Flew back from Europe yesterday, which for the first time felt routine – barely further than going across the country. It also helps that I now routinely skip all the lines at immigration and customs (at least on this end), since I have become a member of the US Global Entry program. Lose some privacy, gain some efficiency: I love it and would recommend for all frequent international travelers.
During some of the trip I had to do real work, since one of my coauthors is off gallivanting around having fun. During the remainder of the flight, I read a great book (on my new kindle – also highly recommend) about ‘doing’ development, which Chris discussed here on this blog at the beginning of the year. It is the fascinating memoir of a young theologian-cum-development worker in Haiti. A bit heavy on the religion side for my taste, but honest and thought-provoking and sincere. I especially liked the author’s appreciation for the fact that sometimes one needs to commit drastically to being non-distracted, whether by living in a remote Haitian village or by intense physical effort (I prefer distance running, which is a bit less noble but assuredly gets the job done).
The book got me to musing on a related topic. Many of us believe (and research bears this out, although pinning down causality is difficult) that social networks are more important for well-being than are material goods. Many of us also believe (and I agree, although to a lesser extent) that social networks are stronger in a typical village than in American suburbia, although material possessions go the other way. So why do we focus our efforts on helping the villagers and not the suburbanites?
I mean this as a serious question. Of course it’s true that those aren’t the only two factors influencing well-being, e.g. Sen & Nussbaum’s capability theory would suggest that personal agency (control over one’s life) and health are also extremely important, and those favor suburbia at the moment. But that’s not a complete answer, because there still seems to be a disconnect in how we view money.
Try this: write down ten domains in life (family, friends, health, agency, spirituality, occupation, money, etc) and rank your priorities. Now ask, especially if you’re involved in development work, how you grade the success of your endeavors (probably income, maybe health and education, not much else I’m guessing). Why the disconnect? Maybe others can’t afford the luxury of not caring about money, since they need enough food to survive. But maybe we should spend more time asking them what their priorities are, and more time finding good ways to measure welfare rather than GDP.
7 Responses
One of the reasons I quit working in Africa was that the kind of work I want to do (helping people come to terms with their sexuality, for example, or creating sex-positive community) was not work that was acceptable, or that I was good at, in that context. Now that I’m back in the USA, one of my preoccupying questions is how I can monetize sex-positive activism. So do I get another job where I’m paid to do things in interesting countries that those citizens don’t need, and walk away from doing what I care about because there’s no money in it? If you know the answer, please share.
I read about an international survey done on happiness about 8 years ago in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. They asked folks to rate their level of general happiness from 0 to 10. They found a direct correlation to happiness and poverty. The poorer the country the happier the people rated themselves. The richer “developed” countries rated their happiness levels the lowest. Says alot.
We in the affluent West have lots of close social relations. But a lot of them are at work rather than in the wider community. I know my colleagues far better than my neighbours. And that’s the way I like it, I have much more in common with my colleagues.
Though I will be in a pickle if I’m unemployed fir any length of time.
The solution lies in finding the right balance.
In the same way that a modern business should not be measuring its success solely on the basis of financial indicators, countries and individuals should not be doing so. On a national level I expect that we will move from GDP as a prime indicator to some sort of balanced scorecard, and then to something better.
Why the hell GDP and income are used as such important indicators is beyond me. But I am not alone in thinking this, and some research has been started into finding alternatives – at least on the level of national indicators.
jmdesp,
This hero worship of the simple lifestyle is incredibly misleading. I think you’d be hard-pressed to keep life expectancy in the upper 70s if everyone just `got by’ fishing in a small village. Also, the American MBA’s plan involved employment and welfare improvements for lots and lots of people beyond the fisherman.
I think it’s fine if people choose to stick with a more leisure-intensive lifestyle, but then they shouldn’t be astonished when others (including donors) don’t feel like footing the bill for all the necessary public goods.
Makes me think of the story of the american tourist and mexican fishermen …
In case you don’t know it already : http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/fisherman.html
The moral of the story is we believe we need to work a lot and many years to get things that for the core and most important part of, we could get easily by working just a few hours a day in a small fisherman village.
It is like Laslow’s (sp)Pyramid of need… I am sure it the BASIC needs are met for those poor like food and shelter and healthcare… they then can be counted as having higher satisfaction.. as the social network is quite strong in developing countries. With all the misery going… I bet there are less depression here than in the developed countries with never ending need and wants…… Spirituality and community plays big role in many developing countries …. It is amazing to me how grateful are those with so little … I meet them everyday and I am ashamed to say I will never feel that satisfaction and gratefulness despite the many blessings I have.