The
language of economic dysfunction has become so common that when I use
the term “the global suicide economy” in my talks, I rarely need to
elaborate. Most people are now aware that rule by global corporations
and financial speculators engaged in the single-minded pursuit of money
is destroying communities, cultures, and natural systems everywhere on
the planet. Until recently, however, most people responded with polite
but resigned skepticism to my message that economic transformation is
possible.
Now, with the revelations of
high-profile corporate fraud and corruption, I sense a dramatic change.
While the political power brokers talk of new rules and penalties to
restore confidence in financial markets, members of religious orders
and congregations, community groups, city officials, business people,
and young activists are talking about the possibility of far greater
changes—of creating truly new economies. They speak of real wealth as a
sense of belonging, contribution, beauty, joy, relationship, and
spiritual connection. They share their dreams of a world of locally
rooted living economies that meet the material needs of all people
everywhere, while providing meaning, building community, and connecting
us to a place on the Earth.
Many are acting to
make their dreams a reality. In late 2001, the Social Ventures Network,
an alliance of socially committed entrepreneurs, responded to this
upsurge in civic innovation by launching a new nationwide
initiative—the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies—to
encourage, strengthen, and facilitate the interlinking of these
initiatives with the aim of creating a cohesive national movement. (www.livingeconomies.org)
The
suicide economy is a product of human choices motivated by a love of
money. It is within our means to make different choices motivated by a
love of life. We have created a suicide economy based on absentee
ownership, monopoly, and the concentration of power delinked from
obligations to people or place. Now we must create living economies
based on locally rooted ownership and deeply held American ideals of
equity, democracy, markets, and personal responsibility.
In
the place of a suicide economy devoted to maximizing returns to money,
we can create living economies devoted to meeting the basic needs of
people. In the place of a suicide economy in which the powerful reap
the profits and the rest bear the cost, we can create a system of
living economies in which decisions are made by those who will bear the
consequences.
In the place of the suicide
economy's global trading system designed to allow the wealthy few to
control the resources and dominate the markets of the many, we can
create living economy trade through which each community exchanges
those things it produces in surplus for those it cannot reasonably
produce at home on terms that support living wage jobs and high
environmental standards everywhere.
Under a system
of relatively self-reliant local living economies, communities and
nations will not find themselves pitted against one another for jobs,
markets, and resources. In the absence of such competition, the free
sharing of information, knowledge, and technology will become natural,
to the mutual benefit of all.
Locally owned, human-scale enterprises Living
economies are made up of human-scale enterprises locally owned by
people who have a direct stake in the many impacts associated with the
enterprise. A firm owned by workers, community members, customers,
and/or suppliers who directly bear the consequences of its actions is
more likely to provide: • Employees with safe, meaningful, family-wage jobs. • Customers with useful, safe, high-quality products. • Suppliers with steady markets and fair dealing. • Communities with a healthy social and natural environment.
One of my favorite prototypes of a living economy enterprise is Philadelphia's White Dog Cafe. (See YES! Spring 2001.)
Founder, owner, and proprietor Judy Wicks buys most of her food from
local organic farmers, serves only meat from humanely raised animals,
pays her workers a living wage, devotes 10 percent of profits to local
charity, and has mobilized other Philadelphia restaurants to join in
rebuilding the local food production and distribution system. Wicks is
also former board chair of the Social Ventures Network and a founder of
the newly formed Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.
Living
economy enterprises may be organized as partnerships; individual- or
family-owned businesses; consumer- or producer-owned cooperatives;
community corporations; or companies privately owned by workers, other community members, or social investors. They may be for-profit or nonprofit. There is no place in living economies, however, for publicly traded, limited liability corporations, the organizational
centerpiece of the suicide economy. This corporate form is legally
structured to allow virtually unlimited concentration of power to the
exclusive financial benefit of absentee shareholders who have no
knowledge of, or liability for, the social and environmental
consequences of the actions taken on their behalf. It is a legally
sanctioned invitation to benefit from behavior that otherwise would be
considered sociopathic—even criminal.
Life-serving rules In
the suicide economy, the success of an enterprise is measured by the
financial return to its investors. The corporate media cheer when stock
prices rise, increasing investor wealth, but sound the alarm when wages
rise. Information on the price of a corporation's stock is available on
a minute-by-minute basis, but information on its social and
environmental impacts is rarely disclosed.
Rule-making
in the suicide economy focuses on enforcing contracts, providing
incentives for investors, and protecting the rights of property owners.
Government intervention to protect workers, the environment, and
consumers is denounced by corporate elites as an infringement of market
freedom. Trade agreements like NAFTA and institutions like the World
Trade Organization open countries to unbridled competition for
investment and jobs that creates a race to the bottom in terms of
labor, health, social, and environmental standards.
When
Mr. Bush spoke to Wall Street bankers on July 9 on the subject of
corporate accountability, his remarks centered on restoring investor
confidence by increasing financial integrity and transparency. He made
no mention of corporate accountability to workers, communities, the
environment, or any other larger public interest. Follow closely the
policy debates between Republicans and Democrats on financial fraud,
and you will find they center on the competing private financial
interests of managers and shareholders—with Republicans generally
favoring the corporate managers and Democrats favoring the Wall Street
financiers.
The primary purpose of a true market
economy, however, is not to make money for the rich and powerful. When
Adam Smith conceptualized the idea of the market economy in his classic
The Wealth of Nations, he had in mind economies that allocate human and
material resources justly and sustainably to meet the self-defined
needs of people and community.
In order to allocate
justly and sustainably, a market economy requires enforceable rules.
Because markets respond only to the needs of those with money to pay,
there must be rules to assure an equitable distribution of income.
Because markets respond to prices, a just and sustainable allocation of
resources depends on public regulation and user fees to assure that
market prices internalize the true cost of a product or
service—including the social and environmental costs otherwise borne by
the public. Public oversight is also needed to assure that common
heritage resources essential to the survival and well-being of all—like
land and water—are protected and equitably shared.
When
enterprises are locally rooted, human-scale, owned by stakeholders, and
held accountable to the rule of law by democratically elected
governments, there is a natural incentive for all concerned to take
human and community needs and interests into account. When income and
ownership are equitably distributed, justice is served and political
democracy is strong. When workers are owners, the conflict between
labor and capital disappears. When needs are met locally by locally
owned enterprises, people have greater control over their lives, money
is recycled in the community rather than leaking off into the global
financial casino, jobs are more secure, economies are more stable, and
there are the means and the incentives to protect the environment and
to build the relationships of mutual trust and responsibility that are
the foundation of community.
Quality of life Our
quality of life would be stunningly different if we based economic
decisions on life values rather than purely financial values—a natural
choice if owners had to live with the non-financial consequences of
their decisions.
Full-cost pricing of energy,
materials, and land use could expose the real inefficiencies of factory
farming, conventional construction, and urban sprawl and make
life-serving alternatives comparatively cost-effective. Much of our
food could be grown fresh on local family farms without toxic
chemicals, and processed nearby. Organic wastes could be composted and
recycled back into the soil. Environmentally efficient buildings
designed for their specific micro environment and constructed of local
materials could radically reduce energy consumption. Much of our
remaining energy needs could be supplied locally from wind and solar
sources. Local wastes could be recycled to provide materials and energy
for other local businesses.
Compact communities
could bring work, shopping, and recreation nearer to our
residences—thus saving energy and commuting time, reducing CO2
emissions and dependence on imported oil, and freeing time for family
and community activities. Land now devoted to roads and parking could
be converted to bike lanes, trails, and parks.
