The Kākā
Election 2023: Big on marketing, short on vision
In a guest post, Catherine Knight continues the conversation about where the election debate falls short by focusing on 'Homo Economicus' instead of the 'Economics of Sufficiency'
In less than two weeks, our country’s direction for at least the next three years will be decided. Given the scale of the challenges facing us both in Aotearoa New Zealand and globally – among them the cost of living crisis, growing inequity, an under-resourced health sector and the spectre of catastrophic climate change – it might be expected that our political leaders would be grappling with some of these deep systemic issues.
But that is not how politics works these days.
As Daryl McLauchlan wrote recently, gone is the values-based policy-making of the past – it is today all about selling the most ‘product’, the currency being votes on election day.
Out roll the surveys, the focus groups, the incessant polls – all to determine what policy will garner the most support from would-be voters. It is an approach indistinguishable from corporate marketing. As well as finding the right ‘product’ people want (or think they want), to be successful a political party needs to hit on the right slogans, find the right ‘tone’, and use the right colours and imagery for their target voter. Long-term systems thinking, values or ethics have no place in such a marketing campaign.
And it is a marketing campaign largely based on the assumption that the voter is Homo Economicus. That is, a person who makes decisions based solely on a rational calculation of benefits and costs, exclusively guided by self-interest, or at its extreme, greed. Indeed this is what modern economics is built on: the blind pursuit of more wealth at a personal, household and national level – whatever the social or environmental costs.
It is no coincidence that this characterisation of humans has coincided with the rise of unbridled capitalism. It is what big corporates feed on to generate profit and further perpetuate their influence on our lives, our decision-making and our perception of ourselves.
Marketing is all about persuading us that if we buy the latest version of this, the bigger version of that, or – in the latest sales gimmick – the ‘greener’ version of whatever, we will be happier, more successful, find life more convenient, or even feel morally superior to others.
It is all about improving one’s position relative to others. That is the central goal in a consumption-oriented economy, in which our role is as consumer not citizen.
But what if this assumption that the human is Homo Economicus, originally conceived by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century political economist, is incorrect?
Ecological economist Tim Jackson explains how this thinking came about through a cross-contamination between science and economics.
This characterisation of the human as a self-interested individual is often attributed to Darwin’s theory of evolution – the survival of the fittest. But as it turns out, in developing this theory Darwin was strongly influenced by the political economist Thomas Malthus, who in his famous essay on population, wrote on the constant struggle for survival throughout the natural world. Malthus’ thinking was in turn influenced by his political beliefs, which was that suffering in society was inevitable so there was little point in offering support to the poor or vulnerable.
But economists Tim Jackson, Kate Raworth and other scholars point out that human history is littered with examples of cooperation, collaboration and care, and that is our natural disposition – not competition and the callous pursuit of self-interest. In fact, in many traditional communities, people simply would not have survived if it were not for deeply rooted, socially structured cooperation.
And interestingly, a recent poll offers glimmerings that these ‘renegade’ economists are right.
The policy that most obviously appeals to a modern human’s self-interest are tax cuts. Yet a One News Verian Poll last week found that only 16% of respondents said they would definitely be influenced by tax cuts, while 27% said that they ‘probably will’. Fifty percent responded that they ‘probably won’t’ or ‘definitely won’t’. What is this telling us?
Well, maybe it shows that New Zealanders do care about the world beyond their own economic status (though we will never know because there is no poll for this), contrary to politicians’ apparent view that most of us are inherently self-interested, and uncaring about the wellbeing of society as a whole, future generations or the plight of the planet.
My sense is that most New Zealanders, if supported to consider and discuss the evidence of the planetary predicament and our country’s vulnerability to the shocks that are sure to come, would likely respond that we need to fundamentally reassess the way we live and what we prioritise in our economy to put wellbeing rather than the blind pursuit of perpetual growth at its centre. (And if the new government was courageous enough to establish a series of citizens’ assemblies to explore durable solutions to these deep, systemic issues, we would to find out.)
If only we had political leaders with the foresight and ability to communicate a long-term vision, New Zealanders would also see that an economy designed around wellbeing rather than the perpetual pursuit of growth would not be a sacrifice, but a better place to bring up children, enjoy youth or grow old.
And yes, these politicians do exist – take Robert Kennedy for example, who in his presidential campaign of 1968 (cut short by his assassination) urged for the abandonment of growth as a measure of economic success, and today, Ireland’s president Michael D. Higgins who has repeatedly condemned the obsession with economic growth and urged for the rebalancing of economy, ecology and ethics.
But New Zealanders are not being given the chance to contemplate an alternative future because no one in any position of influence is talking about it. Our politicians are too pre-occupied with their desperate appeals to Homo Economicus.
It seems it has not occurred to them that this is a figment of economic theory and in fact most New Zealanders – like all humans – yearn for a sense of belonging, connection and love. Because, you see, it is hard to sell these things. For this, you would need farsighted political leaders who have vision, who recognise the importance of an economy that centres on sufficiency and wellbeing, and which would allow these inherent human attributes to flourish once again.
Tax cuts on the other hand… that’s an easy sell.
Dr Catherine Knight is an award-winning writer, environmental historian and a policy practitioner currently working in regional government. She is an Honorary Research Associate at the School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, and has published a number of books, including Beyond Manapouri: 50 years of environmental politics in New Zealand (Canterbury University Press).
 | A guest post by
|
No comments:
Post a Comment