Relevance
As economic growth and productivity continue to be touted as the objectives of government, this article, building on the earlier article on the productivity paradigm, reframes the challenge as one of human flourishing rather than fiscal policy. In doing so, the article challenges us to critically examine the dominant utilitarian mindset and its unintended consequences, as we grapple with pressing global challenges such as climate change, widening inequality, and social fragmentation. This article encourages readers to envision a future where economic prosperity is not an end in itself, but a means to foster human flourishing, environmental sustainability, and a just society. Whether you are a policymaker, business leader, or concerned citizen, this article offers a perspective and a case for embracing a human-centred paradigm as a driver of policy.
Prosperity and Preservation
The drive to my farm property follows a lovely country road, through a picturesque landscape of rolling hills and beautiful valleys. The views seem to extend into the future, but that future is imperilled by the massive water trucks you have to avoid on the narrow road. These juggernauts are transporting precious and pristine local water to bottling plants for export, in a stark reminder of how economic considerations overpower environmental concerns. While such exports may lift GDP, they simultaneously lower the water-table, and diminish the quality of life for local farming communities who find their dams drying and rivers slowing.
This reality underscores the need to recalibrate our economic compass. In the preceding article, Putting people before Productivity, we challenged the prevailing economic mindset, where metrics such as GDP and productivity dominate the discourse, at the expense of human flourishing and societal health. By juxtaposing the roles of businesses and governments in doing good, we underscored the urgent need for a paradigm shift towards prioritising human flourishing over mere economic growth. Through examples like Unilever's purpose-driven approach and critiques of current policy priorities, we set the stage for reimagining success in a way that values the quality of life and environmental sustainability alongside, if not above, economic indicators.
As we delve deeper into this issue, let us consider, therefore, a reframing of the problem, not as an economic challenge but a question of how to foster long term societal wellbeing and the conditions for human flourishing. How then might we leverage Australia’s strengths? Could our quality of life, stable, multicultural democracy, record in innovation and technology, and political stability help us foster an environment in which people flourish, and, as a consequence, move the economic levers? In other words, could a primary focus not on money but meaning, not on productivity but purpose and people, create an environment in which people can flourish, and hence drive economic advantage?
how does a society foster long term societal wellbeing and the conditions for human flourishing?
If the goal is truly the wellbeing of Australia's people, might it be better to envision an economy that serves as a means to that end, rather than being an end in itself?
A new question
With this in mind, rather than asking about productivity, our question becomes:
How can Australia cultivate a resilient, diverse, and innovative economy that enhances the well-being of its people, while thriving in the global market.
Let us take it as a given that while doing so we preserve our natural environment, and foster a just and equitable society.
A recent paper from The Business Council of Australia (BCA), a key voice in the national economic debate, highlights concerns over Australia’s lagging productivity and competitiveness, proposing solutions focused on economic metrics such as investment attraction and efficiency improvement. The BCA’s analysis and proposed solutions, while sound, are based on largely utilitarian values such as economics, profit, productivity, maximisation of people as resources. These lead to short term decision making and unintended consequences, since they consider efficiency fosters flourishing, and economic wealth is the key to societal wellbeing. Much of the environmental degradation, wealth disparities, and social fragmentation can be traced to a utilitarian outlook.
While the BCA paper talks of vision, it does so in largely economic terms, rather than one of human flourishing. In order to foster human flourishing we need to expand our values beyond the pragmatic and short term, electoral cycle, to the longer term principled, intergenerational cycle. Decisions taken today leave a legacy for future generations, and lay the foundations for stories of great leaders who took the hard decisions. We know only too well the poor environmental outcomes we suffer today from the short term decisions of yesterday.
