The interesting thing is that most people didn’t feel as horrible, depressed or anxious as you would expect.
When we could not afford the yogurt, my mother and myself could not help but laugh. Running to the market
became some sort of national sport. Women “competed” to find out exactly how many liters of juice could be
made from one orange (I still have a recipe which makes four to five). But at that time we could laugh,
because we felt that our poverty was temporary. We still had other assets, apart from our income, that we
could use. We could still envision a better future. And for some reason, we stopped comparing ourselves with
“the West,” as we did in the previous years of relative affluence (a comparison which would give us the sense
of inadequacy, apprehension and inferiority). We looked around us and concluded that most people were in the
same boat, and, compared to many others, we were still quite fortunate.

My first thought in coming to Australia was that this country would collapse under sanctions. At that time,
petrol in Yugoslavia could be found only sporadically but people of Novi Sad could walk to most places,
drive bicycles or easily organise car polling. Other strategies included waiting in queues for days and
taking turns to do so, borrowing cars from family and friends that spend less gas, smuggling petrol over
the border and buying at the black market. The joke at the time was that while a western European earns
3,000 spends 2,500 and saves 500 DEM, the average Yugoslav person earns 30 but spends 3,000 DEM a month.
While probably serving to boost everyone’s morale, this joke, as well as the previous petrol and juice
examples, help make a few important points.

First, it is to move from a situation of relative affluence to a situation of poverty. This has happened
to millions of people in Eastern Europe, over a relatively short period of time. For example, using the
cost of a basket of basic goods as a measure of poverty, the figures show that child poverty in Russia
has now reached 98 per cent (Bradbury and Jantti, 1999)! Throughout history, this has not only happened
to the members of the middle class, like myself, but to the members of the financial and social elite as
well, and not only in Eastern Europe. Empires fell, the economic system collapsed, wars occurred, family,
age and work situations changed, and so on. Because of what I saw in my life and learned from glimpses
into history, I believe that no one is safe from poverty. And, if we factor in environmental degradation
as an indicator of overall quality of life, we all might already be poor, without even knowing it.
Therefore, addressing and resolving poverty is everyone’s business, and should be everyone’s priority.

Second, people who find themselves in situations of poverty use multiple strategies to alleviate their
condition. The poorer they are the more elaborate and ingenious their strategies for survival are. At
the same time, it is often thought that the poor are totally powerless to change their situation and that
their only hope is to be passive recipients of aid. Because of this, strategies that today’s poor use or
have used before to maintain their societies are rarely considered in poverty elevation measures. In
Australia, for example, Aborigines stress the importance of the land at all levels as necessary in
addressing their current disadvantage. However, the government’s reply to Aboriginal poverty is almost
entirely through welfare statemeasures which primarily focus on financial transaction (welfare handouts).
This reply is a product of the Western, materialistic and industrialised society. It fails to address
the issue of importance of traditional natural and cultural assets as well as the importance of spiritual
progress and wellbeing along material welfare. Another example is the 1994 boycott of products produced
by child labour, led mostly by the USA, which resulted in 50,000 Bangladeshi children losing their jobs,
and as a result many of them then turned to begging and prostitution (Bjonnes, 2001). While the boycott
had good intentions it was one more case “of Westerners selectively applying universal principles to a
situation they did not understand” (Marcus quoted in Bjonnes, 2001). It is depressing that more strategies
for alleviation of poverty have failed rather then succeeded. In addition, some have directly contributed
to an increase in poverty. For example, development policies in the Third World have made many people
landless and/or destroyed their environmental assets, as well as their social cohesion and traditional
economy. This has not only contributed to the increase in their poverty but has sometimes been the single
biggest factor that created it in the first place. Still, just because poverty alleviation measures have
not been successful in the past does not mean that the problem of poverty is such that it cannot be
resolved. This, however, requires tapping into the experiences and strategies developed by those who
experience poverty on daily basis.

Third, and related to the previous perception that the poor are powerless, is the conviction that the
poor have no future since their predicament will only get worse (S P Udayakumar,1995:339). For
example, a 1995 study by the International Food Policy Research Institute concluded that poor countries
that now suffer widespread malnutrition and a general lack of food security can look forward to little
improvement in the foreseeable future (Gately, 2001). Another study (Hanmer et al, 2001) concluded
that Sub-Saharan Africa will not be able to meet the international development targets – halving of the
extreme poverty by 2015- in any likely future scenario. While such forecasting and trend analysis is
powerful and might be accurate, it does little when it comes to envisioning alternative futures and
motivating people to work toward social change.

Fourth, poverty is a complex, multidimensional issue which cannot be understood only in terms of
economic indicators, such as GNP or per capita income. Access to other assets such as community
support, infrastructure and knowledge base play an equally if not a more important role. This is why
poverty alleviation strategies in the future need to be based on the reconceptualized understanding of
poverty, if they are to be successful. This includes understanding that there are poverties not poverty,
that these poverties are processes, not states and that prevention rather then relief is crucial
(Walker and Park, 1998:47).

Fifth, poverty needs to be defined from the perspective of the poor. For example, one study shows that
poor rarely speak of income but rather focus on their ability to manage physical, human, social and
environmental assets (Narayan, 2000:5). This means asking the poor how they define and see their living
and working conditions and which areas do they believe need to be transformed.

Sixth, poverty is a cumulative process. The longer it goes on the more difficult it is to uproot it.
And while the common understanding is that the poor somehow get accustomed to the situation, in fact,
the longer poverty goes on the more difficult it is to bear it. People who find themselves temporarily
poor might respond to that situation with dignity, humour and resourcefulness. But sooner or later
other feelings such as shame, humiliation and despair set in and the opportunities and assets for
ingenuity decrease. That the poor do not get accustomed to the situations of poverty can be easily seen
from the higher level of poor health and illness among poor as well as from their higher mortality rates.
Around 500,000 women die yearly from pregnancy and birth related complications which are usually related
to a lack of proper nutrition and adequate health services. Almost 2 million children will die this year
because of poverty. And it is estimated that around 30 million people die each year from hunger.

These are only some of the important factors that need to be considered if we are to eradicate poverty.
The literature on poverty is huge, including both the economy oriented studies as well as critical and
alternative approaches. In order to summarise what I see to be crucial issues in regard to poverty
eradication, I use the Causal Layered Analysis methodological approach, developed by Inayatullah (1998).
This approach offers deconstruction, reorders the knowledge and seeks to find the root causes of social
diseases (Fricker, 2000). It implies that there are different levels of reality and different ways of
knowing. Consequently this requires different levels of analysis and understanding of various realms for
implementation of social and individual transformations. Causal Layered Analysis has four levels: the
litany, social causes, discourse/worldviews and myths/metaphor. The litany focuses on quantitative trends
and problems which are often exaggerated and used for political purposes. At the level of social causes,
interpretation is given to the quantitative data. The third level is concerned with structure and the
discourse/worldview that supports and legitimates it. At the fourth level analysis looks for the deep
stories, the collective archetypes, subconscious dimension of the issue under inquiry. Causal Layered
Analysis does not privilege a particular level but attempts to integrate discourses, ways of knowing and
worldviews as well as create transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures
(Inayatullah, 1998:815-829).

Litany
At the litany level poverty is measured only through economic and other quantitative indicators. The
discourse tends to focus on the overwhelming nature of global poverty, for example, estimates that
currently 53% of the world population is classified as poor and that around 3 billion people live on
less then 2US$ a day. The number of people in poverty is represented as a matter of fact and causes
are rarely explored. In the Western media, poverty is usually constructed to be “out there”, among
“the Others” and rarely “here”. The common results of poverty, such as high fertility rates, low literacy
levels, political arrest, organised crime and scarcity of resources are often presented as its main
causes. For example, in the mainstream discourse on poverty there is a huge concern about overpopulation.
It is often stressed that world population is expected to increase from 6 billion, as it is today, to
7.2 billion in 2015, and somewhere between 7.7 and 11.2 billion in year 2050. As 95% of this increase is
projected to occur in the countries with currently have high proportion of the poor, it is implicit that
the poor themselves are “guilty” of creating a future of poverty.

