IN PURSUIT OF HAPPY ECONOMICS

       What is your idea of economics? What good is this branch of social science for the ordinary, non-business people?For many, economics evokes the notion of opportunity, employment and financial security. For others, it's a discipline that suggests Darwinian competition, greed,and simply the egotistical pursuit of self-interests at all costs.
       But to Helena Norberg-Hodge, director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture (Isec), economics can bring happiness, and without having to produce a huge sum of monetary profit, or the stresses and strains that are typical of a large-scale economy.
       Norberg-Hodge received the 1986 Right Livelihood Award,aka the alternative Nobel Prize, for her dedication in promoting more peaceful, just and sustainable communities worldwide.
       It all started from a small project the Swedish woman runs in Ladakh, initially a backwater region in northern India. Norberg-Hodge launched the Ladakh Project in 1978 in a bid to reverse the damaging trends of mass tourism and consumerism through promoting development based on Ladakhi cultural values. The innovative programme soon grew into Isec, where Norberg-Hodge and her colleagues had been initiating campaigns around the world to encourage ways of living that are more de-centralised and land-based.
       A globetrotting and extremely busy Norberg-Hodge recently visited Thailand and delivered lectures in Bangkok and Khon Kaen on the theme of "Economics of Happiness".Norberg-Hodge took some time off from her hectic schedule to talk with 'Outlook'.
       Could you please tell us what exactly this 'Economics of Happiness' is? It now seems the economics has been a tool for making money and a tool for making disasters,considering the recession we are now facing ...
       Well, the 'Economics of Happiness' is essentially an economics of strengthening the local economy. It's a systemic shift away from the current direction of economy,which is going more and more global. At the fundamental level, what I'm arguing is that as economic policies support the globalising path, they support a bigger and bigger distance between production and consumption. And with this distance, structurally, it means pushing business to become bigger and bigger and bigger.with nature. And those therapies are successful. Even prisoners, juvenile delinquents or violent men can be changed if you help them to connect to people with similar situations and to really share and help them to [re]connect with nature.
       With the scale of business and the distance, we are getting enormous problems both environmentally, socially and psychologically.
       Again, structurally, this globalising path is leading to monoculture. These large businesses inevitably have to impose monoculture; it's not possible to adapt to diversity.It's directly linked to using media and advertisement to foster a human monoculture where children worldwide are made to feel inferior to the standards that are fundamentally Western. But it's also anti-Western, in the sense that there is this image of perfection that the young children feel they cannot live up to. By establishing an unrealistic role model - a global consumer identity this is responsible for massive increases in self-rejection,and even self-hatred.
       By subsiding global trade and global businesses, a government is simultaneously subsidising a path that's encouraging businesses to use more fossil fuel and technology and fewer people. So the next result is job insecurity, and very, very intense competitions for scarce jobs. This combination of creating an unrealistic role model, the role model of consumer identity, and at the same time, the job scarcity, the unemployment and the competition is increasing worldwide friction and unhappiness.
       What I'm suggesting is that we must shift away from these bigger and more global business activities, and toward supporting local businesses worldwide that spend less fossil, and adapted to the natural-biological-cultural diversity and identities. We need to bring the economy closer to home worldwide. Localising as an economics of happiness at the fundamental level is about reducing the competition for jobs, by establishing cultural and community role models that are realistic. This might sound utopian, or unrealistic, but the fact is that the unrealistic is to go further and further as we have done up until now.
       Related to the economics of happiness is an economics of survival. Because subsidising more and more global trade, it literally leads to the import and export of the same products - water, milk, chicken, pigs, live animals. The US imports just as much as it exports. The UK exports as much butter and milk as it imports. This is utter madness on a planet dying from global warming. Oil is scarce and polluting. We want to minimise the use of oil, obviously.So ending a trade in identical products is the most logical and commonsensical way, which is not depriving anybody.But the profits of the giants would decrease, whereas the profits of millions of local businesses would increase. And this is the way of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor while reducing global warming.
       The alternative, localisation movement seems to look good, but having witnessed the past economic recession,after the crisis is over, we tend to go back through the same process again and again. Humankind seems to hardly change, why?
       I'd argue that it isn't humankind that is deciding what kind of economy that they need. It's a very small number of increasingly powerful people. If you look at who is actively promoting the deregulation of trade and finance,it's maybe point zero one of the human population ...maybe even less than that. I'd estimate that about 10,000 people worldwide. Most people wouldn't even understand the mechanisms. They think it's free trade that allows freedom. I think the main reason that this is happening is ignorance from the top and ignorance from the bottom.
       But shall we be able to counter the trend in time,considering the urgency of the situation?
       I think we do have enough time right now. I feel too many people in the environmental movement would say,'Oh it's all going to break down,[so] we don't need to worry about the system'. I believe if more people would focus on education for action, awareness, what I call 'economic literacy'. Spread the awareness. If we can't write for the newspaper, then we can write for newsletters.If we can't speak on television, then let's speak on radio programmes. Let's encourage everybody with the idea that there is a solution.
       I believe that in theory, in two or three years, there could be enough of a movement to change policies. But I think this economic literacy needs to be understood from a global point of view. We need to have a lot more information shared between the North and the South. I believe in the localisation in the small states.
       It seems, though, that the level of the 'immune system'of people in the South has already been drastically eroded ...
       I believe in the so-called 'less developed countries' that the structures are much stronger for localisation. The structure of this crucial identity with one another, with the land, with animals, with the sense of belonging to a place,a language, a history and a group - that identity is still here. The sense of identity is what localisation can rebuild.
       More importantly, or just as importantly, you have skills, both social and practical skills that we have lost.More people here know how to grow foods, know how to build houses out of natural, local materials. In the West,these skills and the communities are much more destroyed.However, in the West, there is more awareness of the problems with the global consumer culture. Here, people are still not experiencing it as much. Even when they see Bangkok - it's polluted, crowded, they believe if they just get more education, more Western schooling, learn English,get more development, then they will be like this paradise - the paradise of America or Europe. So lack of awareness here is the big problem of this dominant model of progress/development. So this is where I believe a deep dialogue between the North and the South is needed.
       How have you seen yourself change over the years since you first set foot in Ladakh in the mid-'70s?
       My views of everything [have] changed. I have studied psychology and I thought that cultural differences were not so significant. I thought it had more to do with hereditary [factors]. But what I experienced in Ladakh, a pre-industrial,pre-developed culture, I realised there were huge differences between that and all the industrialised countries that were very similar.
       With industrial development, the most important thing that developed was the breakdown of identity through[out]communities, to realise the differences between old and young, male and female, and this role model for the children and sense of belonging.
       I believe that community is essential for mental health.It's essential for learning how to be loving and tolerant.And breaking that down is like breaking down the sense of interdependence, which is the teaching of all spiritual traditions. I'd say it is a spiritual and psychological need that is just as important as breathing air is for your lungs.To feel spiritually and psychologically connected, it's something that modernity has destroyed, and that creates self-hatred, self-rejection, which leads to intolerance,violence, unhappiness. That may be the most important thing I have learned from Ladakh.
       Having understood that, I also see in the West therapies that are fundamentally about rebuilding communities and the sense of interdependence and spiritual connection with nature. And those therapies are successful. Even prisoners, juvenile delinquents or violent men can be changed if you help them to connect to people with similar situations and to really share and help them to [re]connect with nature.
       But how do you feel when you go back to Ladakh and see that it, too,changes year after year to be ... er,just like any other place on Earth?
       There have been times when it becomes very depressing and upsetting.The worst was in 1989 when Buddhists and Muslims were killing each other.And year after year, the change has been quite difficult. But each year, with the breakdown of communities and ecological conditions, there were more and more Ladakhis who became interested in looking for alternatives,in assisting our work, particularly in the last 10 or so years. This interest has been going on at the same time as the destruction. So that has given me the strength and the hope to continue.
       It seems young children nowadays have been groomed to think that they have to be No.1, and the interdependence has been thus cut off ...
       Yes, absolutely. Even explicitly. In Ladakh they have now been taught:'You've got to be more ambitious; you've got to literally be more greedy; you've got to look up to [be] number one'.These are the terrible values that are being taught in the schools. In many journals, they'll talk about community identity as tribalism, and they identify tribalism with friction, with warfare.And the picture is painted that in the past, all of these diverse war-like tribes were fighting each other, and that modernity and homogenising has created peace. Well, let's look at how peaceful America is - look at the teenagers who go to school and kill each other, look at the violent crimes.You don't have group violence in the same way, but you have a complete breakdown. A lot of violence.
       When you centralise power and you push people into the big cities, and they have to have a job for survival,then the people in power will give jobs to people of their own kind. If they're Buddhists, then they give the jobs to Buddhists. And if they're Muslims, then to Muslims. And this leads to ethnic friction and violence.
       Centralisation is part of globalisation.Decentralisation is what can allow more people to have jobs, and to have interdependence with different groups.
       I think another very major point is that by destroying communities and then creating job scarcity, these are crimes against humanity. However many people we are, there is more work to be done. Unemployment is a modern product of this economy. It never existed for thousands of years in any society.The artificial constriction of job opportunities is a crime against humanity that must be written about,explaining how and why it could happen.With more people, we need more care,because we have more work. First of all, every plant, every fish, every thing that lives right now is threatened, so we need more people caring for everything that's living. With global warming, we have drought and floods.
       We need to protect everything against floods, fire and drought. So that means more people caring for every bit of water,and every little tree, so there's more work than ever. However many people we are, we need proportionate teachers,nurses, doctors ... there is no limit of work. But through this globalising path we are artificially constricting, and we're partly doing it through taxes and subsidies. So we must expose them.
       And there's also this artificial scarcity of time ...
       The scarcity of time is directly linked to the scarcity of jobs. Because we support businesses when they use technology and fossil fuel, they benefit from scientific research, subsidies and tax breaks. And the more fossil fuel they use, the less they pay. It's more the small businesses that use very little that will be punished because they pay more. This is crazy.
       At the same time, if you employ a person, you pay heavy taxes. This should be shifted toward reducing the taxes on employment and increasing the taxes on technology and fossil fuel. The technology is part of speeding everything up. So the few people who have the jobs now in computers, you have to answer with more posts. Whereas when it was by post, in a day, you might have to answer how many letters. And now with emails, you have to answer much more.
       It's because we've chosen subsidising technology and subsidising speed, which is linked to unemployment.
       What project is your organisation working on right now?
       We are working on a film called,"Economics of Happiness", which should be ready in about two months.I've worked on it for more than four years, and I've tried to get people from every continent -Africa, South America, North America, Europe, China,India, Thailand - to basically spell out that the globalisation of consumer culture is creating too much unhappiness in the world, and that localising would solve most of these problems. Localising needs to be pursued with an international and collaborative mindset. It's not about isolation. It's not about no travel, no trade. We actually need more deep,deep dialogue between the North and the South. And we need it now more than ever before.