I heard an interesting one today: It concerned the need for more "economic literacy" across the public sector. Some types of agencies - Ministries of Finance, Treasuries, Departments of Trade and Industry, etc - are already economically literate, by which I mean that they understand that resources should be used in a "productive" (read: profit-making) manner.
By contrast, other types of agencies - such as environmental protection agencies, departments of conservation, etc - base their priorities on other values, such as conservation or biodiversity. They would argue that land and resources should be preserved due to the fact that they bear irreparable complexity and unique forms of life. This is a value judgment that places long-run sustainability above immediate human needs.
An organization that was "economically literate" might look at that tract of land (say, the US national parks) and see the potential for using it in more productive or profitable ways - mining, condo construction, farming, and smokestacks. This is also a value judgment - it places resource extraction and private profit above the independent existence of our biological commons.
There is a legitimate debate to be had between these two hierarchies of value. However, the above phrasing - that the conservation agency needs more "economic literacy" - tries to smuggle in a value judgment in the guise of a narrow technical perspective.
This is a very revealing phrase! In effect, it indicts the economics profession as a whole by implying that to be "literate" in economics, you must have already adopted a certain set of values. Mainstream economics talks about some things - growth, profit, productivity, inflation, efficiency, etc - while ignoring a number of crucially important issues - long-run sustainability, biodiversity, limits to growth, distribution and inequality, human rights, etc. The things that aren't discussed are assumed to be meaningless nullities. Unfortunately, it's dangerous to ignore them.
To put it in other terms: Karori Wildlife Sanctuary. A cost-benefit analysis of the pest-proof fence around it would have concluded that the expense couldn't be justified by any payoff. But the Sanctuary has immeasurably enriched Wellington by creating an island in which native birds and tuatara can breed safely. This wealth couldn't have been described by economics, as you can't put a dollar value on tui-song on the walk to work.
There is one other aspect of this "economic literacy" comment that interests me. While we might scoff at the idea that we should all be "ecologically literate", it's not considered absurd to advocate universal "economic literacy". In short, mainstream economics (and its implicit value-structure and blind spots) is seen as a viable prism through which to view all human/ecological decisions.
Some time ago, Frederic Jameson diagnosed the end of the "master narrative", and the breakdown of discourse into contending sub-disciplines. Comments like this make me wonder whether that's the case, or whether mainstream economics has in fact been successful in establishing hegemony over our thought.
09 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
But comments--and thoughts--like yours seems to suggest the opposite.
I like this one.
An example of an earlier hegemonic discourse: Catholicism. People questioned it, but they were still ultimately talking about it.
I mean to say: I don't think mainstream economics has established hegemony over our thought.
Does true hegemony entail being able to talk about it? Doesn't that indicate some wisp of an outside perspective, or the ability to conceive of one? Unlike, say, dimensionality--we think of three, we're unable (most of us) to question this in any meaningful way because we can't consider thinking outside of space and time.
Post a Comment