Re-Thinking Property for a Well-Being Society

• Conference: RE-THINKING PROPERTY: pathway to a Well-Being Society scenario. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PLATFORM. Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 25-27 August 2011

Details

Organized by the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

• Address: 77, 79 Fuang Nakorn Rd., Wat Rajabopit, Pra Nakorn, Bangkok, 10200 Thailand
• Tel: (662) 622-0955, 622-0966, 622-2495-6 Fax: (662) 622-3228

Introduction to the Themes of the Conferences

The following is a version without notes and references:

* Welfare State or Well-Being Society?

If doubts prevail whether ‘the welfare state’ is a feasible option for Asian societies, and ‘populism’ – driven by the market-economy and intending to satisfy the needs of citizens at an artificial level only – is increasingly rejected as an un-sustainable solution1, other alternatives will have to be explored.

Alternative approaches to our governance and economic systems need un-biased evaluation and passionate exploration of prevailing and new development paradigms.

Does economic growth result in wellbeing? Are the legal foundations of mainstream property-regimes still valid in a context of continuous environmental degradation, land grabbing and the accumulation of private wealth fed by unspecified economic growth? Can altruism become central in economics? Who Owns the Earth?

Re-thinking the fundamentals of ‘property’ may lead the way to unlock new development paradigms.

In the second decade of the 21st century our world moves towards a ‘Great Turning’. Alternative ideas that initially emerged in the 1970’s are gaining critical mass today. The Club of Rome: Limits to Growth; E.F. Schumacher: ‘Buddhist Economics’; the start of IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements in France in 1972; the 4th King of Bhutan who pronounced in 1974: ‘Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product’.

An enormous diversity of new movements of living alternatives7 has come up since the 1970’s. To mention only a few: the World Social Forum, ‘Cultural Creatives’, the Eco-villages and Transition-towns movement, social entrepreneurship, the Commons Movement.

In Thailand Sulak Sivaraksa established the Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation in 1968. ‘Ajarn Sulak’ personifies a movement of cultural integrity and engaged spirituality confronting soul-less modernization. He consistently supports the Assembly of the Poor8. Around him a cluster of independent NGO’s9 and social enterprises10 are blossoming. Sulak Sivaraksa received the Right Livelihood Award11 in 1985 and the Niwano Peace Prize in 2011. He is a Member of the World Future Council; and Advisor of the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research.

At the dawn of UNCED 201212, twenty years after the groundbreaking conference in Rio de Janeiro, the School for Wellbeing proposes to create a modest but effective momentum – 25-27 August 2011 – to take stock of what is happening in the world of alternative development, in Asia, Southeast Asia and the Mekong region, in order to contribute to empowering and re-positioning Thai and Asian change agents in the global transformation movement."

Emerging economies have achieved impressive material ‘growth’, but social progress often manifests in not much more than overwhelming consumerism at the cost of little improvement of the quality of life, in particular for the people surviving at the lower strata of society. ‘Cheap labour’ is (still) the motor of this economic growth.

Is the socialist ‘welfare state’ a feasible option for Asian societies? Market economy-driven ‘populism’ is increasingly recognized as an un-sustainable solution. ‘State capitalism’ is the kind of compromise/merger between socialism and neo-liberal ideology that can only thrive under authoritarian governance. ‘Alternative development’-movements should be further recognized and supported.

SCENARIO RESEARCH PROJECT

Action-research undertaken by the School for Wellbeing: Summary

Is ‘the welfare state’ a feasible option for Asian societies? Neo-liberal market-driven ‘populism’ is more-and-more recognized as an un-sustainable solution. ‘State capitalism’ can only thrive under authoritarian governance. Alternatives should be supported.

The Well-Being Society scenario project produces research in this direction: can we co-create a new Third Way, a contemporary Middle Path19? The research-project, within its limitations, focuses on a strategically selected number of areas: 1. Re-thinking property 2. Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide with studies on a- farmers as social entrepreneurs (rural perspective) as well as b- creative commons in the field of Information and Communication Technology (urban perspective).

The results will feed into the formulation of a broad-specter Well-Being Society scenario, in comparison to ‘neo-liberal’ and ‘socialist/communist’ scenarios. The research outcomes will be offered as elements for a participatory scenario-building process among a diversity of stakeholders. Ultimately the project aims to contribute to a public dialogue on the gigantic policy development dilemma’s incurred in the aim of securing well-being for all citizens.

