Buddhist Economics
I remember coming across the term “Buddhist economics” while I was reading Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful for the dissertation component of my MA. I didn’t really think too much about the concept at the time as I was scouring for more specific information relating to my research but always meant to come back to the idea and try to learn more. I’ve always been dissatisfied with standard economics (and by that I mean the neoclassical kind of which many profess that “there is no alternative”) and I’ve been interested in Buddhism as a religion/philosophy for many years – so why has it taken me so long to find out what Buddhist economics actually is? Buddhism and economics are not two areas of study you may traditionally think of going together. Buddhism is traditionally known for being about minimalism and well-being whereas Western economies are extremely centred around the need for consumption and profit maximisation which is rather, well, un-Buddhist. However, the word economics has in some cases lost its true meaning and become synonymous with one type of economics, the neoclassical model, and needless to say there are many many other forms of economic organisation out there to choose from. To clear things up, the word “economics” refers to:
The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
This allows for an extremely broad range of interpretations of what the aims of economics are and how these aims are achieved. Buddhists believe that the idea of the individual is one that is false and that instead there is only an ever-changing bundle of impersonal processes and perceptions – the separation of the individual from everything else is thought to be the main cause of discontent and unhappiness. A failure to recognise that all are interlinked rather than independent of each other leads to selfish desires that cannot be satisfied as the perceived individual forms attachments to fundamentally impersonal and unstable material objects. They do not state that all consumption is wrong for a life without any kind of consumption would be a very short one – we all need basics such as food, shelter and clothing – but they distinguish between right and wrong consumption. Right consumption is that which satisfies well-being whereas wrong consumption is all that which is consumed for obtaining pleasing sensations and for the purpose of ego-gratification. The basis of Buddhist ideas on production and consumption is one based upon moderation. Buddhist economics differs from neoclassical economics in that the ultimate goals of consumption and production are to maximise well-being and fulfil social and environmental goals rather than maximise profit and individual returns.
The difference in goals between these two schools of economic thought is what makes Buddhist economics an alternative to be considered in today’s economy. Concepts regarding social and environmental targets are important to any society – very few people (if any) would want the field out the back of their house turned into an opencast coal mine or for their neighbourhood to be overrun with arsonists and muggers but how does this fit into a social structure which has different priorities – surely a model that prioritises these would be more beneficial? Perhaps Buddhist economics will develop as an ideal among some communities and the idea would most likely be welcome to many Community Interest Companies (CICs), charities and community groups. Will it catch on at the top with governments and “big business”? Probably not but there’s always hope so long as the idea thrives at the community level within which most of the population inhabits.
Free podcasts: Buddhist Economics by The Open University
Concepts & Ideas 