Women's Empowerment Pt. II: On Microfinance

In a previous post on women's empowerment, we briefly discussed the role of framing economic development in the context of an ever-advancing civilization in which spiritual and moral empowerment go hand-in-hand. This concept may be difficult to conceptualize, so we think it might be beneficial to analyze a current trend with regards to microfinance institutions that have, in recent years, placed particular emphasis on women's empowerment. Though we do not claim to have experience dealing with this topic, recent reports and analyses of the declining effectiveness of these institutions have inspired this post.

In what is considered the birthplace of microfinance, the story of this institution has taken a turn for the worse in India. This turn has been documented through decreasing repayment rates (the rate of delinquency has almost doubled in recent years) as well as a seemingly rising trend that emphasizes the use of traditional moneylenders to pay back loans acquired through microfinance. The WSJ article quoted a borrower as saying:

"Group pressure makes us go to moneylenders... We get small loans for 15 days to fill the gaps when we can't pay. If you lag behind, the rest of the group members can't get new loans."

There is increasing interest by donors to fund microfinance efforts because of the expectation that providing access to finance will lead to empowerment; however, it is not clear whether these initiatives are  ultimately beneficial. Part of the reason may be a result of the divergent interests of lenders from promoting social goals:

"On the one hand, private capital helps finance the growth of the sector and expand its reach. 'At the same time, if the mission of microfinance institutions is only to maximize profit, then the social goal of helping people out of poverty is not reached,' …'The problem is that a lot of the new private investors in the sector see it mainly as a way of making a lot of money.'"

Our point in sharing these trends is not so much to criticize the efforts of the microfinance programs described in these articles. Indeed, principles such as the equality between women and men that  have been infused into such programs address truly profound social ills and have tremendously boosted the status of women in the regions in which they  have been implemented. After all, in many instances the concept of income generation was foreign to women, and since earning an income, these women have placed more financial emphasis on the education of future generations than was the case before.

Rather, our point is to share that without other moral and spiritual principles that cement processes of development in an ever-evolving framework, noble efforts can be undermined by other, less constructive forces. Having a strong moral and spiritual base can keep such initiatives focused and purposeful. Consider the case of ECTA (which means "unity" in Nepali) in which participants are encouraged to build-capacity to analyze the needs of society and apply spiritual principles towards the advancement of their communities. Certainly, the experience here is also a fledgling effort at its early stages. However, the communities’  objective seems to go beyond income generation and skill-building,  and their approach attempts to address  the  causes of social ills at a much deeper level.

This same process may be taking place among other microfinance programs that seek to elevate the station of women, though are not given much attention. Perhaps the financial component of these activities is magnified in Western media, partly to demonstrate results that are more easily measured and more rapidly achieved. Perhaps the other components of community-building, which are more difficult to measure and tend to bear fruits more gradually, are left hidden to our eyes. If this is the case, then we should perhaps learn how to shift the way we measure and discuss micro-finance programs so that they fit into the context of an ever-advancing civilization. If this is not the case, then perhaps it would be helpful to step back and analyze our experiences in this field in a more holistic manner that would address principles that need to be included in order to truly propel our communities forward.

At the Heart of Social and Economic Development

Recently I attended the Baha’i Social and Economic Development Conference in Orlando, Florida. The theme was “Baha’i Inspired Development and the Growth Process: Partners in Transforming Society”. A co-worker and I had the honor of presenting the work of the Tahirih Justice Center and share the history and learnings of the organization to two very captive audiences. The conference itself offered an opportunity to learn from many others — young and old — involved with development/service work in their communities.

Among the questions explored in the conference was the meaning and source of “development”. Of course the term “development” is not new to anyone. Nations have been striving towards “development” for centuries. And who can deny that humanity has made astounding advances in scientific and social development in the last two centuries alone? Notwithstanding these benchmarks of progress, another fact rears its unpleasantness: a majority of the people inhabiting the planet have been left far, far behind. Ironically the gap between poor and rich is widening even as “development” has morphed into a global enterprise that seductively (and rather self-righteously) markets itself as targeting “the poorest of the poor”.