The International Exchange Platform Re-thinking Property: Pathway to a Well-Being Society scenario draws upon earlier activities on re-thinking ‘GDP’ organized by the School for Wellbeing: the visit of Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz to Thailand in 200920. And the development of National Accounts of Well-being as proposed by the New Economics Foundation (nef), U.K., explained in person by TED speaker Nic Marks, nef’s lead author of the (un-)Happy Planet Index and advisor to the British government.

New indicators of wellbeing like Gross National Happiness in Bhutan have been contemplated and have guided us towards in-depth research on ‘utility’, ‘contentment’ and ‘altruism’ as manifestations of happiness or wellbeing (Amartya Sen versus Matthieu Ricard). And how a shift in producer-consumer orientations from this point of view could result in an alternative approach to economics (Apichai Puntasen: ‘consumption efficiency’). The GNH Index is determined by a ‘sufficiency level’ (‘cut off’) with neutral or negative impact of scores both below and above this level (Dasho Karma Ura). This view resonates remarkably with the concept of Sufficiency Economy launched by the King of Thailand.

As much as the aims, impacts and social awareness regarding a ‘wellbeing society’-scenario a new Third Way or Middle Path will be articulated, the application of the positive aspects of diverse systems or scenarios, realized on the ground in unique combinations, will be enabled. Evidence-based foresight of the impacts of the wellbeing society in comparison to the neo-liberal and socialist alternatives is to support mindful decision-making and informed public participation. The Well-Being Society scenario project aims to innovate an academic platform and ‘social lab’ where participatory decision making can be exercised and multiplied into publicly available learning materials (planned in 2013).

Assumptions have been tentatively formulated on choices to be made between scenarios for the future. What follows here is a provisional overview, with a variety of elements that can be reviewed during the project in more depth.

SCENARIOS (draft)

General characteristics

All three scenarios have both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ characteristics and impacts. Development reality will always result in a unique mix of systems. However, for right choices to make, principles have to be clearly distinguished so that synergies indeed enable the achievement of intended results.

Assumption

Local diversity will lead to optimal holistic ‘added value’, if global networks serve a common cause determined by consensus building. This common cause is tentatively perceived as the ‘global well-being society’ with organic agriculture (agro-ecology) as the heart of transformation.

Scenario

Socialist scenario

Scenario towards wellbeing societies

(Neo-)liberal scenario Systemic characteristic Welfare state

Wellbeing society

Free market economy

Responsibility Collective responsibility Common responsibility in social systems

Individual responsibility Indicators of progress (Basic) income; Equality Wellbeing; happiness; altruism

Profit; wealth; individual success Major actors Major actor is the state

Major actor is civil society

Major actor is private business Trends Uniformity. Don’t Own. Share.

Individual hero-ism. Governance focus Collectivism and state regulation; state-driven global governance Community spirit and localized regulation; global inter-cultural networking Individualism and de-regulation; global governance dominated by multinational corporations Governance mode Multi-party democracy (in communist system: single party) ruled by majority Democratically supported consensus-building mechanisms; free expression of diversity

Money- (lobby-ism) and strategically financed, media- supported democratic system Core values underpinning Worldview Justice Solidarity Freedom Ethics Duty towards collective aims and equal rights Responsibility towards the common good, minorities and shared values Freedom to conquer individual success; competition; charity/philanthropy

Social security system; education; health care Rights-based social security arranged by state and taxation of business and private persons; state education and health care Co-responsibility of civil society (families, communities, religious and ethics-based organizations), the state and the business sector. Education and health care ‘owned’ by civil society

Social security determined by market mechanism; private education and privatized health care Equitable economic development Wealth distribution by taxation; governance by the masses Multi-stakeholder dialogue between civil society- government-business- sectors leading to bridging the gap between rich and poor; bridging the urban-rural divide

Regime that maintains disparity between rich and poor; balanced by opportunities to ‘climb the ladder’ Scientific orientation Historic materialism Holistic science Pragmatism Property Emphasis on public property Emphasis on common property

Emphasis on private property Agriculture system and Food security Collective and large-scale farming under government regulations; state distribution Community based small-scale organic farming and natural resources management; bio-diversity and fair trade through local and international networks; ‘food sovereignty’ and ‘mindful markets’

Large scale farming; land, seeds, processing and marketing channels owned by private business; free market mechanism Information and communication ICT sector in hands of state enterprises; government sector primary customer; censorship Networks of ‘creative commons’; responsible and participatory media; customized service catering specific needs of urban and rural participants Private sector driven, commercially structured services and products; purchasing power of urban majority drives product development and services

EXCHANGE PLATFORM ACTION PLAN (some issues)

Organic Asia: the Heart of Global Transformation

The School for Wellbeing Studies and Research, and CCFD-Terre Solidaire21 intend to develop a programme Organic Asia in particular in collaboration with partners in the Mekong region (Tibetan plateau and Yunnan, China; Myanmar; Thailand; Laos; Cambodia; Vietnam).