Person-centred policy
Perhaps the best way of overcoming the instrumentalism of utilitarianism is to assert the intrinsic value and dignity of the person, who is not a means to an end, a resource to be used, or a statistic in the state. A person is not something, but someone who has their own purpose, their own hopes and dreams and aspirations. Those include the need to care and be cared for, to have agency over one’s life and actions, and the freedom to determine their own life. This should be a foundational principle for policy: that all policy must start with the premise that a person is a relational, responsible, purposeful, being, who can never be used as a means to an end. A consequence of such an approach could be, for example, a greater focus on empowering citizens to act, rather than creating rules and regulations, with punitive measures for non-compliance—like those we experienced during the pandemic—or supporting initiatives that foster wellbeing, relationships and personal growth, not just funding the treatment of sickness and disease.
Reframing the challenge as a balance between flourishing and fiscal policy invites solutions that encompass the people and productivity, and so encourage fresh thinking regarding policy and policy-making. This means being human-centred, creating true human value, and ensuring people participate in the benefits of productivity.
In contrast with the prevailing productivity focused paradigm, a human-centred approach places the wellbeing and worth of people at the heart of policy, recognising that true progress has a personal, not just economic, dimension.
If both policymakers and think-tanks, such as the BCA, can embrace a more human-centred approach, critically evaluating their practices and policies against long-term human flourishing and economic sustainability, it could only be for the good. It is well past time to redefine political success not on the basis of legislation passed, or short term economic performance, but by an increase in personal and societal wellbeing, and the health of our long term legacy. It is time for policymakers and courageous politicians to show the way, advocating for success defined not by economic indicators alone, but by tangible improvement in the whole of human society.
Response
Redefine personal success: Reflect on how you define a successful and meaningful life for yourself. Consider putting greater emphasis on personal growth, relationships, contributing to your community, and living in alignment with your values, rather than primarily focusing on financial gains and status. Share this perspective with others in your circles.
Audit Personal and Professional Practices for Human-centricity: Consider how your personal life and, if applicable, your workplace practices, reflect human-centred values and principles. Identify areas for improvement, such as implementing work-life integration initiatives, supporting personal growth, and making changes to foster a more fulfilling and purpose-driven life and work environment.
Prepare for Solutions-Oriented Action: As a preparation for the next article, spend some time thinking about possible practical ways we prioritise human flourishing over economics. Perhaps paste in the comments, to stimulate all our thinking.
I’d like to suggest the possibility that when you write, “the dominant utilitarian mindset and its unintended consequences, as we grapple with pressing global challenges such as climate change, widening inequality, and social fragmentation,” that those three problems are not unintended consequences, but actually the strategies of the utilitarian mindset.
They foster fear in the populace, creating judgmental paralysis, and show that these problems are so great that there is nothing that a person can individually do. This is an example of my Spectacle of the Real - https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-spectacle-of-the-real . The effect is to rob us of our human agency, and turn us into passive supporters of the global narrative of crisis.
Consider this.
How is it that after decades of accelerating crises on a global and extraordinary amounts of money and natural resources expended to solve these crises, it doesn't seem that we are any close to any real resolution. Promises fall hollow over time.
I believe we should view these crises from strategic perspective rather that from a tactical resolution one. These crises serve as an inexhaustible source of funding for companies and agencies focused on solving these problems. Am I merely being cynical? Or are we so programmed to accept the word of persons of authority that we do not critically or objectively think about what we see happening right in front of us. It is like the old story of the firefighter who is an arsonist. If things are getting worse, could it then be that the only logical conclusion is that either our world leaders are incompetent or they are lying to us. Either way, it is troubling scenario.
The most troubling aspect of this strategic set is the assumption of overpopulation. It is a part of the creed of belief that we need to depopulated the planet to save it. Stalin was correct. A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths a statistic. This is the logic that is being applied. We are going to depopulate the planet. Bill Gates has been very clear in saying the purpose of the global vaccination program is to lower the population of the planet. The outcome is not public health but genocide. The wars of the past generation are one way this purpose can be accomplished. Depopulation or eugenics serves the cause of centralized power. The alternative is to decentralized or localize problem solving so that people have a direct hand solving the problems that affect their community.
A restored culture of humanistic values, I believe, provides a basis for us to be able to collectively, as family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues to approach these global crises with greater skepticism and accountability towards those who managing these crises.