Over the past two years, I have occasionally referred to the notion of sufficiency economy - a term translated from Thai after His Majesty the King first uttered it publicly on Dec 4, 1997.
Moderation of food intake is the cure for increased obesity, yet more consumption and treatment of the resulting chronic illnesses adds to GDP. This convoluted kind of thinking has spurred the Royal Society to propose at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development last June that the world community seriously reconsider the concept of GDP.
Countless documents have been written about it since and a large number of individuals claim they have used it as the guiding principle for what they do. Ask them to define its meaning, however, and they will likely give many different versions that make one wonder if they are referring to the same thing.
Many may confidently say that sufficiency economy is a philosophy or idea which comprises five elements, roughly translated from Thai as knowledge, morality, moderation, reasonableness, and immunity from shocks. But most will stumble when asked to elaborate. This is similar to asking Thai Buddhists about the five precepts. Most can readily recite them. But that is all they can do _ recite a short sentence for each one.
Having devoted considerable amount of time studying economic thought and practices as well as many of the related documents, I have found that none of those documents are wrong but none provide a completely satisfactory description of sufficiency economy either. This is similar to the case of asking a group of blind people, each touching a different part of an elephant to describe the shape of the animal. I myself am one of the blind and this is my take on sufficiency economy: It is a version of the market economy _ whatever variance of the market economy one wishes to consider _ with one additional element, namely, moderation.
For any variance of the market economy to work well, I believe, the four other elements that I have referred to must be applied, and to a great extent they have been, resulting in increased production and consumption in most parts of the world for a long time.
With the dwindling of some key natural resources and continued expansion of the world's population, however, the planet can no longer support ever more consumption, which is the cornerstone of the life's goal of pursuit of happiness preached in most contemporary cultures.
Besides, it has become increasingly doubtful that ever more consumption brings increased happiness.
Discussions of this issue can be found in numerous studies and books, notably The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse by Gregg Easterbrook and Happiness: Lessons from a New Science by Richard Layard.
Work by the New Economics Foundation also has shed more light on the issue, which notably has confirmed that after satisfying basic physical needs, increased happiness comes largely from other factors, such as, having trusted friends, being physically and mentally active, giving, being close to nature and moderation of food intake.
Moderation of food intake, of course, is the cure for increased obesity in most advanced countries, whose citizens not only over-indulge in food but also in other harmful goods, such as carbonated sugar-water and tobacco products. Increased production and consumption of these harmful goods add to GDP, a conventional measure of economic well-being. And when those who indulge in them suffer from chronic illnesses, the expenditure to treat them also adds to GDP.
This convoluted kind of thinking has spurred the Royal Society to propose at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) last June that the world community seriously reconsider the concept of GDP. Nothing concrete, however, has come out on that conference.
Moderation can be applied in many fields and it is best that each individual determines for himself what suits his particular situation.
In economics, the government, however, may spur people towards a desired path by creating incentives through various means, beginning with, say, a system of consumption taxes, some of which have been used for a long time such as taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. And we do not have to stop at consumption taxes. To limit population growth, for example, instead of penalising people who have more than one child, as China does, impose a system of progressive taxation after the first child. This is the opposite of what some countries are doing to spur population growth or stop population decline. Different schemes of income tax deductions can also be considered.
With one tweak on the mechanism of the market economy _ the workhorse that has served humanity well for so long _ the sufficiency economy is not a radical idea.
But, I believe, it is an idea whose time has come.
Sawai Boonma has worked as a development economist for more than two decades. He can be reached at sboonma@msn.com.