A couple of weeks ago, an article in the International Herald Tribune caught my attention.
The piece deals with the huge shortfall between capacity and demand for power in Growing India and the hugely inequitable supply that results from this.
I've been reading things like this for a while - as will anyone who reads the news - but I thought it was interesting that the article was carried by a non-Indian newspaper. Says something about the scale of the problem, I thought. So, as is my wont, I sent the article out to a bunch of my Indian friends and asked them what they thought.
A question that subsequently arose in one of the responses was: Is halting economic growth really the answer?
Great question. I thought it'd be great practice at debating, communicating and thinking, to respond. Below is the email I sent in return. I'd love some constructive criticism on the points I made:
__________________________________________
Hey,
Thank you for asking the hard question. (If you were simply asking it in passing, forgive me the spiel below, but simply cannot resist debate and practice. So spiel below I will, please.)
My Response, off the top of my head and not relying on any 'party line', this is just me talking back:
It was a while ago that I read this article, so I don't remember the subtler messages, but if it did imply that halting economic growth is the solution then no, I don't agree either. Obviously though, there must be room for subtler solutions: it can't be either zero-growth or unbridled growth at any and all costs.
A couple of points I would make off the top of my head:
1. Inclusive growth seems impossible in trickle-down perspectives. This assumes that if we have a large amount of wealth, the benefits of this will trickle downwards to those who need it, ultimately. The inherent paradox is: Economics assumes the Perfectly Rational Man, but trickle-down requires a certain degree of altruism. Perfectly Rational Men are, (at the risk of vast oversimplification) opportunistic, relatively short-sighted and basically out to get the largest slice of the pie. (Obviously. I am not implying that rationality is evil, but this is what it entails - do everything in your power to be on top, push, struggle, get there. And I am like that too, I don't deny it. Why else have I accumulated a carbon footprint large enough for some small nations, trying to get a PhD.)
2. Lets not forget that this model of economic growth also assumes infinite resources. Our economy - even when it switches from manufacturing to services (as economies in the process of becoming 'developed' do), is powered by coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro- power. Two things stem from this:
2a.) The power of these resources flows from resource-rich but economically marginalized areas (the countryside) to resource-poor economically integrated areas (cites and industrial centres). This inherently furthers the marginalization of large sections of our population.
2b.) The resources themselves, managed as they are at present, will either run out or become unfeasibly expensive to harvest within the next two generations (an oversimplification based on some theory and some observation, but you can change the numbers from 2 generations to 5 to 10 - the ultimate answer is not less alarming for it). After that, technologically developed 'alternatives', so far untested for the scale and depth at which they will have to be employed, are assumed to 'take over'. For the concerned environmentalist and social scientist, this reads (much to my alarm) as follows: An over-heating economy marked by inequity and resource-poverty is about to explode into absolute chaos.
The underlying theme in all of this: Inclusivity does not come with increased growth, it comes with effective distribution. Right now I see lots of growth, but where is it going? Is anyone consciously putting in as much effort into distributing the benefits as they are into powering even more growth? (In pockets, they are. Great. More power to the people driving the process, and long may it continue. But overall, I think the balance is still skewed in favour of more, more MORE.) If overall economic well being were the aim, I would see a balance between growth, sustainability and equity.
I do not see this. If you do, let me know - it would lift some of my blackness to find that no problems exist where I think they do.
If I sound Marxist, worry not, I'm not calling for that - I'm in no place to offer a solution like that. All I can say is that: grow as much as you want, the problems will grow in lockstep if growth does not assume a radically different face, because the paradoxes are built in.
Right. So I've done worse than the article by now: brought in lots of theory, sounded alarmist and not offered a concrete way out. Great. At least it's practice in how (not to) communicate. Blah. Honestly, what is the point, no one is going to listen to a dolly-haired girl wearing Miss Selfridge shorts and red nailpolish. Humph.
Rambling incoherently now,
Zareen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Right. You asked for constructive criticism. My philosophy being: ask and thou shall receive, I now will deliver.
First, I agree with the main point in your argument, which I believe is the fact that economic growth is good, but it needs an effort in distributing it. It also needs to be in balance with other things.
I think growth is important, purely based on the fact that the fruits of economic growth can (and should be) used for other developments that would increase "economic well being".
Now, the criticism. First, in point 1 you say that trickling down of benefits requires a certain amount of altruism. I believe that this amount can be very small (or even non-existant) and can co-exist perfectly well with rationality. Many organisms have a way of surviving by helping others and I think that we as humans are not very different. All we need is a clear realisation that helping others will ultimately help us. Once this is a wide-spread realisation I think the paradox is gone and rationality can definately lead to trickling down of benefits.
Second, I believe that income inequality (or marginalisation as you call it) is an integral part of being. It will and should not be eliminated. I see your point in trying to make the income inequality as small as possible, but rather than doing that I would argue for a higher basic standard. I think this is achieveable even with differences in resource supply and demand in different regions. Differences in supply and demand (according to Ricardo) do promote trade, which I believe can be beneficial to both parties.
My last point of criticism is regarding point 2b. More specifically the conclusion of that point. In this argument you actually point out that there will be alternative resources, which will be available (there is not a shread of doubt in my mind about that, we simply dont have a choice). So how do you arrive at a state of resource poverty? Secondly, resources will always be scarce, that is a basic principle of economics. It forces us to make choices. I think the choices we make determine our economic well-being, so I dont see a state of absolute chaos. I see a state of increased choices, and an era of important decision making.
In the end I believe that the situation is manageable, but it will require clear and clever thought.
So - to conclude - although I am not an alarmist or an environmentalist I do share your view that the coming decades will be key for future success and well-being of the earth. and I think that careful planning of resources (by bright, hopefully interdisciplinary, minds) and clear decision making with this end-goal in mind will be able to provide us with a desirable outcome, inspite the negative outlook at the moment.
Scarcity is such a concept… does it really exist? Isn’t there enough for everyone to meet his livelihood needs? Economic growth itself relies on growing demand, growing needs (artificial ones need to be created to curb consumption). People are induced to consume more than their “natural share” would be. This makes resources scarce. Also, to make goods and services saleable, to commoditize them, (and that’s the precondition to make them count for economic growth), it is essential to exclude people from their free access – this again makes them scarce.
Economic growth is a major driver of our current problems, getting rid of it will not sort them out, but it’s a precondition to stop making things worse.
Post a Comment