I'm Not an Economist But....
I originally posted about a moral economy, and argued that we must put a noneconomic value on human life to become a better society. I argued that poor people must be given a voice in international economics; although they may not understand how the system works (I sure don’t), they understand the experiences of being poor far more than those making the economic decisions. There essentially is a form of double-consciousness for socioeconomic classes. Although poor people may not know the ins and outs of the economic system, I’m pretty sure most of them are aware that the system is working against them. The thing is, the “Paradigm in Nexus” article made me feel pretty disappointed. It showed all these different ways that the World Bank tried to address poverty, but the issue still persists. Even if some change has occurred over time, I’m not sure if I would necessarily call it a success of the World Bank.
Here’s the fun plot twist for this week: I posted this whole blog post but you couldn’t read it. For some reason, my blog post looked like the Mueller report. I took this as a sign from the blog gods that I should not post what I had written. It gave me a chance to think a little bit longer about the idea and I decided upon another perspective about the economy (because I have a feeling we all support alleviating poverty and being kind human beings). The central focus of the economy should not be growth, but survival.
Because of the articles we have read and the discussions we have had, we have focused on poverty. Rightly so, as no one deserves to live in such conditions. Yet, my thoughts wander to the question of how long this will last. The IPCC has given us about 10 years to drastically cut carbon emissions before we face irreversible climate change. If we don’t even know how long humanity will survive, why should we focus on growth? Moreover, we have acknowledged that climate change will exacerbate the divide between the classes. Should we not then consider an economic system that kills two birds with one stone?
A circular economy is a system that aims to eliminate waste. Instead of the traditional linear economy that takes natural resources, makes the product for consumption, and dumps waste, a circular economy takes a product or material that already exists, creates something from it, and reuses or repairs the product when it’s no longer useful. A circular economy can reduce input costs and create new industrial sectors. Transitioning to a circular economy will likely be a long, difficult, and possibly costly process, so we would have to take a cost-benefit analysis. The feasibility and practicality of a circular economy is still being debated, so I’ll leave that up to the real economists.
My main point is that the focus of the economy should not be growth, unless growth is necessary. Economics play a major role in politics and society- poor countries, as the reading for this week suggests, can not fully express themselves because of their lack of wealth. Economics should attempt to address political and social issues. One of the most pressing issues is climate change (hence, the circular economy). Another issue is women’s rights (think initiatives to promote women in business). And of course, poverty is another issue. The idea that overall economic growth will magically fix everyone’s issues makes no sense, especially given the fact that the people facing the brunt of economic issues are not involved in making international economic decisions.
Emilie, I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. I am particularly interested in the idea of poor people not having a voice when it comes to international economics and decision-making on issues that personally affect them. As you propose a circular economy instead of the traditional, growth-based economy, how can a circular economy solve for the lack of representation of poor people in the international economic decision-making process?
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it (and bear with me, this is about to get very Marxist), the people most involved in the production process are the working and lower classes- I'm thinking sweatshops in Southeast Asia. Textiles are a great example of where the circular economy could help. Instead of wasting fabric and materials, textile companies could use it for other products, which would actually save them money. think that workers could be involved in the process of determining what is useful and what is not useful. Of course, this is just one way to encourage other voices in the economy. Overall, I think there should be a more systematic way to get poor people and countries involved in the economy.
DeleteEmilie- I was really interested in your post and I completely agree that economics should focus on the inclusion of women. In my blog post, I wrote about how growth is positive and can be incorporated into morality. The main example I gave was that the greatest thing we could do for economic growth was to work to fully include women in the global economy. Because women’s work, if they have any, is often a part of informal economic systems, especially in the developing world, their work doesn’t often get included in the global economy. By working to include women in the larger global economy, and getting 51% of the population to the same participation as men, the economic growth would be massive. I was wondering how you saw women’s economic empowerment fitting into the circular economy you talked about?
ReplyDelete