The organic agriculture policy in Bhutan, National Organic Programme22, and the Green Market Network, Thailand, may serve as inspiration for building up regional and continental networks to develop agroecology approaches, including mindful marketing, that address growing Food Security concerns.

The groundbreaking Report recently submitted to the UN Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter23, can serve as a guideline for the development of an Organic Asia action-research programme:

“Cross-country comparisons show that GDP growth originating in agriculture is at least twice as effective in reducing poverty as GDP growth originating outside agriculture.24”

“Only by supporting small producers can we help break the vicious cycle that leads from rural poverty to the expansion of urban slums, in which poverty breeds poverty.”

“Most efforts in the past have focused on improving seeds and ensuring that farmers are provided with a set of inputs that can increase yields, replicating the model of industrial processes in which external inputs serve to produce outputs in a linear model of production. Instead, agroecology seeks to improve the sustainability of agroecosystems by mimicking nature instead of industry.25”

The Green Market Network, launched in Thailand by Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise, aims to support local clusters of small-scale organic farmers (in conversion) to engage in long term fair trade association with institutional consumers, in the first place hospitals. This initiative draws its inspiration from the global Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) movement26.

The International Commons Movement In November 2010 the International Commons Conference was held in Berlin, in cooperation with the Commons Strategy Group and sponsored by the Heinrich Boell Foundation27. David Bollier28 introduced his conference summary as follows: ‘For years the commons has been gaining momentum as a new paradigm of economics, politics and culture. Its rise can be seen in countless milieus around the world: among indigenous peoples in Latin America determined to protect their ecosystems and cultures; among farmers in India defending the right to share seeds; among Croatians seeking to prevent the privatization of cherished public spaces; among communities trying to preventing multinational bottling companies from appropriating local groundwater; and among diverse digital commoners who are creating “shareable” resources such as free software, Wikipedia, open educational resources and open access journals. Until recently, mainstream political culture has regarded the commons as an inevitable “tragedy” that results in the over-exploitation of scarce resources. This has helped make the commons a marginal side-story that could be safely ignored. But after the “economic crisis” of October 2008, it has been much harder to dismiss the commons as a tragedy, anachronism or novelty. It became even harder after the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Professor Elinor Ostrom, a pioneering scholar of the commons, in 2009. The growth of countless Internet commons has also been a pointed rebuttal to orthodox economists who regard the market as the only serious means for generating valuable resources. For these and other reasons, the commons is increasingly being seen as a rich seedbed of community empowerment and a template for new types of fair and sustainable resource management. It offers a way to critique the failures of neoliberal capitalism while encouraging the development of innovative policy alternatives’. Economics of Happiness: Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide

In her recent film The Economics of Happiness Helena Norberg-Hodge strengthens her appeal to ‘bringing the food economy home’29.

During the GNH-movement seminar on ‘Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide’ (2010) the diversity of (often conflicting) property regimes uphold by different stakeholders was highlighted, often implying an obstacle for transformation towards sustainable development. As mentioned before, a leading traditional notion of property, ‘the commons’30, has been almost wiped out by the primacy of state ownership in communist and authoritarian systems; and neo-liberal ‘monoculture’ of private property claims.

In order to find windows towards ‘re-setting’ the economy – the backbone of the future wellbeing society – it is necessary to gain full understanding of the issue of conflicting property regimes that influence the capacity to self-determination of societies in its core.

It is a challenging research question whether and in what ways property regimes correlate with the perceived urban-rural divide; and how insights can help to bridging this divide. One assumption is that traditional notions of common property are revitalized in organic agriculture and rural development, in a spirit of social entrepreneurship. Can a new ‘social contract’ between rural food producers and urban consumers be settled? The movement resonates with new approaches to intellectual property, notably the ‘creative commons’ in the area of Information and Communication Technology (ICT): an urban-driven alternative to the supremacy of mainstream private and public property regimes. ICT for sustainable development: interactive media, social networking

Our worldview changed and is still rapidly changing along with communication technology. Recent social uprisings were enabled by unprecedented social networking opportunities. The School for Wellbeing has been involved from the initial stages in the PARADISO ‘Internet for the future’ project supported by the EU. In his closing remarks at a recent PARADISO planning workshop31 Roberto Peccei32 stated:

‘The goals of the PARADISO project, to explore how society might evolve in the future and how the Internet might help make this future better, are totally aligned with the thinking of the Club of Rome and that of my father, Auerlio Peccei, who was the Club’s founder with Alex King in 1968.’

