Spiritual Economics

You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
George Bernard Shaw


Finally after nearly two months of inactivity I find the time and motivation to pick up where I left, that is in the middle of my musing about aid and development. On this new grey day contrasting the golden and fiery colored leaves, floating in the air only to be swept away by the torrent of waters from unceasing rain, I am glad I waited. It allowed me to spend more time to think and further expand my reflection on the subject. However, the text that follows remains very immature in its reflection, but as I mentioned, this is the purpose of this blog, to let my thoughts mature.

One of the most influential things I read during this period was not a book on economics, but a book on Buddhism. By integrating Buddhist thought into my understanding of development economics I could develop a very broad and general idea of how development could be conducted, mostly at the individual level. The debate about aid is one of many controversies and never ending disagreement; economists argue about where aid should come from under what form, from whom etc. Books by Joseph Stiglitz (Globalization and its discontent) and Easterly (The White man’s Burden) are good example of criticism of aid and the institutions which provide it (IMF, World Bank…). But should all these aspects of aid really matter? Sure, we (those who pay for the donations and loans and those who manage them) have no right to impose aid under our terms to countries with their own tradition and sovereignty, especially when we’re not sure it will benefit them, we should pay attention to the results of disbursing billions in loans and donations. However, the primordial aspect is that a lot of countries can use this help, and some depend on it for survival, so stopping aid is not the solution. In other words, we should be striving to improve, but should not stop what we started. We are humans and no matter what we do, we will be exposed to failures, corruption, but also successes. Fortunately, we have a tendency to learn even if it’s often too slowly.

So what does Buddhist thought have to do with all that? It pertains to the way we see our actions and the world. Many see the world in terms of dichotomies and try to fit things in categories, we base our understanding on observations. That’s important, but there is more, as humans we are part of a whole, the universe, we are one and the same entity and therefore are not divisible. Do I mean there are no differences between us? No I mean that we are on the same level, the man sitting in his office in the Washington D.C. World Bank headquarters is the same as the starving child in Burkina Faso. That also means that there should be balance between humans. That goes back to what I said about not being able to get rid of corruption and trickery. It also applies to the nature of the world. It is impermanent meaning that nothing stays the same, but at the same time it obeys the laws of causality, our actions will be followed by results. This is very important because we often ignore the first part. We take the things we have learned from previous observation and apply them to similar situations, expecting the same result. However, the situation is never the same and the result will always vary, which explains the vast discrepancies in programs that were similar but held in different contexts. Is there something we can do better? Easterly’s argument for the searchers points in that direction. People who work with a lot of flexibility and who have very narrow goals set in the moment, is a great advancement. But as Sen criticized in his review of Easterly’s book, it doesn’t mean everything else is wrong. To be able to apply such principles on the huge scale of the developing world is a true challenge with no easy answer and at this point the trial and error approach seems the best we can do until more cohesive, leaner and flexible institutions take over.

There is also much that can be done at the individual level. I believe I can make a difference by involving myself wholeheartedly and not worrying about what others are doing. If I cannot afford a multi million program, there is still much I can do. A great example of that is the website globalgiving.com that allows individuals to participate directly in programs around the world by making donations, no matter how small, you can then follow the progress being made on projects that become a personal achievement by the community as a whole. No one’s action remains without consequences.

What Easterly criticizes are people who believe in scientific planning. Those are people who believe the solution to everything comes from science, the universal language. Science can explain everything they claim. I believe in science, too, but I don’t believe it will solve everything. When trying to solve problems such as the development of the world we tend to forget the main factor, humans. Humans are part of a whole, humans are one and the same in nature and that, I think discredits science as the solution. Not all humans understand the language of science, and not every human obey the laws of science (I’m not saying some can defy the law of gravity, but that some people don’t act according to scientific forethought). Spirituality on the other hand is a more universal medium, and it is compatible with science. I do not mean religion, religion will not solve much because it causes as many problems as it solves (if not more), spirituality is what connects us as humans. I’ll try to illustrate the best I can. Say you talk to members of a village in Niger where the fertility rate is above 10 children per woman, what will work the best to make them understand the various trade-offs and alternatives they have? One approach would be to tell them about fertility, something that always helps, but in the long run will telling them about overpopulation, economic cost, the importance of education or the use of contraceptive make a difference? It will to some extent but it won’t necessarily change their way of thinking, it will remain a foreign idea they don’t fully comprehend. If in addition to these things the issue is related in their spiritual context, I think there would be a stronger incentive to truly, and lastingly change customs. Amartya Sen introduced humanity in development economics; I would like to see spirituality introduced in economics. Human development consists of giving people the means to achieve a fulfilling life, according to their definition. Spiritual economics would focus on the way theses means are provided.