|
第三届世界居士佛教论坛 |
 |
THE RESURGENCE OF THE HOMO ECONOMICUS?
Paper presented by Prof. Dr. Cheah Kooi-Guan * * Dean, Graduate School, ABSTRACT Economics is a branch of social sciences. Besides economics, social sciences include sociology, anthropology, political science and psychology; each of which examines and explains one dimension of human social relationship. Economics, for example, examines the economic behavior of human beings. Economics is commonly defined as the study of how human beings address the problems of scarcity and choice, which arise from the incompatibility between wants and resources available to satisfy them. The economic model practiced in most parts of the world is essentially the Anglo-Saxon (Western) model, which can trace its roots to Adam Smith. For any individual or household, resources at their disposal are never sufficient to satisfy all the needs and wants that they have. How physical resources are utilized to satisfy human wants and the resultant economic relationships among human beings are the central questions of economics. In the Western economic model, households, corporations and nations (the three common economic agents or players) all attempt to maximize their utility through the most efficient allocation of resources at their disposal. Governments in democratic countries, for example, are assumed to allocate their resources (revenues) to maximize the wellbeing of the people who vote them to power. In the case of the individual and household, wants are satisfied through the consumption of goods and services, which are obtained through economic exchanges. In modern economic systems, such exchanges are rarely conducted through the barter system which involves direct exchange of one good for another. Modern societies adopt an intermediary for economic exchange transactions. Money becomes the medium of exchange, store of value and unit of measurement and accounts, and sometimes a standard of deferred payment. Therefore money (and other forms of wealth) becomes the primary medium through which exchanges are effected and satisfaction is obtained. What do individuals do when they face scarcity (inability to satisfy their unlimited wants)? Besides having to make choices among the available options, they would strive to, under our economic system, acquire more resources, which are then converted into various forms of wealth, chief of which is money. These additional resources would then enable them to satisfy even more of their wants. Two centuries ago, John Stuart Mill coined the term ‘Economic Man’ or ‘Homo Economicus’ to refer to an individual who desires to possess wealth, who ‘may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labour and physical self-denial with which they can be obtained.’ The founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, wrote that ‘it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’ Smith asserts, in The Wealth of Nations that there is an ‘invisible hand’, that somehow will promote an end which is no part of the individual’s intention, and yet enable the whole system to function smoothly and efficiently. The premise underlying the Western economic system is thus the selfish desire to satisfy one’s own wants, and yet in the process, there would be some market forces (the invisible hand) that will ensure that the system somehow functions. As a result, we witness the emergence of a phenomenon, a social product known as the ‘economic man’ or Homo Economicus. Over time, this phenomenon evolves into a culture within the capitalist system that more than condones such selfish behavior. The laissez faire economic system thus promulgates the importance of money and wealth. This has led to people’s obsession with wealth, some to the extent of becoming slaves of money. Pursuit of wealth is being regarded the paramount goal of living. Wealthy people are held as role models that are to be emulated. The Homo Economicus’ behavior is primarily motivated by economic considerations that are self-serving. Wealth is private good, which in economics is characterized by two properties: exclusiveness and rivalry. A wealthy man’s private garden is exclusive in that others may not be allowed to enter it. His success in purchasing the garden deprives another interested buyer of the opportunity to own it (rivalry or competition). In many ways therefore, maximizing one’s own interests is competitive, where one man’s gain is another’s loss. Economic decisions and actions that are self-serving, and so long as not illegal, may therefore be undertaken. In the blind pursuit of wealth to serve self-interests, people resort to all ways and means that are not restricted by laws and regulations. Most societies’ culture would tolerate circumvention of regulations, and respect those who become rich through any such means. The hot pursuit of wealth and other personal gains has also led to many others consciously or unconsciously transgressing the boundaries of regulation. While the Homo Economicus may have existed for a long time, it is in the recent decades, it seems, that we witness its resurgence. The resurgence of the Homo Economicus in recent years can be traced to the shortcomings of the economic model that we currently practice. The primary root cause is the desire to fulfill the individual’s unsatisfiable wants. Under our current economic system, this is achieved through accumulation, that is, the acquisition of as much wealth as possible, so as to enable the person to satisfy more of his/her unlimited wants. All wants are evaluated as they are, taken as a matter of fact without considering their values or moral implications on themselves and others. This is a direct result of the economic discipline, which is usually divided into two distinct areas: positive economics (economic theory), and normative economics (welfare economics). The first deals with ‘what is’, the second with ‘what ought to be’. In efforts to be recognized as a ‘science’, fact (‘what is’) is usually given priority and made to distinctly separate from value (‘what ought to be’). Since they have objective access to the empirical world through our sense experience, scientists need not concern themselves with ‘what ought to be’. Most economists therefore argue that they work in pure and applied economic theory that is ethically neutral (Charles Wilber, 1998). The neutrality of value judgment has led to the Homo Economicus making rational choices without due considerations for ethics and welfare of the others. As a religion, Buddhism acknowledges that human beings have needs and wants. However, it asserts there are two types of wants (or ‘thirst’), tanha and chanda. Tanha refers to cravings for sense objects which provide pleasant feeling. Such competitive craving often leads