‘The world needs a paradigm shift in economics similar to the one physics experienced at the dawn of last century, when quantum mechanics and the special and general theories of relativity were invented to address new phenomena not explainable by Newtonian mechanics.’

‘I believe economics is ready for a similar paradigm shift’.

Global conversation on Democracy

Ajay Chhibber33 concluded in his Opening Statement of the regional Conference on Deepening and Sustaining Democracy in Asia, October 2009, Paro, Bhutan: ‘Today, we are at a crossroads for democratic developments in Asia. The region has made tremendous strides in economic and social progress under many different forms of governance. Multi-party elections have taken place in every country in South Asia over the last few years. This is a significant achievement. It is also a resounding call for all the elected governments now in power in Asia to fulfil the promise of democracy.’

‘Either democracy will thrive and deliver benefits for the people in terms of human development, or it will wane and turn into the victim of its own neglect of the people.’

Later34 the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi, organised a session of the Global Conversations on Democracy. A key dimension of thinking through democracy ‘meant understanding the new mutations of institutional power and global mobility that have registered themselves over the last decades. A “global civil society” seems to have entered the world stage and was providing in complex ways a “monitoring” mechanism, overlooking the power of nation-states. This is of course not to simply see global civil society as discrete, easily separable in any way from the nation-state, but rather study it as an index of the changing nature of the relations and networks between state and non-state forms of political power and surveillance35.’

These “mutations” obviously are also determining perceptions of property.

Human Security: beyond sovereignty of nation-states?

Dr. Surin Pitsuwan36, in his keynote address to the 3rd International Conference on Gross National Happiness, 2007, Thailand, made the following statement37: ‘There is a new idea and concept of security. We call it Human Security. It would mean that the state and government cannot claim absolute sovereignty, and nobody can interfere based on responsibility to protect the people’. ‘We hope that this new approach will gain currency in the world’.

Likewise, concepts of property over natural resources like water, air, earth may have to transcend conventional arrangements for public property or state-ownership which is transferable to private property.

Consensus-building leadership

From the observation, also made in earlier research of the School for Wellbeing, that diverse formal and informal legal, social and political systems – basically in the realms of state, civil society and markets – determines concepts of property the conclusion that can be drawn is the need for ‘consensus building leadership’ capable to fairly (so, in the long term perspective of sustainable development) moderate the often conflicting property claims and subsequent interests.

Towards a Well-Being Society?

The School for Wellbeing started the Well-Being Society scenario project to explore new possibilities for an alternative (and “Asian”?) approach to secure well-being in the region.

The objective of the Exchange Platform in August 2011 is to engage in multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary dialogue around re-thinking property as a core challenge in various domains, in order to explore these alternatives; as well as to empower transformation movements towards genuine realization.

APPENDIX 1

(Diagram from final report TRF research development project 2008-2010)

APPENDIX 2

Introduction text Well-Being Society scenario project proposal to Thailand Research Fund (TRF), 15 Sept. 2010

The ‘Third Way’ between socialism and capitalism has never matured into an alternative in its own right. The most recent attempts to create a ‘Third Way’38, notably by political leaders Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have resulted in compromises between free-market and socialist systems that honoured the negative aspects of both rather than combining the positive dimensions of each.

Parallel to this effort a comparable approach was conceived in Asia by Nicanor Perlas, Philippines, but it never reached the mainstream like the ‘Third Way’ did in England and USA39.

The ‘Third Way’ never matured into a systemic alternative realized massively and consequently on the ground over a longer period of time.

A major obstacle towards emergence of a genuine ‘alternative economy’ has been the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi before he could start his governance experiment, including ‘trusteeship’ ruling property, and a village-based economy, in independent India.

The emerging blend of liberalization within communist China still maintains a lighter ecological footprint than that of the West, but the Chinese economy as it develops, is not genuinely sustainable and just.

The European ‘social-market economy’, instead of carving out its own course, increasingly followed the principles of the USA economy. It was hard hit by the economic crisis of 2008 which revealed its unsustainable characteristics, in spite of enormous efforts to change the course.