By
reducing waste and unnecessary use of energy and other resources, we in
America could reduce our need to expropriate the resources of other
countries. We could quit allocating a major portion of our national
treasure to the large military required to secure our access to those
resources. The world's poor would regain access to the resources that
are rightfully theirs to improve their own lives—and the threat of
terrorism would be greatly reduced. The elimination of global
corporations with their massive overhead, inflated executive
compensation packages, and myopic focus on short-term profits would
free still more resources. Together these savings could provide workers
with family wages and finance first-rate education, health care, and
community services for all.
We would expect to see
the effects of living economy institutions ripple out across the social
landscape. With ample living wage jobs, educational opportunities, and
essential services, crime rates would drop, and prison and other
criminal justice costs would fall.
An economy that
responds to rather than creates demand diverts fewer resources to
advertising. Fewer ads mean less visual pollution and wasteful
consumerism, an improved sense of self-worth, and still more resources
freed up to be converted into shorter work weeks and more leisure time.
We would work less and live more. Our lives would be freer and richer.
Our environment would be cleaner and healthier. A world no longer
divided between obscenely rich and desperately poor would know more
peace and less violence, more love and less hate, more hope and less
fear. The Earth could heal and provide a home for our children for
generations to come.
Awakening majority The ideal of a living economy might seem an impossible dream, except for the fact that so many of its elements
are already in place. There are millions of for- and not-for-profit
enterprises and public initiatives around the world aligned with the
values and organizational principles of living economies. They include
local independent businesses of all sorts from bookstores to bakeries,
land trusts, local organic farms, farmers' markets, community-supported
agriculture initiatives, restaurants specializing in locally grown
organic produce, community banks, local currencies, buy-local
campaigns, suppliers of fair-traded coffee, independent media, and many
more. Indeed, independent, human-scale businesses are by far the
majority of all businesses, provide most jobs, create nearly all new
jobs, and are the source of most innovation.
It is
clear that living economies are a viable alternative to the suicide
economy. Nonetheless, the suicide economy continues to dominate our
economic, political, social, and cultural lives. So how do we get from
a few million living enterprises that are struggling to survive at the
fringes of the global suicide economy to a healthy planetary system of
thriving living economies? The answer is, “We grow it into being.”
No
one planned the suicide economy. It is what organizational consultant
Margaret Wheatley calls an “emergent system.” Those responsible for
corporate interests grew it into being through their day-to-day effort
to increase profits and market share. Step by step over the last
several hundred years, they reshaped politics, the legal system, and
modern culture to create the interlocking systems of interests and
mutual obligations of what has become a suicide economy.
The
complex, self-reinforcing dynamics of an emergent system make it
virtually impossible to transform from within. Those who attempt to do
so are almost invariably marginalized or expelled. When environmental
writer Carl Frankel set out to write the book In Earth's Company on
corporate environmentalism, he looked for true environmental champions
within the corporate world. He found three. By the time his book was
published, all three had been fired.
An emergent
system that no longer serves can be displaced only by a more powerful
emergent system. According to Wheatley, “This means that the work of
change is to start over, to organize new local efforts, connect them to
each other, and know that their values and practices can emerge as
something even stronger.”
This insight is critical
to the work ahead. The most promising approach to ridding our societies
of the pathological culture and institutions of the suicide economy is
to displace them—an idea that at first seems hopelessly naive.
Consider, however, that the institutions of the suicide economy are
animated by our life energy. They have only the power that we each
yield to them. Each time we choose where we shop, work, and invest, we
can redirect our life energy from the suicide economy to the emergent
living economy.
Choosing living economy
enterprises may appear more expensive. Organic produce may cost more
than non-organic; a bar of soap may cost more at a local store than at
a big chain. That greater expense disappears, however, when we factor
in such benefits of the living economy as improved health, caring
communities, shorter commutes, meaningful work, cleaner air and water,
free time, economic security, and hope for our children's future.
Employment in a smaller enterprise may pay less, but be more secure.