“Born in the wake of the chaos of the Second World War, ‘development’ became by far the largest and most ambitious collective undertaking on which the human race has ever embarked. Its humanitarian motivation matched its enormous material and technological investment. Fifty years later, while acknowledging the impressive benefits development has brought, the enterprise must be adjudged, by its own standards, a disheartening failure. Far from narrowing the gap between the well-being of the small segment of the human family who enjoy the benefits of modernity and the condition of the vast populations mired in hopeless want, the collective effort that began with such high hopes has seen the gap widen into an abyss.” (One Common Faith, 2.4)

Why has “development” failed? The question is intimately linked to another — what is the nature of true human/societal development? Is it purely material? The experiment of the last century was an exercise in applying the notion of development defined in purely material terms. Its dogma caused us to believe that human progress rested on material accumulation alone. We therefore pursued development projects that narrowly sought the economic exploitation of the environment, promoted the violent cultural intrusion of societies, and tolerated the kind of painful structural adjustment programs which the IMF and the World Bank implemented in developing countries at the expense of health, education, local infrastructure and the overall welfare of local peoples. Unembarrassed by both the immediate and devastatingly long-term tangible human suffering caused by the injustices of these policies, our world seemingly continues to blindly follow a credo fed by an insatiable, brutish appetite for material wealth.

The problem is not material wealth per se — rather it is the motivating impulse that drives the processes involved in the aim to improve the conditions of life. Consumer culture has operated under the conviction that those with means must become slaves to their senses and continuously satisfy their material wants and desires. With spending perceived as the pulse of healthy social and economic development “[s]elfishness becomes a prized commercial resource…Under appropriate euphemisms, greed, lust, indolence, pride—even violence—acquire not merely broad acceptance but social and economic value.” (One Common Faith, 2.3)

Part of the problem lies in a deep rooted perception of human nature as incorrigibly selfish. People, we are told, are fundamentally self-interested actors. By design the social and economic structures we have built under the various development regimes are meant to harness those impulses to fuel human progress on the path to “modernization”. Or so we’d like to believe — reality tells a different story, one that is hard to ignore: the disintegration of the family, mounting violence and crime, disappearance of community life, the degradation of the environment etc.

What if we painted a different picture of development? What would it look like? What if development was more than just a measure of income and material wealth? What if development also can start with interpersonal relationships, between two neighbors? What if we viewed true development as unlocking the potential of the individual and building their own capacity to identify problems and take social action within their own community? Does development really begin with material resources and capital? Or does it begin with collaboration and commitment to a broader vision born of a community of people who aspire for something better for themselves and future generations?

Slowly, we are learning that at the heart of how we understand development is a fundamentally different way of looking at human nature — each of us are intelligent beings with the capacity to overcome our baser qualities, with the capacity to do good, to serve, to give sacrificially for the benefit of the whole…the choice has always been ours. We have the agency, what has been missing for far too long is the will.

If we viewed human beings as having capacity to improve their own conditions would necessarily change the way the world “does development”. And here’s how: Currently, most development projects and programs are, by design, top-down in approach. It somehow presumes that pouring resources into a country will naturally lead to development—the project has only to be engineered and orchestrated in right way by the learned “experts”. It presumes that any failure to reach the intended results is due to missteps in the process of execution. If we are to throw out the underlying framework of the development model that is currently imposed on the peoples of the world, something else will have to take its place.

In order to move away from a model that too often regards the “poor” as “charity” or as “untapped human resources” that simply need training by the “experts” to be productive members of society, we need to embrace the idea that every individual is the agent or protagonist of their own learning and development, as human beings with capacity and the ability to build upon it. This idea firmly affirms that whole communities of people can develop the capacity to identify their needs and work together to address the challenges of their community, thereby becoming truly empowered, as they have taken ownership of their learning and growth in a manner most suitable to their environment and current development. We would perhaps start to look at “poverty” as not lack of material wealth, but as a life wasted due to lack of opportunities to achieve their highest potential to contribute to the welfare of the wider community.

