleistocene era, between 130,000 and 200,000 years ago. It was moulded by half-starved hunter-gatherers and farmers whose crops frequently failed. Those who kept going survived to give us their yearning genes. That wanting instinct gets fixated on material goods. We evolved to desire possessions as no other creature does. Neolithic cave sites may partly explain why. Many contain millions of hand-axes – far more than cave-dwellers ever needed. Anthropologists believe that the best axes were not just prized tools, but precursors of Ferraris and Jimmy Choos. Owning Stone Age bling displayed your high reproductive value.”
So whereas the likes of Oliver James blame “selfish capitalism” for our alleged plight John Naish points to the primitive human brain as the culprit.
Labels: affluenza, book, consumption, environment, happiness
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Affluenza in France - it’s official
A feature in the January / February issue of Foreign Policy magazine suggests the idea of “affluenza” is pervasive in France rather than confined to America and Britain. Stefan Theil, Newsweek’s European economics editor, bases this claim on a study of official French textbooks:
‘ “Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer,” asserts the three-volume Histoire du XXe siècle, a set of texts memorized by countless French high school students as they prepare for entrance exams to Sciences Po and other prestigious French universities." ‘
‘ “Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer,” asserts the three-volume Histoire du XXe siècle, a set of texts memorized by countless French high school students as they prepare for entrance exams to Sciences Po and other prestigious French universities." ‘
Labels: affluenza, Europe, happiness
Monday, January 07, 2008
The blinkered perspective of consumption
spiked has published an article article by me on how a narrow consumerist perspective blinds commentators to key trends in the world economy. It is accompanied by a piece by James Heartfield examining the elite disdain for popular consumerism.
Labels: consumption, environment, spiked
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Private hubris and public pessimism
Matthew Taylor, a former senior adviser to Tony Blair and now chief executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, has an astute although ultimately misplaced article on the happiness debate in the New Statesman (3 January). His starting point is the widening gap between the private and public spheres:
“Pessimism is becoming an impediment to progressive politics. It is 50 years since J K Galbraith coined the phrase ‘private affluence and public squalor’; today, the dichotomy is between private hubris and public pessimism.”
Taylor’s solution to this problem is what he calls a “new collectivism”. However, what he misses is the need to challenge the low horizons of contemporary social debates. Missing out this stage in the process means that any new collective enterprise will simply be one of individuals with an exaggerated sense of vulnerability.
For example, Taylor ends his piece with a call to use the issue of climate change to help build a new collectivism (the first time he mentions global warming in the article):
“Tackling climate change offers a fascinating opportunity to interweave stories of action at the individual, community, national and international levels. This potential will be fulfilled only when we provide spaces for collective decision-making and action that speak to the same vision of collaboration, creativity and human fulfilment that progressives claim to be our destiny.”
Yet the mainstream discussion of climate change if a perfect example of low horizons in relation to what humans can achieve. It assumes we must limit the human impact on the environment and act primarily as individuals to reduce our consumption. The idea of boldly acting to develop technology and increase human control over nature is alien to the mainstream debate.
“Pessimism is becoming an impediment to progressive politics. It is 50 years since J K Galbraith coined the phrase ‘private affluence and public squalor’; today, the dichotomy is between private hubris and public pessimism.”
Taylor’s solution to this problem is what he calls a “new collectivism”. However, what he misses is the need to challenge the low horizons of contemporary social debates. Missing out this stage in the process means that any new collective enterprise will simply be one of individuals with an exaggerated sense of vulnerability.
For example, Taylor ends his piece with a call to use the issue of climate change to help build a new collectivism (the first time he mentions global warming in the article):
“Tackling climate change offers a fascinating opportunity to interweave stories of action at the individual, community, national and international levels. This potential will be fulfilled only when we provide spaces for collective decision-making and action that speak to the same vision of collaboration, creativity and human fulfilment that progressives claim to be our destiny.”
Yet the mainstream discussion of climate change if a perfect example of low horizons in relation to what humans can achieve. It assumes we must limit the human impact on the environment and act primarily as individuals to reduce our consumption. The idea of boldly acting to develop technology and increase human control over nature is alien to the mainstream debate.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
The Selfish Capitalist
The awful Oliver James has a new book out. The Selfish Capitalist (published by Vermilion) evidently argues that the model of capitalism in the Anglo-American countries has led to an explosion of mental illness. I have already reviewed James’s previous book (see menu bar on left) and will read his new one as soon as I get a chance.
Labels: affluenza, book, happiness
