CRUcial Times Issue 27 - Feature Article

Minding the Dollars and Losing the Sense

Jim Ife is Haruhisa Handa Professor of Human Rights Education and Head of the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. His research, teaching interests and community activities have been community development and human rights. In this article, Jim examines the way in which the market, and economic activity in general, have been allowed to operate freely in a social and moral vacuum.

If we ask this question in relation to the society as a whole, many people would answer with a clear ‘yes’, and tell you that money doesn’t necessarily buy happiness and that other things are really more important. This is supported by research which suggests that, beyond the minimum level of income required to meet our basic needs and keep people out of poverty, there is little correlation between wealth and happiness. Yet despite this conventional wisdom, backed up by research, most people will continue to act as if money is of paramount importance. Despite knowing that it makes no sense, the power of the consumerist ideology is such that it carries us all along with it.

When it comes to community services, we seem to behave in the same way. While acknowledging that of course community life is about much more than money, and that money is only one dimension of community development, the reality of practice is that, all too often, money and economic imperatives seem to take over and dominate other agendas. The first reaction of a community worker, when faced with a need or an issue is commonly ‘where can I get a grant?’ Financial resources take up much of the discussion at management committee meetings, and proper financial accountability has become so dominant that people seem to forget that other forms of accountability (such as accountability to the community) might actually be more important. Managers and funding bodies seem to suggest that it is balancing the books and financial accountability that matter most, and if the books balance and the budget is in surplus they must be doing a good job (regardless of the quality or humanity of the service). Reduction or withdrawal of funding is often regarded as the end of civilisation as we know it. Community development programs can be taken over by a narrow agenda of community economic development, that sees the establishment of a strong economy as the beginning and the end of what community development is all about; based on the belief that if we can get the community economy right, the rest will follow.

This is a form of economic rationalism (perhaps more properly termed economic fundamentalism): a philosophy that many in community services choose to criticise, yet which in reality they seem destined to follow, with varying degrees of reluctance. Economic rationalism simply says the economy comes first, costs and benefits must be measured in dollar terms, and if the bottom line is right, then all will be well. In other words, once the economy is right, people should be left alone to get on with their lives, free to buy what they need and sell what they produce, leaving the rest to the invisible hand of the market rather than the interference of meddlesome governments and other busybodies. On even the slightest reflection, this is simplistic nonsense. It is easy to criticise economic rationalism, but one of the amazing things about contemporary politics is that we have been so persuaded of its virtues that we often suspend our better judgement and go along with it, even though its inequities and its contradictions are obvious.

We have become only too aware of the weaknesses of the market: markets may be good for encouraging growth and technological development, but they are not good at the equitable distribution of social goods and services. However we cannot simply assume that market processes are bad in themselves, and that ‘the market’ is somehow evil. Markets are a natural part of human activity, and have been so ever since the establishment of settled communities allowed for an increased division of labour. The problem with ‘the market’ as we now experience it is that markets are no longer contained within human communities, serving a useful social purpose and serving the needs of the community, but have developed a life of their own. It is not markets themselves that are the problem, but rather that the market has become removed from its community context.

This suggests one answer to the problem of the obsession with money. If markets, and economic activity, can be recaptured by the community, embedded in community processes, and used to meet community and social ends, then many of the problems we experience with market ideology, and neo-liberal economic orthodoxy, will disappear. It is in allowing the market, and economic activity in general, to operate freely in a social and moral vacuum that the problems have been created. To bring the economy back to the community is a big challenge for community development, given that the economy is now global, and this is one of the reasons why grappling with global issues, and the global/local connection, is vital for community workers.

The dominance of ‘money thinking’ poses two potential dangers. One is the danger of allowing economic rationalist assumptions to dictate our practice, so that the economic side of human experience and interaction crowds out everything else that is important. The other danger is to go to the opposite extreme, and to reject any idea of the importance of money or economic development, seeing anything with a dollar sign as beneath one’s dignity as a community worker. Neither approach is healthy or useful to the communities and groups with whom we work. There is a need to strike a balance; money is important, but it is not the only thing that matters, nor is it necessarily more important than other aspects of what we do. The dominance of economic frames of reference, and of market ideology, will make it very difficult to keep financial matters in perspective.

My own view of community development sees economic development as one of six dimensions of development, sitting alongside, but not dominating, social development, political development, cultural development, environmental development, and personal/spiritual development. Good community development will keep these in balance, and will not allow any one to take over at the expense of the others. Such a holistic way of thinking can put economic development back into perspective; seeing it as necessary for a strong community, but as being far from sufficient.

Monetary resources are important, but they are only one set of resources that are brought to community work. One way to maintain the balance is to think always of other ‘resources’ that can be brought to community development and community services. But in doing so, we should not be seduced by the instrumentalist language of ‘human resources’, ‘people are our greatest resource’, and so on; this suggests that humans only have value as something to be ‘consumed’ for some greater good (after all, this is what happens to resources), rather than having intrinsic value as ends in themselves. Rather, we need to think about, and celebrate, all the important things that people (rather than dollars) will bring to community life: enthusiasm, creativity, spirituality, magic, skills, love, wisdom, stories, imagination, knowledge, and their understandings and expressions of our common humanity. These tend to be things that money can’t buy, and they are actually much more important than money.

As I indicated in the first paragraph, research suggests that, while people need a decent minimum income in order to meet their basic human needs, extending their income and wealth beyond this level does little to achieve extra happiness – it is other things that can make us happy, and we tend to lose sight of this simple truth. Perhaps the same is sometimes true in developing healthy, happy and fulfilling communities.