At this level, the strategies for elevation of poverty mostly focus on the poverty relief and aid
packages. The common response among the affluent is either apathy – the problem of poverty is so huge
that it cannot be resolved; helplessness – I wish there is something I/we could do; or projected action
- the government, UN or NGO’s should do something!

Sometimes, magical solutions, such as genetically modified rice and other crops, are also discussed.

Social causes
At the level of social causes analysis, economic, cultural, political and historical factors are
discussed. Social causes analysis is most commonly found among policy planners and academics. At this
level, processes such as colonization, modernization, globalization, capitalism, urbanisation, as well
as national and international governance are discussed. Other indicators of poverty, such as access
to education, health care, are included but poverty is still primarily measured through economic
indicators, such as GNP and income per capita.

Strategies usually include suggestions on how to increase economic growth rate or labour productivity
and how to encourage foreign investment. Other suggested strategies include investments in agricultural
research, education, health, creation of welfare safety net and so on.

Worldview/discourse
At the worldview discourse, the main debate is whether economy needs to be regulated. Libertarians and
conservatives argue against any or against any significant interference into the free-market economy,
and maintain that poverty can only be elevated through the free flow of capital and labour. Some also
argue that the widening gap between the rich and the poor is “a natural, necessary and even desirable
component and hallmark of the improvement of the human condition” (www.libertarians.org). That is,
poverty is the normal condition of men and if the rich were not allowed to get ever richer the poor
would never have any chance to improve their conditions at all. This they could do through ever-
increasing access to tools of everincreasing productivity, through acquiring advanced technology and by
“jumping on the bandwagon” of the general development and economic growth that entrepreneurs create
(www.libertarians.org). Left-liberals, environmentalists and socialists argue that the global Casino
capitalism is directly complicit in creation of poverty where previously there was none as well as that
the unregulated, “free” economy/markets is a myth. They stress that poverty is not created through
production (or the lack of it) but because of the way profits are distributed. They argue that although
global economic activity has grown at nearly 3% each year and doubled in size twice over the past
50 years the number of people living in absolute poverty hadn’t been reduced at the same pace. In regard
to the widening gap between rich and poor they argue that this indeed is a problem because in the future
world where “two-thirds are poor and deprived of basics and promise, there will not be any peace and
security” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Contrary to the focus only on the competitive aspects of the human
nature it is the cooperation that is seen as the only possible way out. The future is seen as a
collaborative enterprise in which “well-being of the poor demands on the cooperation of the rich, and
the safety of the rich relies on justice for the poor” (Udayakumar, 1995:347). Discussions on this level
also allow for an analysis of the ways in which the discourses themselves not only mediate issues but
also constitute them. Or how discourses we use to understand poverty directly influence strategies that
are being put in place. For example, if poverty is understood predominantly in terms of economic
indicators, only economic measures are going to be suggested. The strategies will therefore not include
measures that work against oppressive social structures that are complicit in creation and sustenance
of poverty, such as, patriarchy, for example.

