born in 2009, continued economic progress will mean that over the course of their
lives, they can expect to consume thirty-eight times more material goods than their
grandparents” (Asia Society 2012). Since 2010, the WEF’s Global Risk Reports
have, however, put water and food supply crises and rising greenhouse gas emissions among the top ten global risks of the next ten years. So while Chinese kids
might keep on amassing financial capital, they could never transform it into 38
times more material goods.
Meanwhile, applying an exchange value or cost–benefit lens in all relations does
affect human value judgments and our willingness to help, relate and feel connected
to others and nature. One of the ongoing examples here is the cooptation of the idea
of a ‘Sharing Economy’ by capitalist players. What started with the idea that people
would make their use value items available to others (couchsurfing) has been pulled
into the logics of exchange value. The mind-set of ‘what could I give to others to
enjoy—or enjoy with them jointly’ is transformed into a financialized mind-set of
‘what can I get money for from others that I did not think of before now.’ The
enabling technologies might be the same but the intent and purpose behind these
social innovations is completely different—as will be the relations emerging from it.
I therefore side with Heyman and Ariely who suggest “that compensations for
employment and effort should be considered separately for social and monetary
markets and that the level and type of compensation should be designed to fit the
defined relationship” (Heyman/Ariely 2004: 793).
In conclusion we see how a blind emphasis on exchange value in mainstream
accounting tools and standards has helped a situation to emerge in which the
financial sector does not serve the real economy anymore, but rules it. It does that at
a tremendously high cost to societies and sustainability. Of course, one might argue
that people wishing to exert power and undercut societal agreements do so without
taking the detour into mainstream economic thinking and models. But when it
comes to rationalizing one’s decisions, arguing them to the public and creating
narratives in which particular interests seem compatible with an image of public
benefit and good, they have performed a great service.
Also, the reflexive ontology presented in Chap. 2 has shown that biasing frames
and selective interpretations of situations are an unavoidable aspect of human
existence. They can be a conscious act of strategic framing or tactical misrepresentation of information. But when it comes to understanding the effect of paradigms and their shifting we talk about much deeper sociocultural transformations.
Elinor Ostrom in her 2009 Nobel Prize lecture highlights how the—of course—
purely economic Homo economicus saga has impacted the design of institutions
across the board:
Designing institutions to force entirely self-interested individuals to achieve better outcomes has been the major goal posited by policy analysts for much of the past half century.
Extensive empirical research leads me to argue that instead, a core goal of public policy
should be to facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in humans
(Ostrom 2009: 435).
3.3 How Mainstream Economics Anticipate the Future
115
lives, they can expect to consume thirty-eight times more material goods than their
grandparents” (Asia Society 2012). Since 2010, the WEF’s Global Risk Reports
have, however, put water and food supply crises and rising greenhouse gas emissions among the top ten global risks of the next ten years. So while Chinese kids
might keep on amassing financial capital, they could never transform it into 38
times more material goods.
Meanwhile, applying an exchange value or cost–benefit lens in all relations does
affect human value judgments and our willingness to help, relate and feel connected
to others and nature. One of the ongoing examples here is the cooptation of the idea
of a ‘Sharing Economy’ by capitalist players. What started with the idea that people
would make their use value items available to others (couchsurfing) has been pulled
into the logics of exchange value. The mind-set of ‘what could I give to others to
enjoy—or enjoy with them jointly’ is transformed into a financialized mind-set of
‘what can I get money for from others that I did not think of before now.’ The
enabling technologies might be the same but the intent and purpose behind these
social innovations is completely different—as will be the relations emerging from it.
I therefore side with Heyman and Ariely who suggest “that compensations for
employment and effort should be considered separately for social and monetary
markets and that the level and type of compensation should be designed to fit the
defined relationship” (Heyman/Ariely 2004: 793).
In conclusion we see how a blind emphasis on exchange value in mainstream
accounting tools and standards has helped a situation to emerge in which the
financial sector does not serve the real economy anymore, but rules it. It does that at
a tremendously high cost to societies and sustainability. Of course, one might argue
that people wishing to exert power and undercut societal agreements do so without
taking the detour into mainstream economic thinking and models. But when it
comes to rationalizing one’s decisions, arguing them to the public and creating
narratives in which particular interests seem compatible with an image of public
benefit and good, they have performed a great service.
Also, the reflexive ontology presented in Chap. 2 has shown that biasing frames
and selective interpretations of situations are an unavoidable aspect of human
existence. They can be a conscious act of strategic framing or tactical misrepresentation of information. But when it comes to understanding the effect of paradigms and their shifting we talk about much deeper sociocultural transformations.
Elinor Ostrom in her 2009 Nobel Prize lecture highlights how the—of course—
purely economic Homo economicus saga has impacted the design of institutions
across the board:
Designing institutions to force entirely self-interested individuals to achieve better outcomes has been the major goal posited by policy analysts for much of the past half century.
Extensive empirical research leads me to argue that instead, a core goal of public policy
should be to facilitate the development of institutions that bring out the best in humans
(Ostrom 2009: 435).
3.3 How Mainstream Economics Anticipate the Future
115