Relevance
This article initiates a critical conversation about redefining success in our societies and economies. By highlighting the growing disconnect between traditional economic indicators and the well-being of people and communities, it challenges us to consider a broader perspective of what true progress looks like. Via a juxtaposition of business and governmental roles in fostering societal well-being, this piece sets the stage for a deeper exploration into how we can collectively shift towards a future that values human flourishing above mere economic growth. As the first part of a three-article series, it not only questions the status quo but also promises to offer practical solutions and policy changes aimed at achieving a more inclusive, resilient, and fulfilling society. This makes it an important read for anyone interested in the intersection of economics, policy-making, and human well-being, and lays the groundwork for reframing the challenge, and innovative solutions, in subsequent articles.
Meaning matters
Significantly seven out of ten people rank meaning and purpose as more important than pay in their work. This challenges the deeply entrenched belief advance by Thomas Friedman half a century ago in The New York Times that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,” and underscores the importance of entrepreneurs who strive to resolve human needs. It also suggests that quality of life may matter more than the economy to citizens. In this first article of a three-part series, I explore the role of government to foster human flourishing, not simply to be economic managers. This series will consider the kind of paradigm shifts required, and consider practical solutions and policy changes that could deliver such an outcome.
Unilever has been at the forefront of the shift to purpose-driven businesses. The roots of this can be found in Lord Lever’s concern, almost 150 years ago, that sickness among poor people could be traced to poor hygiene practices caused by their environment and circumstances. Lever did not see a problem, he saw a purpose. He invented Sunlight Soap, available in individual bars, and founded a company with a purpose ‘to make cleanliness commonplace’. Ultimately, the financial success of the business is grounded in fulfilling a social mission.
The business pursuit of a good purpose stands in stark contrast to the prevailing political view that the role of government is to manage the economy. Despite a growing awareness of the importance of social impact, sustainability and stewardship, elections continue to be dominated by the question of who is the better economic manager. This reflects an outdated, and no longer fit for purpose, prioritisation of productivity over people, of economics before empathy. Just as true business success derives from serving a purpose, so too should economic health emerge from policies that prioritise people and their wellbeing. A focus on economic management, like the focus on profit, overlooks fundamental human needs and risks reducing the person to a national statistic.
the question of which party is the better economic manager reflects an outdated, and no longer fit for purpose, prioritisation of productivity over people, of economics before empathy
A utilitarian approach yields utilitarian outcomes
A paper written by The Business Council of Australia to address Australia’s stagnant productivity prompts my reflection. They say “a crash in investment and global competitiveness … has forced companies to slash jobs, halt projects and move offshore.” Taking a primarily economic and utilitarian perspective, the BCA offers solutions that focus on improving competitiveness, investment attraction, and productivity. They identify long-term structural challenges that cannot be ignored, and argue that “ensuring the sustainability of our public finances is key to our long-term economic health and to protecting us from future shocks”—a worthy objective that runs headlong into unceasing demands for greater government expenditure.
In contrast with the BCA, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlights the need for a broader approach, observing we need to look beyond productivity to social performance, to know if a country is truly successful. Writing in 2018, they said:
While GDP is the most well-known, and most powerful economic indicator, it can’t tell us everything we need to know about the health of countries and societies. In fact, it can’t even tell us everything we need to know about economic performance. We need to develop dashboards of indicators that reveal who is benefitting from growth, whether that growth is environmentally sustainable, how people feel about their lives, what factors contribute to an individual’s or a country’s success.
The OECD report underscores a critical oversight in purely economic analyses: the neglect of human and societal wellbeing. Focusing on economic outcomes focuses the debate on the drivers and measures of health of the economy, such as GDP, productivity, employment and interest rates; in the same way that profit, EPS, and growth reveal the financial health of a corporation. Neither, however, measure the true wellbeing of the people in the country, the company or the community. Neither consider human agency, freedom, dignity, and the common good, let alone matters such as environmental sustainability or justice.
The economic argument overlooks the person
The economic argument, as compelling and vital as it is, is ultimately depersonalising. Focusing on the numbers, and how to improve the numbers, can never improve the lives of those who deliver the numbers. It merely reduces them to cogs in a machine, to units of economic output, to productive parts in a collective whole. That may make Australia an attractive investment destination in the short term, as we show how we have solved the problem of maximising productivity, but the resulting diminishment of social ties, while the population ages rapidly, suggests the shallowness of such a short-term solution.
Economic analysis often overlooks the human element, reducing people to statistics in service of the state’s pursuit of productivity and GDP. This narrow focus raises critical questions about what truly constitutes progress and success in our society. In the next article, we'll delve into the concept of human flourishing and societal wellbeing, exploring how a shift in perspective can lead to more holistic and meaningful measures of progress. We'll examine the potential for policy and societal changes that prioritise the wellbeing of people and communities, setting the stage for a discussion on the actionable steps that can transform this vision into reality.
Response
Reflect on your own values: Consider how your personal and professional choices align with the pursuit of societal wellbeing over economic gain. How might you implement, or influence, policies or decisions that prioritise human flourishing?
Support purpose-driven businesses: Make a conscious effort to support companies who not only espouse a noble purpose, but demonstrate that in their actions. Where you invest your time and effort, investment and purchasing, can influence the broader economic landscape.
Advocate for change: Contact your local representatives to express the importance of policies that prioritise human flourishing over productivity and GDP. Start the conversation. Your voice can help shift political priorities.
Reflect on the role of government in societal wellbeing: Think about how government policies can either support or hinder human flourishing. What changes would you propose to better align government action with the well-being of its citizens?
It would make a huge difference if governments invested in facilitating community projects run by and for specific communities. Although it pays lip service to this by piloting projects which often don’t get rolled out, there is no real will to make them happen or make them sustainable. Small community driven projects are more likely to get buy in because the impetus comes from the community. In time they can become part of the infrastructure. Eg the NHS.
A good enough concern but what if the world machine is completely indifferent to and indeed hostile towards the well being of all living-breathing-feeling life forms both human and non-human?
http://beezone.com/whats-new