Myth/metaphor
At the myth/metaphor level deeper cultural stories are discussed. For example, in which ways Western
advertisement or other propaganda makes indigenous populations believe that their own culture, dress,
food, or language are inferior as well as how needs for products and lifestyles produced elsewhere
are created (Bjonnes, 2001). Or, through local and global narratives, creating a situation in which
some become easy prey for economic exploitation by others. At this level, we can see how deep beliefs,
such as the belief that humans are inherently competitive and selfish, create a worldview that informs
discussions that formulate policies that determine the actions (or the lack of it). Or how these actions
and policies differ from those that are formed by the worldview that emphasizes the role of
communication, cooperation, altruism, caring and nurturing as the main themes in human evolution.
At this level we can also investigate deep cultural myths and their relevance for poverty creation and
elevation. For example, in the Western history two basic narratives about the relationship between men
and nature exist (Hollis, 1998). One is the myth of “The Land of Cockaygne”, the land of milk and honey,
the “golden age” where the nature provides abundant resources and the magic bowl of porridge never
empties. This is the land of unlimited consumption, limitless choices, and ever increasing growth and
progress. The current version is consumer based global capitalism where new wealth and products are
constantly being created. This is being done both through technological and economic innovations as well
as through the colonisation of nature, lands, peoples, and space. Another myth is that of Arcadia, where
nature is bountiful but humans do not indulge themselves beyond their needs (Hollis, 1998). It is the
idea and the image about the harmony between humanity and nature rather then the image of domination and
control of the nature by humanity so as to produce society and civilisation. Throughout European history,
the Land of Cockaygne was especially popular during medieval ages and among lower classes which sought to
relieve the drudgery of their everyday lives “through the pure satisfaction of sensual pleasures”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Arcadia, on the other hand, originated in ancient Greece and was revived by Renaissance
humanists that were “seeking to restrain the selfish tendencies of the rich and powerful classes”
(Hollis, 1998:14). Its modern version are today’s ecological, New-Age and anti-globalisation movements.

Conclusion
Poverty is not a necessary evil but the result of how we perceive the world and act within it. Poverty is
continuing because the poor are truly silenced, that is, alternatives that incorporate local knowledge,
experiences, desires and worldviews of the poor are invisible in the mainstream discourses. Writing and
reading about poverty is a luxury in itself, a luxury that is beyond the means of the poor. In addition,
the official discourse rarely allows for a discussion about the ways in which we, the affluent of the
world, are complicit in creation and perpetuation of poverty. Or in which ways spiritual poverty -“a
psychological state, generally among the affluent, expressed as a constant hunger for more material things;
a sense of alienation, loneliness, and spiritual emptiness” (Bjoness, 2001) – is complicit in creating
poverty.

But the main problem with mainstream discourse, as well as both the “left” and the “right” worldviews, is
that poverty is described in terms that it becomes unthinkable to imagine poverty-free futures. Together
with the focus on the overwhelming nature of current poverty this lack of imagination makes us powerless
to act today, one step at the time. But for this to happen, we do not need to travel far and wide, nor do
we need to carry with us the influence of political power and huge wealth. We can address destitution
amongst ourselves, listen to those amongst us who are not allowed to speak, and help them carry their
imagination into a poverty-free future. A future in which every person will have an easy access to at least
one delicious yogurt a day.

Ivana Milojevic is currently completing her doctorate at the School of Education, The University of
Queensland. Born and raised in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, she now resides in Mooloolaba, Australia. Some of her
other articles are available at www.metafuture.com You can email her at: ivanam@mailbox.uq.edu.au

71, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence. Fricker, A. (2000).
“Poverty Amidst Plenty: a role for Causal Layered Analysis”, paper presented at DEVNET Conference on
Poverty, Prosperity, Progress, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2000.

Gately, D. (1995). “Comprehensive Projections Model Predicts Future Hunger Hot Spots”
(reports on the study released by the International Food Policy Research Institute on malnutrition
and lack of food security), www.ifpri.cgiar.org Hanmer, L. (2000). “Will Growth Halve Global Poverty
by 2015?”, www.odi.org.uk

Hollis, D. W. (1998). The ABC-CLIO World History Companion to Utopian Movements. ABC-CLIO,
Santa Barbara, CA.

Inayatullah, S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis.” Futures 30(8): 815-829.
Narayan, D. (2000). Can Anyone Hear Us?, Published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank,
Oxford.