The ‘co-operative movement’ was articulated in modern history as a potentially alternative economic framework, for example by Robert Owen (1771-1858) in England. The movement now includes an enormous number of co-operatives, including some of the largest enterprises, spread all over the world. However co-operatives in general adjusted to the economic environment and the movement did hardly offer a systemic alternative for national economies.

In Africa Julius Nyerere induced co-operatives nation-wide in Tanzania. However the original impulse evolved towards a restrictive government-driven system. While the inspiration towards ‘endogenous development’, including traditional forms of co-operative business, as pioneered by Joseph Ki-Zerbo in Burkina Faso, was marginalized.

Nearly all over the world natural resources are governed by private property- (individuals and corporates) or public property- (the state) regimes, often maintained from far and anonymously. In traditional, endogenous and contemporary alternative worldviews nature is considered to be common property shared by all in a multiple generational perspective and cared for – not exploited – by communities directly involved.

Socio-political crisis-ridden Thailand’s struggle to comply with sufficiency economy, and the positive charisma surrounding the newly constituted democracy Bhutan with its Gross National Happiness, offer two possible important ‘social labs’ for exploring new combinations that include elements of capitalist and socialist systems but above all could draw their guidance towards a new direction in development, from a possible ‘third scenario’: the wellbeing society.

In order to facilitate countries and above all civil societies to determine their own unique mix of development philosophy and economic theory guiding practice, it is important to give the ‘wellbeing society’ a stronger, transformative, profile.

The ‘wellbeing society’ should not be seen as a compromise between neo-liberal and socialist systems but as a development path based on a distinct vision, worldview and authentic, intrinsic values.

Bhutan launched its Gross National Happiness philosophy as a new development paradigm. Whether it really can make a difference will be determined within a decade40. Thailand is exploring avenues – beyond ritual – towards a genuine sufficiency economy and since the political crisis of May 2010, no longer can escape from facing the challenge to bridging the gap between rich and poor. A new development paradigm, however, may as much emerge from efforts to bridging the urban-rural divide, as from focusing on ‘wealth distribution’, though not at all ignoring the urgent need for ‘economic justice’.

Best practices gathered in the framework of this project from both agriculture and ICT (Information and Communication Technology) undertakings, as well as contemplation on property regimes will offer analytical material to test this assumption: skillfully addressing the urban-rural divide has strong transformational impact. The relevant pioneering minority in agriculture being the organic agriculture movement. And within the world of ICT this is the ‘creative commons’ approach.

Not only will this assumption be tested by means of academic dialogue but as well in simulation of decision making regarding the policy dilemmas involved. Assessing and re-thinking Food Security policies provide a challenging framework for this exercise.

Thailand and Bhutan offer two exemplary opportunities to co-create unique development pathways. Both countries have their complex problems as well as their unique ‘cultural capital’. From Thailand-Bhutan interaction in this perspective, links can be established to regional (Mekong countries, S.E. Asia), continental (Asia Pacific) and global networks operating in the same field of articulating an alternative, new ‘Third Way’ economy, an economy of sharing.

In addition to secular initiatives, a new generation ‘Buddhist Economics’ is being explored and may offer new windows to alternative development41.

Common denominators to be revealed among this diversity of alternatives – unique but in many ways representative for other unique cultures in Asia – could provide the foundations of a wellbeing society - perspective.

If common ground can indeed be found and given a strong profile, this would strengthen the contributions of movements in Thailand and in Bhutan to the debate on re-thinking economic performance and social progress42 in South-East and in South Asia43.

The discourse could influence the new role of Asia in shaping progress towards appropriate global governance, including interaction with initiatives evolving from other continents44.

The construction of a ‘wellbeing society’ scenario is intended to provide a framework for dialogue at various levels. The purpose is to engage the government, business and civil society sectors as equal partners in a common effort to shape development. For this reason the concept deserves an exploration into more depth.

Participatory decision making in policy development can be exercised by modes of simulation games with backing of academic research, forecasting the impacts of alternate decisions. The design, experimentation and evaluation of the informed simulation offers material for a multi-media communication project which brings decision-making on contemporary global dilemmas into the direct face-to-face human sphere, and beyond mere intellectual exchange. The simulated decision making process can possibly be shared with the public, including by means of social networking.

The School for Wellbeing Studies and Research aims to provide a platform for exchanges and debate on wellbeing-driven policy development. ‘The School’ intends to be an independent think-tank in this field.