to the seeking of objects which cater to self interests. When we fail to satisfy tanha, frustration and anxiety may arise. In the Four Noble Truth framework, the second truth (sacca) identifies tanha as the origin of suffering (dukkha). It is also the eighth link in the Twelve Nidanas of Dependent Origination. Chanda on the other hand, refers to sincere wish or wholesome desire. It is directed towards benefit and it leads to effort and action that promote harmony of interests. In contrast, it is the undifferentiated, purely economic wants (and largely over private goods), that lead to conflicts, problems of rivalry and possession. When there is value judgment, when wants are being differentiated according to their wholesomeness, then we would not assert that a decision or action is not illegal and therefore we may proceed and do it. Value or ethical dimension will cause the intention of the action/decision to be further evaluated – is it a wholesome desire? Will it cause adverse/negative impact on others, even though it is not illegal? To the Homo Economicus, pleasure or satisfaction is derived from the consumption of goods or services. While many people have found out that such pleasure or satisfaction is not lasting, very few people take the trouble to investigate further. Buddhist scriptures tell us more about the pleasures so obtained. Sensual pleasure is found to arise from the enjoyment of the five senses. When sense objects such as a beautiful gold watch, a pleasant sound, a sweet smell, a succulent taste and a gentle touch come in contact with the respective sense organs, namely, the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue and the body, pleasant feeling together with joy and attachment arises in the mind. This pleasant feeling, joy and attachment constitute sensual pleasure. Thus sense objects such as money, fashionable dress and ornaments, good food, which are sources of intense sensual pleasure, become highly desirable. However, sensual pleasure is not a form of lasting happiness. It is transient and fleeting, and one has to exert constant effort in order to enjoy it again and again. Furthermore sensual pleasure kindles the fire of greed, craving, lust and attachment. The issue of scarcity of economic goods is also treated differently in Buddhism. While it acknowledges that humans have ‘excessive’ desires and wants, Buddhism cautions that choice arising out of scarcity is to be exercised with wisdom. Finding more resources to satisfy the limitless wants is not a long term solution. As wants are limitless, we end up having to continuously put in efforts to acquire more wealth and other resources to satisfy the never-ending wants. A more sensible solution seems to be to reduce the desires and wants. In fact, this is a more rational solution, practiced, for example, by most corporations. When companies prepare the budget for the next year, they would inevitably find that the total amount requested by all departments put together is way above what they can afford. The common and rational approach is obviously trimming down the planned expenditure to more manageable levels. While Western economics differentiates between private and public goods, our current economic system places far more emphasis on private goods, and Homo Economicus is pre-occupied with private ownership and consumption. Buddhism respects property rights and private ownership, but it regularly reminds us not to lose sight of public goods. Malaysia is a rich country and Malaysians are ‘wealthy’ because we have plenty of natural endowments in the form of beautiful beaches and cool mountains. These are our common properties and we may visit them. Our visit also does not deprive others from enjoying them. A beautiful public park is open to all. So long as it is not over crowded, one person’s presence does not diminish the ‘consumption’ (or enjoyment) of another in the same park. The Homo Economicus brought up in the current economic system, on the other hand, would think, upon seeing the park: this is a beautiful park, how much is it? I want to buy it over and convert it into my private garden, so that I can enjoy (‘consume’) it by myself. Contrary to some people’s perception, Buddhism does not condemn wealth or reject acquiring money. Indeed, it regards it as an excellent facilitating factor. Each of us need money to provide shelter and food for our family. The country needs money to build and develop the nation. However, wealth in Buddhism is not confined to physical or economic resources along. In Kuddakapatha, for example four types of Nidhanas (wealth) are described, which include kamma. What is more important in Buddhism is not wealth per se, but one’s attitude towards it and how one manages it. The Buddha taught the ethics of acquiring wealth and moral development of the man - manussa. Man is called manussa because of his highly developed state of mind compared to animals. Wealth is called Artha which means material prosperity. It relates to the various aspects of man's social economic development such as the economy, politics, education, health and morality of a society. In Buddhist economics, development of the human being is an important factor in the growth of society. Therefore acquiring wealth should not degrade human values and the values of a society. Buddhists are therefore not prohibited from accumulating wealth and money. As we pointed out earlier, however, the intention of the acquisition and possession is very important. Wealth may be acquired to serve noble or wholesome intentions, thereby bringing greater benefits to oneself and others in the society. Hence the value element is important in economic decisions and actions. Unfortunately in modern societies morality and ethics in earning wealth is often ignored. Hence we see the proliferation of ‘white collar’ crimes, breach of trusts and outright swindles. Morality and ethics in acquiring wealth is taught in Samma Ajeewa (right livelihood) in the middle path to emancipate from suffering (fourth Noble Truth). For lay people, Right Livelihood is a conscious choice because we are aware of our intentions and we make deliberate decisions.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCE: Cakkavatti Sutta: The Wheel-turning Emperor, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Available at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.26.0.than.html Charles Wilber (Ed) (1998). Economics, Ethics and Public Policy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Mill, John Stuart. "On the Definition of Political Economy, and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It," London and Westminster Review, October 1836. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1874, essay 5, paragraphs 38 and 48. |