Udayakumar, S.P. (1995). “The futures of the poor.” Futures 27(3): 339-353.
Walker, R. and Park, J.(1998). “Unpicking poverty”, in C. Oppenheim,
An Inclusive Society: Strategies for Tackling Poverty, Institute for Public
Policy, London.

The Failure of Economism

The worldview that Truman so successfully articulated has been termed economism by the German author and green activist Wolfgang Sachs. According to this worldview, a country’s level of civilization is based on its ability to produce material goods–that is, to increase its GNP. To the society’s in the South, who had, for centuries, advanced a more or less sustainable agricultural economy and advanced some of the world’s most sophisticated cultures, this model appeared to have little meaning. Yet, according to the Truman doctrine, these Southern countries were from now on to be recognized as poor, struggling nations, whose main goal was to copy the North by climbing to the top of the ladder of material progress.

Thus economic values superseded all other societal values. According to Sachs, a society no longer had an economy, society simply was the economy. However, this materialistic and one-dimensional ethos was not always embraced by the countries of the South. For them, society included a tapestry of functions, ideals, modes of knowing and cultural legacies that were often diametrically opposed to a society driven by the streamlined dictates of maximum economic output.

Consequently, over the past 40 years, the North’s development strategies have caused tremendous cultural upheaval. Thousands of local or indigenous subsistence cultures have been decimated during the forced process of joining the global race toward economism. However, the gap between the so-called underdeveloped and developed countries has not been closed. To the contrary, it has widened. In the process, millions of people have become uprooted from their local environment to join the poor day laborers or unemployed struggling to eke out a living in dilapidated and burgeoning shanty-towns from Mexico City to Calcutta. In short, modern development practices have been, for the most part, detrimental to both local economies and local cultures.

Economic Development and the Destruction of the Environment

The myth that the global economy can continue along the path it has been following since Truman’s speech in 1949 stems in part from the narrow worldview of economism. According to the business weeklies and forecasts by economists, the world’s economy is relatively healthy and long term economic growth prospects are promising. That is, relatively healthy for those countries with an advanced industrial or post-industrial economy, fueled, in part, by cheap labor and raw materials from the South.

In Africa and Asia, for example, the economic prospects for most people are not promising. But more to the point, when it comes to relate economic demand levels to the health of the natural world, economic planners are at a loss. In fact, economic planning, guided as it is by economic indicators and basing its future predictions on past performances, have worried little about its impact or relation to the environment. Economism, in other words, often do not see the intricate relationship between economic output and its effect on the global ecosystem.

This shortsightedness has had disastrous environmental consequences with often equally calamitous consequences to people, their culture and livelihood.

Five Reasons Why Development Has Not Eradicated Poverty

The dominant neo-liberal development model has also failed to deliver its promise of eradicating poverty in the world. Here is a summary of the the five main reasons:

1. It has failed to bring economic equity. Economists Herman Daly and John Cobb maintain that development itself contributes directly to the growth of global poverty: “On the whole,…development policies in the Third world have made many landless, filled the vast slums surrounding Third World cities, and added to the problem of hunger.”

2. It has failed to integrate economic and ecological concerns. Too often we are consuming and destroying our biosystems instead of living in harmony with them. More to the point, the materially rich Northern countries extract natural resources from the biologically rich Southern hemisphere, thereby causing both economic and environmental breakdown in the so-called Third World.

3. It has failed to protect local cultures and communities. Multinational companies generally do not ask the local people for permission to profit from its extraction of resources from an area. A typical example is the Choco region of Ecuador were oil and other natural resource companies have built a destructive network of roads, colonized and destroyed half of the country’s rainforest, and devastated the lives of thousands of native peoples.

4. It has failed to establish a global, human security policy, to bring about human rights, peace and justice. According to Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute: “A human security policy [must] include…redistribution of wealth, debt relief, job creation, technology development , more democratic and accountable governance, and the strengthening of civil society.”