So that leaves each of us — protagonists of change, agents of social transformation — at the heart of the matter.

Social and Economic Development can begin, and in reality, does begin with each of us. We all have the capacity to contribute to the betterment of our neighborhoods, the quality of our relationships with young people, the ability to serve each other. Through these grassroots initiatives, be they formal or informal, taking part in service or “social action” and working diligently towards these ends will release the potentialities of the human spirit in ways we have yet to fully realize.

Women’s Economic Empowerment : Towards a New Definition

We often hear the term women’s economic empowerment in relation to – and sometimes interchangeably with – gender equality and women’s rights. It seems therefore useful to discuss the goal of women’s economic empowerment and how this links to women’s access to meaningful work. Furthermore, how does this concept fit into a larger scheme of achieving gender equality and advancing the development of all of society?

If we define development in strictly material terms, then progress is the result of income generation and economic growth working as key instruments to lift the less developed world out of poverty and into a state of prosperity. International policy born of such definitions brings women’s rights into the equation in the name of ‘empowerment’. Slogans such as Gender Equality as Smart Economics frames women’s ‘empowerment’ as a tool to advance this economic growth. And such campaigns do enjoy success at the level of rallying Government and private enterprise support for a ‘gender equality’ dimension to their development efforts. But does this definition of ‘empowerment’ have wider implications on women’s sense of identity, on their concept of ‘work’, and on an overarching definition of ‘progress’? Does it neglect and even reinforce the underlying injustice that we seek to eradicate? Our discussion on 'empowerment' and how it links to gender equality, then, must be embedded in an alternative vision of progress, one that values the role of justice and principles in combating oppression.

An example may help us to consider this. Many development strategies promote women’s ‘empowerment’ by gearing women who live in poverty towards entrepreneurship from a young age. Resources are being directed towards a school curriculum that offers financial education on how to invest, how to save and how to access markets, as a means to equip girls with the skills necessary to manage their own businesses. Such skills are valuable in advancing the role that women can play to contribute to the material prosperity of their families and communities. But what about the qualities such as trustworthiness, cooperation and a spirit of service that go along with good financial management? Alone, are these skills enough to empower women to become actors in a process that generates sustainable change that can be integrated into a more holistic conception of prosperity? What kind of models of ‘empowerment’ can reinforce the community and local economy while addressing deeper problems of injustice and social inequality, to avoid having women become merely tools to propel economic growth?

Any efforts for women’s empowerment and gender equality lack purpose if we don’t see them as vital ingredients in a larger, overarching agenda to advance humanity towards an age of maturity where justice reigns and both men and women are united in their efforts towards spiritual and material progress. How to get there? Certainly it implies going beyond a good combination of policies and incentives; beyond giving women the means to earn their own living; beyond the right publicity campaign. Gender equality is so much more than any of these things – it is a fundamental truth about reality. And while we agree that economic empowerment is an essential element in giving women equal access to meaningful work, the change that is first needed must take place within peoples’ minds and hearts. A change that inspires a genuine belief that like the two wings of a bird, men and women must be equal and work side by side to empower humanity to glide perpetually forward, together, as an ever-advancing civilization.

Women's empowerment in the context of an ever-advancing civilization

We would propose that economic empowerment should not be divorced from moral empowerment, in the same way that in the larger development picture, spiritual and material prosperity go hand in hand. In the critical adolescent years of these girls’ lives, as their identities are being formed, can we neglect a need for parallel efforts that seek to provide the strong moral foundations necessary for their progress? Or a need to ‘empower’ them to develop their talents to realize their potential to contribute to the spiritual and the material well-being of their community through meaningful work and service? That means endowing the work we are training them to undertake with a purpose that supersedes its material utility and thus providing a different definition of ‘progress’. It means a more holistic approach to education that frames productive labour as a meaningful contribution to both their own lives and the lives of the people around them.