When
top mutual funds were returning 20 to 50 percent a year, putting money
in a community bank that pays 4 or 5 percent seemed an expensive
choice. In a period of market decline, however, an insured CD with a
community bank that makes loans to local businesses begins to look like
a smart, as well as ethical, choice.
Making it happen Those
interested in helping to grow a living economy in their own community
might start with a few simple questions. What do local people and
businesses regularly buy that is or could be supplied locally by
socially and environmentally responsible independent enterprises? Which
existing local businesses are trying to practice living economy values?
In what sectors are they clustered? Are there collaborative efforts
aligned with living economy values already underway? The answers will
point to promising opportunities.
Food is often a
logical place to start. Everyone needs and cares about food, and food
can be grown almost everywhere, is freshest and most wholesome when
local, and is our most intimate connection to the land. In many
communities, a farmers' market or a restaurant serving locally produced
organic foods provides a focal point for organizing. In some
communities, clusters of businesses devoted to energy conservation,
environmental construction, and the local production of solar, wind,
and mini-hydro power are forming living economy webs devoted to advancing local energy independence.
Many
groups are working to create the financial infrastructure for living
economies. Some are creating interest-free local currencies that
encourage and facilitate transactions among local people and
enterprises. Others are establishing community banks dedicated to
financing local enterprises. The ShoreBank is one of my favorite
examples of a living-economy financial institution. The bank is
privately owned by a number of individual investors, foundations, and
nonprofit organizations dedicated to its social and environmental
mission. It finances enterprises and projects that provide jobs,
contribute to environmental health, upgrade low- and moderate-income
rental housing units, create affordable home ownership opportunities,
and develop and staff day-care centers and job-training programs. (See “A Founder of the Next Economy,” YES! Fall 1999.)
A
number of groups are developing a “fair trade” infrastructure that
seeks to improve the conditions of low-income producers of coffee,
handicrafts, and other goods. Still others are mobilizing political
action to eliminate public subsidies, tax rebates, sweetheart
contracts, regulatory exemptions, and giveaways of public resources on
which the profits of otherwise inefficient corporate monoliths often
depend, and to put in place new rules that favor local independent
businesses, stakeholder ownership, living-wage employers, and
environmental responsibility. (See the “New Rules Project” of the
Institute for Local Self-Reliance,www.ilsr.org.)
Countless
local living-economy initiatives are being launched all across America
and around the world, including some by former corporate employees who
have chosen to walk away from the suicide economy to start new
businesses aligned with their values. The greater the number and
diversity of such initiatives, the more rapidly the web of an emergent
planetary system of local living economies can grow, and the more
readily each of us can redirect our life energy toward living economies
in our shopping, employment, and investment choices.
Corporate
scandals, a faltering economy, and stock- market declines have dealt a
serious blow to the legitimacy of the suicide economy and the big
corporations that dominate our lives. Thousands of people are already
spreading the message that there is a life-serving alternative that we
can grow into being. As suggested by the case examples from Appalachia
and Argentina presented in this issue of YES!, living economy
initiatives flourish most readily under the conditions of economic
adversity that dramatically expose the suicide economy's false promises
of instant, effortless wealth. The United States may be entering such a
period. While the ruling elites occupy themselves with seeking to
restore faith in the pathological institutions on which their power and
privilege were built, the rest of us can embrace this moment of
economic failure as an historic opportunity. Through our individual and
collective choices, we can grow into being the economic institutions,
relationships, and culture of a just, sustainable, and compassionate
world of living economies that work for all.
Dr. David C. Korten is the author of When Corporations Rule the Worldand The Post-Corporate World: Life after Capitalism;
board chair of the Positive Futures Network; president of the
People-Centered Development Forum; and a visionary-advisor member of
Social Ventures Network. For more on living economies visit www.pcdf.org.
Reprints/Reposts :: Contact Us :: 206-842-0216 :: Toll-Free Subscriptions 1-800-937-4451
YES! is published by the Positive Futures Network, 284 Madrona Way NE, Ste 116, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2870