5. It has failed to provide depth of meaning. Official development policies has expanded the money economy ever more deeply into every sphere of human life. The increasing hunger for more material goods and profits has created a world of inequity, but also an impoverished global culture lacking in deep, human and spiritual values.

Toward Sustainable Economics

The most basic tenets of free market capitalism or economic liberalism, which is the predominant economic model today, can, according to author David C. Korten, be described as follows:

–Sustained economic growth, measured by Gross National Product, is the foundation of human progress and essential to alleviate poverty

–Free markets are the most efficient and socially optimal way to allocate resources

–Economic globalization–the free flow of goods, irrespective of national borders, in an increasingly integrated world market–is beneficial for all

–Local economies should abandon goals of self-sufficiency and instead attract outside investors in order to become internationally competitive

” These tenets,” according to Korten, “have become so deeply embedded within our institutions and popular culture that they are accepted by most people without question… To question them openly has become virtual heresy and invokes the risk of professional censure and career damage in most institutions of business, government, and academia.”

Moreover, the philosophical underpinnings upon which economic liberalism rests are rarely questioned. Briefly, according to Korten, these are: 1) humans are motivated by self-interest; 2) the action that yields the most profit is the most beneficial to individual and society; 3) competition is more beneficial than cooperation; 4) human progress is best measured in consumption, i.e…. those who consume the most contribute more to progress.

” The moral perversity of economic liberalism,” according to Korten, “is perhaps most evident in what it views as economic success in a world in which more than a billion people live in absolute deprivation, go to bed hungry each night, and live without the minimum of adequate shelter and clothing.”

This moral perversity is even more appalling in light of the
mounting evidence that the recent years increase in poverty and deprivation is a direct result of economic liberalism’s monopolistic domination of the Third World

The Need For New Models of Development

Central to the question of how to eradicate poverty is the question of which type of development is best suited for the task. According to the dominant model of development that arose during the post-War era, economic growth is seen as the best way to eradicate poverty. Furthermore, economic growth is best promoted by privatizing community assets, deregulating markets, removing barriers to free-trade and investment, and protecting intellectual property rights.

However, this model, as promoted by the so-called developed nations, has so far failed to eradicate economic inequality, human oppression, environmental imbalance, and the destruction of local cultures. In other words, development has failed to curb the underlying causes of global poverty. Consequently, new development models have arisen as alternatives to the dominant model. These new models are often referred to as “sustainable development.”

Sustainable Development

The sustainable development paradigm was first defined by the UN’s Brundtland report as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Development is defined as “a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

Said another way, sustainable development involves balancing the environmental demands of human economic activities with the regenerative capacity of earth’s eco-systems. While sustainable development calls for substantial reforms in the functioning of the global economy, it does so–in most of its variants–within the context of the neo-liberal, free-market economy dominated by transnational corporations, the IMF and the World Bank.

Alternative Development Models

These development models–which also are referred to as sustainable–call into question some of the core institutions and ideological foundations of the world economy, such as growth, centralized economies, unprotected local markets, private domination of resources, and material increase as the sole measure of progress.

Post-development–holds the view that development theory is riddled with the fundamentally flawed assumptions of Western, industrialized civilization. The discourse of development theory must be abandoned, and new models must be formulated, informed by the traditions of indigenous peoples, spiritual values, and authentic regional cultures. Post-development supports the critique that, as expressed by Vandana Shiva, “development devalued people by declaring them underdeveloped.”

Thus, development promotes a perception of “the Other,”–in this case, the global poor–instead of asserting humanity’s inherent unity.

Sustainable society–holds the view that sustainable development as held by the Brundtland Report is inherently unsustainable, as it calls for dramatic growth in the world economy in order to eliminate poverty. Gowth on such a scale, according to founders Justin Lowe and David Brower of Earth Island Institute, would be “attainable only with cataclysmic costs to the Earth and the future.”

