In 1844, Mill criticized a too-narrow and too-widely applied definition of
political economy: “Political Economy considers mankind as occupied solely in
acquiring and consuming wealth,” and it would seek to explain all realms of
societies, even “though many of them are really the result of a plurality of motives.”
He went on to say that “with respect to those parts of human conduct of which
wealth is not even the principal object, to these Political Economy does not pretend
that its conclusions are applicable” (Mill 1844, Essay V. V.38). I am sure he would
be rather surprised by how matter-of-factly the public discourse today speaks of the
culture economy, the wellness economy, the health economy, or the nursing
economy.
So I hoped to show that this overstretched application of the mainstream economics mind-set has produced framings and frameworks of reference that limit
rather than expand creativity, innovation, caring, resilience, and even happiness.
There are a lot of things about human beings and nature that are much better
experienced if economic mind-sets are shed and much better captured with
non-quantified variables. So while recent amendments to economic models might
improve the predictive capacity of econometrics, their universal application to
everything and everyone in this world cannot continue. Neurosciences, psychology,
and sociology show the detrimental effects of living with a quantifying cost–benefit
mind-set for both individual well-being and that of societies.
Empirical economics like the work of Elinor Ostrom has been dam-breaking in
showing that the assumptions of rational choice models, for example, are fit for
highly competitive markets for private goods but not for public goods or common
pool resources like most of our ecological systems—or for a financial system
serving the real economy. Ostrom also pointed out how the political-institutional
de- and re-regulations of the last four decades in particular have been influenced by
the mainstream model and its Homo economicus assumptions. Such ongoing
‘deregulation’ has done its very best to reregulate societies into resembling
Polanyi’s stark utopia of the market system, a world composed solely of highly
competitive markets for private goods. But this is not proof of the rational choice
model’s validity. On the contrary: the sustainable development agenda is proof and
evidence of the problems that this is causing, and urges us to stop this totalitarian
approach to running the world.
Transforming a system in full operation without risking its collapse is, of course,
a dire task and I am not saying that the structural path dependencies behind growth
economies can simply be thought away. Too rapid or too sudden interference with
interdependent value chains and relationships would have devastating effects. But I
am saying that the cultural and political dominance of a worldview and paradigm
that has led us to building these institutions can and needs to be quickly and
radically challenged. It obfuscates or even justifies utterly unsustainable behavior
and developments while being void of any meaningful insight about the quality of
good lives for all, led in harmony with nature.
What I am therefore saying is that the normative underpinnings and impacts of
predominant science and political narratives need to be put firmly on the table. They
are the ideas that shape future realities. In her 1978 book The Life of the Mind,
164
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations
political economy: “Political Economy considers mankind as occupied solely in
acquiring and consuming wealth,” and it would seek to explain all realms of
societies, even “though many of them are really the result of a plurality of motives.”
He went on to say that “with respect to those parts of human conduct of which
wealth is not even the principal object, to these Political Economy does not pretend
that its conclusions are applicable” (Mill 1844, Essay V. V.38). I am sure he would
be rather surprised by how matter-of-factly the public discourse today speaks of the
culture economy, the wellness economy, the health economy, or the nursing
economy.
So I hoped to show that this overstretched application of the mainstream economics mind-set has produced framings and frameworks of reference that limit
rather than expand creativity, innovation, caring, resilience, and even happiness.
There are a lot of things about human beings and nature that are much better
experienced if economic mind-sets are shed and much better captured with
non-quantified variables. So while recent amendments to economic models might
improve the predictive capacity of econometrics, their universal application to
everything and everyone in this world cannot continue. Neurosciences, psychology,
and sociology show the detrimental effects of living with a quantifying cost–benefit
mind-set for both individual well-being and that of societies.
Empirical economics like the work of Elinor Ostrom has been dam-breaking in
showing that the assumptions of rational choice models, for example, are fit for
highly competitive markets for private goods but not for public goods or common
pool resources like most of our ecological systems—or for a financial system
serving the real economy. Ostrom also pointed out how the political-institutional
de- and re-regulations of the last four decades in particular have been influenced by
the mainstream model and its Homo economicus assumptions. Such ongoing
‘deregulation’ has done its very best to reregulate societies into resembling
Polanyi’s stark utopia of the market system, a world composed solely of highly
competitive markets for private goods. But this is not proof of the rational choice
model’s validity. On the contrary: the sustainable development agenda is proof and
evidence of the problems that this is causing, and urges us to stop this totalitarian
approach to running the world.
Transforming a system in full operation without risking its collapse is, of course,
a dire task and I am not saying that the structural path dependencies behind growth
economies can simply be thought away. Too rapid or too sudden interference with
interdependent value chains and relationships would have devastating effects. But I
am saying that the cultural and political dominance of a worldview and paradigm
that has led us to building these institutions can and needs to be quickly and
radically challenged. It obfuscates or even justifies utterly unsustainable behavior
and developments while being void of any meaningful insight about the quality of
good lives for all, led in harmony with nature.
What I am therefore saying is that the normative underpinnings and impacts of
predominant science and political narratives need to be put firmly on the table. They
are the ideas that shape future realities. In her 1978 book The Life of the Mind,
164
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations