Ronald Colman, Ph.D., Director, GPI Atlantic Why is the MAI so important to some? We must begin by acknowledging that according to a certain kind of mathematics it is very attractive. It can be shown to increase production, to expand trade, to lower production costs, and to keep inflation low. It is the same mathematics that measures economic strength and social well-being according to GDP growth rates, and that focuses tremendous attention on related market statistics like interest rate changes, currency exchange value fluctuations, and gains and losses on the Toronto Stock Exchange. It is the same mathematics where the numbers go up the more fish and timber are sent to market, that counts the depletion of natural resources as economic gain. It is the same mathematics where the numbers go up the more crime, the more toxic spills, the more divorce, the more gambling, the more car accidents there are, because all these generate economic activity which adds to growth. It is a mathematics that makes no distinctions between economic activities that contribute to or detract from welfare. It is the same mathematics that ignores growing inequality, the value of unpaid work - including voluntary work, household production and child-rearing, overwhelmingly performed by women throughout the world, and the value of leisure time. All are omitted from the equation in GDP / MAI mathematics. It is the same mathematics that 20 years ago hailed GDP growth rates in Brazil as an "economic miracle," while half the country got poorer, and infant mortality rates sky-rocketed. And it is the same mathematics that today holds Chile up as a model for the developing world, because its economy is growing and it is paying back its loans to the IMF, while its forests are being cut down, its fish stocks depleted, its rural population sprayed with toxins long banned in Canada, and its inequality growing. Interestingly, if you or I used this kind of mathematics on our income tax forms, Revenue Canada alarm bells would sound and we would be hauled in for interrogation. Imagine a factory owner counting the sale of his machinery and capital equipment as profit, the way our national accounts count the sale of our natural capital assets as economic gain! Yet that is the mathematics, selectively counting, measuring and valuing only the quantity of market production, that justifies the MAI, because it increases production at low cost. It is a mathematics that makes no distinction: · whether foreign investment protects or destroys the resources of the host country; · whether investment is in clinics or casinos, in schools or gun-running; · whether investors use child-labour or sweatshops or adhere to safety standards or poison their workers by violating environmental regulations; · whether the investment feeds people or undermines the food security of the host country by converting self-sufficient farms to cotton plantations or shrimp farms or sugar and cocoa plantations for consumption at western dinner tables; · whether security, equity and environmental quality are enhanced or diminished. It is a mathematics, in short, that omits long-terms costs and benefits completely from the equation. It is a mathematics, unfortunately, that is still taught in our classrooms, and that is the foundation of every Economics 101 text. It is a mathematics that misleads policy makers, rewards environmental destruction, elevates materialism to the primary social ethic, and, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, makes it highly likely that the next generation will be worse off than the present one. There is a Better Way of Counting
Here in Nova Scotia we are engaged in a modest project to count some
of the important factors omitted from GDP / MAI mathematics, and to
include them in the equation.
GPI Atlantic is a non-profit research group that is currently
constructing an index of sustainable development for Nova Scotia, a
Genuine Progress Index, that measures the value of our natural
resources, of unpaid work, of equity, of human and social capital, in
addition to market statistics. And it subtracts rather than adds the
costs of crime, toxic pollution and other activities that detract from
well-being.
By integrating social, economic and environmental variables into a
comprehensive set of accounts, it becomes possible to find out whether
welfare is actually being enhanced or diminished by current economic
policy. It can send more accurate signals to policy makers and help
them identify measures that can contribute to genuine progress,
well-being and prosperity. It can let citizens know how we are really
doing as a society, and how we can live sustainably so that future
generations will not be worse off because of our actions. Counting
some of those missing numbers can actually change the policy agenda.
If our natural resources have no value in our accounting system, we
will not give policy priority to supporting sustainable timber
harvesting. While we measure the quantity of market production but not
investments in human and social capital, we will continue to give tax
breaks to business, and view education and health as costs that need
to be cut. Our current system of selective mathematics actually
determines what makes into the policy arena.
If I tell a class of students that they should devote great effort to
their research paper, that they will learn a lot from it, that it will
hone their research skills, that it is the most important part of the
course, and that it is worth 5% of the final grade, then the students
may be forgiven for putting all their effort into the exam instead.
What we count signifies what we actually value far more potently than
what we say.
No one today argues publicly for a degraded environment, for greater
inequality, for more crime or less job security. But we can talk
ourselves blue in the face and profess adherence to all the right
principles. Until we officially count and measure them in our core
accounts, they will not be seen as having real value, and they will
never make it to the top of the policy agenda.
The time is more than ripe to change our accounting system and to
adopt a more genuine and comprehensive measure of progress. And there
is probably no region in the country that is more fertile ground for
this change than the Atlantic provinces, for three basic reasons:
What policy-maker, of whatever political stripe, would not welcome an
early warning system that allows a timely, graduated response to a
depreciating asset before we are faced with another crisis? The
question is not theoretical. A year ago, the National Round Table on
Environment and Economy warned that our Maritime wood lots could be on
the verge of a collapse, analogous to the period preceding the
collapse of the cod fishery.
But we are not immune. Small community schools are being replaced by
massive private-public partnered crowd control enclosures. From a
fraction of the national average 30 years ago, crime rates are rising
fast to meet national standards. Government-supported gambling is
eroding the social fabric. Free trade brings Walmarts to replace small
local stores. And yet, we still have a narrow window of opportunity.
It is still possible here, I am convinced, to garner overwhelming
public support for an index of genuine progress that reminds people of
their true values.
Cutting Through MAI Math
This local project can, I think, contribute to the MAI debate,
because even a small move towards fuller cost accounting, that
begins to consider social and environmental variables in the
equation, can demonstrate how spurious MAI math really is. For
example, the math of globalization shows that transporting goods over
vast distances can keep prices lower than producing those goods at
home. Sobey's can sell a California lettuce for less than it costs a
local farmer to grow one.
But what is missing at the checkout register? That price excludes
energy subsidies, the true costs of transportation, the cost of
greenhouse gas and other emissions from refrigerated trucks and
warehouses, soil erosion from monoculture growing methods, the health
effects of pesticide residues, the loss of local jobs, the loss of
potential local inputs into production.
When all that has no value, when it is not counted at the checkout
register, then the California lettuce looks very attractive. It
appears cheap to the consumer, profitable to the producer, and it
creates enough intermediate economic activity to keep the growth
figures climbing. Sadly, all the hidden and forgotten costs will be
paid, many of them by the next generation.
Cynics might say that people will always go for the lowest price, the
greatest personal convenience, the best bargain. That is the MAI logo.
But I don't think so. I am convinced that if Nova Scotians know all
the numbers in the equation, and not just a selective few, they will
naturally incline to wise choices.
We recently spent $112 million on the 45-kilometre Cobequid by-pass on
Highway 104. That $112 million could have closed the poverty gap for
25,000 of the 46,000 Nova Scotia children who live in poverty. Would
Nova Scotian motorists be willing to drive a few kilometres an hour
slower on the old road or take a few extra minutes on their journey to
help eliminate child poverty in the province? If they knew those few
extra numbers, currently invisible, I'm convinced the answer would be
a resounding "Yes."
Not only that, eradicating child poverty would be a good economic
investment for the province. Numerous studies show that child poverty
is directly correlated with poor health, premature death, and poor
educational attainment, which translate directly into higher social
costs and poor workplace productivity down the road, and which come
back to the economy as costs as surely as the depletion of the
fishery.
This is not rocket science. It is street-sense economics. Ordinary
Nova Scotians can understand it, and respond with wisdom and
compassion.
I may be hopelessly naïve. But I do believe that even those most
firmly convinced of the value of MAI-type agreements would see the
equation differently if just a few extra numbers were added to the
accounts.
I recently read an interview with the Chief Executive Office of
Philip Morris, who earns a tidy $4 million a year. Using the
selective MAI / GDP type mathematics that is confirmed by all we're
taught and read in the press, that man looks "rich." His apparent
wealth is envied and emulated, he may receive honorary degrees from
universities he supports, or may head the local United Way, like the
President of Imperial Tobacco in Montreal. Not only rich, but a
respected citizen! Even if we discount the social costs of what he
produces and sells - (Personally I can't do that, because I feel a
pain in my heart every morning when I see the 13 and 14-year-old
schoolgirls puffing away on the street corner as they wait for the
school bus, or when I read that the number of teenagers who smoke
regularly has tripled in recent years) - but even if we can't expect
the Philip Morris CEO to count these costs, there are others he can
not so easily ignore.
In the interview he reveals that he arrives at the office at 6am every
morning, and leaves at 10pm. He works weekends. "What else do you do,
aside from work?" asks the interviewer. "Sleep," he replies. An
impoverished lifestyle, methinks. No time to listen to music, to read
a book, to play with children, to walk in the woods. (And how easy it
must be to cut down a forest when there is no time to enjoy the trees
and trails.)
Even the CEO of Philip Morris must understand the meaning of a few
extra numbers - the costs of overwork, the health effects of stress,
no time with family. If his account books reflected just the value of
time and health, in addition to sales and profits, I don't believe he
would remain unmoved.
Thirty years ago, almost to the day, just before he was assassinated,
Robert Kennedy said: Too much and too long, we seem to have
surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere
accumulation of material things..The GNP counts air pollution and
cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of
carnage..Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health
of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their
play..It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom
nor our learning; neither our compassion or our devotion to our
country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes
life worthwhile.
Of course, it would be a much more direct path to a decent society if
policy-makers recognized fundamental human, social and environmental
qualities as having intrinsic value in their own right, and if these
values were considered in all policy decisions. But until then, and
while money and economic criteria still dominate the policy arena, and
the consumer ethic guides the behaviour of ordinary citizens, a
genuine progress index at least can demonstrate convincingly that
these non-material values are also the living basis of true wealth and
well-being.
There is no doubt that if the full social, economic and environmental
costs of the MAI were included in the equation, we would see through
the simplistic, narrow, spurious mathematics of the globalization
dogma in an instant, and begin investing in genuine security,
humanity, community strength and ecological resilience, that are the
actual basis of wealth and prosperity, and, at a more profound level,
that give life meaning and make life worthwhile.
|