Grass-roots development–a term coined by the New Internationalist magazine to signify a decentralist approach to sustainable development in which individuals and local communities take increasing control over their economic and social destinies, with a corresponding elimination of the influence of big business and, for the most part, big governments. This view has close affinities with the agenda of the bio-regionalists, who would add the need for local control over culture as well.

People-centered development–popularized by David C. Korten of the People-Centered Development Forum. Attempts to advance the emergence of “an awakening civil society,” particularly as it is seeking expression by progressive citizens organizations. Suggests that truly sustainable development can only occur where culture and the institutions of civil society are strong, local communities exercise economic self-determination, ecological systems remain vital, and societies are just and economies equitable.

Natural Capitalism–proposed by Paul Hawken. Advocates socially responsible business practices in order to reverse global environmental and social degradation. This “double bottom line approach” to economics holds that commercial activity should generate both financial and social dividends. Economic reform will occur by holding corporations responsible for their actions through green taxes and external cost accountability. The task of this “capitalism with a green face” is to create new industrial and market designs that are “self-actuating as opposed to regulated or morally mandated.”

Balanced Development–proposed by social theorist Sohail Inayatullah, and others, attempts to move away from the language of development theory by using the ideas of P. R. Sarkar and his PROUT theory (Progressive Utilization Theory). PROUT calls for a dynamically balanced use of physical, mental and spiritual resources for the development of individual and society, and within the context of a strong ecological ethic. Development is not only balanced and dynamic, but it is progressive; progress being conceptualized as movement toward spiritual enlightenment.

Central to PROUT’s vision of a more balanced society are decentralized economics, economic democracy, cooperative enterprises, self-sufficiency, and both a minimum and maximum income.

Emerging from these alternative models of development is the need for a comprehensive theory of development, one which must address, in integrated fashion, economy, ecology, society, and spirituality. To establish this new concept of development in practice, however, will require a fifth element–the political.

All these five elements are today to be found in the dialog on sustainability and development. But how can they be brought together in an integral fashion? Through the large scale integration of political action with the creation of model community-based socio-economic development projects. These locally-based, small scale model development projects can spearhead a development movent that can counter the top-down planning characterized by today’s global economy. Nothing less, it appears, will suffice if we are to replace the world-wide dichotomy of affluence and poverty with a more equitable, humane, and ecological economy.

Economics As If All Living Beings Mattered

What will be the underlying values of the new economy? David C. Korten claims that “a sustainable society needs a spiritual foundation. Why? Because spirituality, not materialism, is the ultimate foundation of life. Economic liberalism has partly failed, he claims, because of its denial of the human quest for inner meaning and meaningful relations. The late British economist E. F. Schumacher concurs. In his seminal book, Small is Beautiful, he warned against the unsustainable nature of capitalism’s rampant materialism:

“Economy as the content of life is a deadly illness, because infinite growth does not fit into a finite world. That economy should not be the content of life, has been told to mankind by all its teachers; that it cannot be, is evident today… If the spiritual value of inner man is neglected, then selfishness, like capitalism, fits the orientation better than a system of love for one’s fellow beings.”

Here Schumacher points out a central dogma in current economic thinking: that it is possible, even desirable, to fulfill infinite human longings with finite things. This materialist philosophy forms the underlying economic doctrine of today’s market capitalism, of our system of unlimited control over productive property. Put bluntly, it supports the dictum that selfishness and greed are good, even necessary fuels for the capitalist engine of growth.

This paradoxical philosophy has resulted in a market system in which land, food, and intellectual ideas are bought and sold without restrictions. As we have seen above, this “free market system” has created an economy of disparity, of unequal buying power, and of a deep schism between rich and poor. More specifically, this philosophy grants the concept of “the divine right of kings” to corporations. In other words, that corporate owners are ultimately only responsible to themselves and their shareholders, not to their employees, nor to the environment, nor to the human community at large.

Finally, this philosophy grants that unlimited accumulation of wealth is both positive and a basic human right.

