By Barney Rhys Jones, MD
I was delighted to be relieved of office duties recently to attend a working conference hosted by the committed thinkers at the new economics foundation (nef). For those of you who haven’t come across nef, it’s an ‘independent think-and-do tank’ proposing an exciting and disruptive idea of new economic theory drawing on economic history and the teachings of Keynes and Schumacher, amongst many others. They call it ‘The Great Transition’.
With 12 papers to review by six groups there was quite a bit of homework to complete ahead of the conference. And, with delegates such as Caroline Lucas MP, Ben Margolis from 10:10, representatives from the Soil Association, WWF, the Carbon Trust and a variety of academic institutions and think tanks, in addition to a large contingent from nef, I was determined to make sure my own contribution was constructive. This desire increased when I realised that not only was I the only representative from the private sector but that there were more than a few Good Energy customers and shareholders present!
Having spent much of my career supporting businesses trying to maximise their growth, what I learned from my homework and the discussions on the day felt like scratching a long-held itch. I’d never really stopped to ask myself where all this growth was going and why it was needed. I was pleased to join Good Energy and have the opportunity to support an environmental mission - that's okay for me but what about the other 7 billion people I share the planet with? Well according to nef, there's a problem, and it is economic.
The economic problem hinges on the relentless pursuit of growth, measured in monetary terms, which takes no account of finite natural capital or people’s well-being. To illustrate the fundamental points: we would need three planets to allow all nations to grow equally, and despite massive GDP growth we appear to be no happier than we were thirty years ago. In short we are measuring the wrong things, behaving the wrong way and our relentless pursuit of growth is not only misguided but positively dangerous.
The question at the heart of The Great Transition is this:
“What type of economy can deliver wellbeing and social justice within its own share of environmental constraints?”
Followed pretty quickly by: “(How) can we get there? What will it look like? And, How will it feel to be part of it?”
The idea of an economy that measures its success in terms of human wellbeing and ecological value, with economic value standing on an equal footing with these two measures sounds appealing. But could it work? If you want to scare people (and politicians), then consider the concept of 'de-growth' – by current measures that is a bad recession. But what if our economy is built to handle it and what if our wellbeing can increase in spite of that? The relentless consumption of natural resources and socially damaging cycle of boom and bust that has been repeated throughout market-led history is not leading us towards a happy ending.
Underpinning the intent of the working conference was an assertion that an alternative socio/enviro/economic model is required - and by this we mean a computer model with inputs and outputs, assumptions and scenarios.
Why? Because 'model' is the language of policy-makers. Because it will allow us to communicate our vision in the macro-economic terms that Whitehall understands, enabling us to translate those macro-indicators into the domestic reality for this economy's citizens. The model is a key tool in effecting change and a handrail to guide policy and behavioural change. It can be used in the same way that at Good Energy we have used the model developed by DECC – based on the principles laid out in David McKay’s excellent manual 'Renewable Energy - without the hot air' – to propose our own vision of a 100% renewable future for Britain.
So the day was divided into a series of sessions to develop the framework and specification of the crucial elements that are required to deliver a relevant and useful tool for change. Needless to say the exchanges in the working groups were fascinating and the span of the debate was far-reaching - even within the constraints of the preliminary papers. Here is a taste of what I heard:
“How should we measure wellbeing?”
“What lessons can be learnt from the aftermath of 1945 and the rise of the labour government on a tide of social-cohesion?”
“What can be learnt from how Cuba coped in the aftermath of cheap Russian oil running dry?”
“Is longevity more valuable to wellbeing than comfort with one's mortality?”
“How will the shifting values of society (hopefully) away from materialism towards community be reflected in traditional measures of wellbeing?”
“How can we manage the relationship between modelling transition and outcome, and the development of an effective campaign to drive change? All while ensuring that the model remains agile and delivers relevant timely outputs to fuel the progress of the campaign?”
So far so esoteric. But perhaps not. At the core of this process sits a powerful idea and the debate, though wide ranging, was united in purpose – to figure out the nature of the tool required to move that idea forward. In the wrap-up the details of the discussions were summarised neatly: the outcomes firmly supported the core twin objectives required to support change at policy and socio-behavioural level.
Objective 1 - Show that with macro-economic terms we can achieve a new economic future without the wheels falling off.
Objective 2 - Show that a society where we value our interactions with nature, people and ourselves more can be a more pleasant place to live.
Drawing on empirical and statistical evidence, years of research, and philosophical debate on the indicators of wellbeing, and the ongoing research into ecological value, this model will be a first stab at trying to measure all the elements that need to be in balance to allow a sustainable equilibrium between man and planet.
Heady stuff, indeed. And I must confess that I wouldn't mind it stacking up. So I'll be putting my shoulder to the wheel and doing some more research. Starting with ... ‘The New Economics - A bigger picture’ by nef's David Boyle and Andrew Simms (full disclosure: I got a free copy).