Today it is widely accepted that unlimited exploitation of the globe’s finite natural resources is unsustainable. There is little support, however, for the idea that an economy based on unlimited accumulation of wealth, or unlimited control over private property, may be the direct cause of today’s economic and environmental problems.
Nevertheless, the accelerated accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, has caused both economic disparity and environmental degradation. In short, while there has been an increase in the unbridled accumulation of wealth–which has resulted in an increase in GNP and per capita income, particularly in the Northern countries–there has also been an increase in the spread of poverty–both in the North, and, particularly, in the South.

As long as the basic tenet of unlimited hoarding of wealth remains fundamental to our economy, economic disparity and environmental degradation will continue. We will continue to accept as fair and inevitable that economic growth creates concentration of wealth, on the one hand, and unemployment, displacement of people and poverty, on the other. Without a fundamental rethinking of the current economic dogma of private property rights as an absolute right above all other values, and that human progress is best measured as increased material consumption, we cannot create an environmentally sustainable and poverty-free society.

Cosmic Inheritance

Economist E. F. Schumacher wrote that “no system or machinery or economic doctrine or theory stands on its own two feet: it is variably built on a metaphysical foundation, that is to say, upon our basic outlook on life, its meaning and its purpose.” The “metaphysical foundation” of economic liberalism is motivated by self-interest, individual property rights, and the fulfillment of our material or economic needs.

What, then, should be the basic outlook on life of the new economy? The spiritual conception of wealth, as described by Sarkar, expresses a common sentiment among many alternative development thinkers: “This universe is created in the imagination of the Supreme Entity, so the ownership of this universe does not belong to any particular individual; everything is the patrimony of us all. Every living being can utilize their rightful share of this property…This whole animate world is a large joint family in which nature has not assigned any property to any particular individual.”

Sarkar termed this concept of wealth “cosmic inheritance,” and made clear its implications for economic theory: ” The system of individual ownership cannot be accepted as absolute, hence [economic liberalism] too cannot be supported.” With a spiritual worldview as the basis for a new economy, the psychology of greed and selfishness is replaced with the psychology of collective welfare and cooperation.

Sustainable Spirituality

If the purpose of development–as presently conceived–is to increase material amenities, then sustainable development will certainly help us to continue to consume, but it will not help us attain inner fulfillment. Therefore, sustainable spirituality–the idea that true progress is movement toward inner fulfillment, toward self-realization– must be embraced by the sustainable development program. Spiritual progress subsumes material development, as people cannot pursue spiritual growth without adequate basic necessities such as employment, food, shelter, education, and medical care. So, the purpose of development, guided by a sense of spiritual progress, is to help us pursue personal and social pursuits that foster inner growth and communion with people and nature. Activities such as sports, art, music, theater, yoga, meditation, hiking, etc., do not simply fill our lives with more material things, instead they fill our lives with enjoyment, purpose and meaning.

Neo-humanism

Reverence for nature, for all non-human creatures, is a natural extension of such concepts as cosmic inheritance and spiritual progress. “Our universe,” according to Sarkar, “is not only the universe of humans, but the universe of all; it is for all created entities.” Economic activity, therefore, must take into account the existential rights of other species. This outlook is an integral aspect of what Sarkar terms neo-humanism–the view that expands humanism to include a common, unified consciousness behind the diversity of nature. This outlook, this spiritual ethic, is growing amongst many seeking an alternative to the disparities of the global economy.

According to activist Helena Nordberg-Hodge, “we are talking about a spiritual awakening that comes form making a connection to others and to nature. This requires us to see the world within us, to experience more consciously the great interdependent web of life, of which we ourselves are among the strands.” Thus, neo-humanism–in essence a fusion of spirituality and humanist rationality–is based on principles of love and respect for all beings, sharing, cooperation and spiritual progress. A stark contrast to economic liberalism’s idea that the most conspicuous human motives are self-interest, competition and hoarding of wealth.