What happens when we integrate girls into a system built on the principles of self-interest and competition from such a young age without also providing the moral compass to guide them? The response to that question could fill volumes; it is interesting to note however how severely these principles contrast those that characterize the work that women have been historically engaged in. That is, building homes conducive to the material and spiritual welfare of children. This work is traditionally nourished with the qualities of love, service, generosity, cooperation and detachment. Is there no place for these qualities in the current model of the working world? Perhaps our current economic vocabulary does not possess the language to measure their utility.

Recent studies indicate that qualities are not the only thing being lost: as more women move forward with their careers, less are choosing to become mothers. In achieving economic empowerment, the value of family is being compromised. The role of the mother as the first educator of children is being subordinated to economic gain. Men too have an important role to play here. For us to consider building a just and equitable civilization, the role and relationships between both men and women need to be defined not around economic gain but around building just and equitable social structures of which the family unit is at the core.

So we start with a different premise: That ‘empowerment’ means launching women and men into a two-fold process of transformation: transformation of themselves through transformation of the world around them. So that every human being – male or female – should have access to meaningful work through which they can develop individually and contribute to the spiritual and material prosperity of society. And we cannot construct such a framework without first laying the spiritual and moral foundations that provide the conditions necessary for true development progress; for true empowerment. As discussed, this should go beyond banking know-how and involve a deeper exploration into the values and principles upon which an entire community is built. Just what kind of values could lay the foundations for a universally encompassing approach conducive to the expression of the individual soul’s desire for progress, and the advancement of humanity? Where could we turn to define these values?

The Value of Trust: Should we be reactive or proactive?

One recurring sentiment among business and government leaders in Davos, Switzerland this past weekend involved the need to build mutual trust among business entities and nations:

“Between Chinese people and American and Western people, we lack mutual understanding,” said Cheng Siwei, a former Chinese politician and a co-chairman of the International Finance Forum, a Beijing-based think tank. The only way to “keep this relationship stable,” he said, is “to build mutual trust.”

Participants proposed that this lack of trust could be addressed via regulations towards the financial sector, which is seen as the main cause of the disintegration of trust. However, this too is not an ideal way to establish trust. Perhaps the billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros summed up the ambivalence most succinctly:

You want to keep regulation to a minimum, because it is worse than markets. But you can’t do without it.

Our previous blog post mentioned the value of hyper-public goods such as love, trust, etc. and their role in strengthening economic systems. Our inclination to emphasize the importance of trust seems to be confirmed by the concerns expressed by the leaders at Davos. We often hear this same concern voiced at the international level with the term ‘accountability’. For example: how do we make one government accountable to another, or to its citizens? Or in other words, how do we know we can trust them to fulfill their promises? A host of ‘solutions’ are provided, from providing the right incentives, to creating watchdogs, from protests and strikes to tying a future relationship to conditions.

What is lacking in this approach is a distinct difference between reactive suggestions for trust-building ( represented in Davos by regulation-driven suggestions), and proactive ones. Our sense is that everybody wants trust, but there is no agreeable manner in which to build it. What further exacerbates the problem is that most business leaders function within a system of intense competition, and most Governments prioritize the defence of their national interests. By definition, ‘competition’ has forces inherent in its structure that strive to tear at any trust that has been or can potentially be built among collaborators.

Our next challenge: find communities whose guiding principles emphasize the creation of virtue-based hyper-public goods and elaborate on how they change the economic climate.

What about the Community?

Economic Assumptions and the Role of Hyper Public Goods

In a world that presupposes that individuals are like atoms, orbiting within their own sphere of self, the community is, arguably, irrelevant to economics. In this conception of the world (commonplace, though far from ideal), economics would merely become an exercise in maximizing profit and individual gain at the expense of…everything else (think Darwin’s survival of the fittest.) Such is the show playing out before us on the world stage today, as we watch the gap between the rich and poor forever widen, the environment increasingly degrade, and an excess materialism continue to cast its dark cloud over moral and spiritual values.

And yet, in these times of financial uncertainty and moral questioning, more and more people are standing up and shouting out in defense of a more meaningful rewrite of reality. A world in which the individual is part of an organic, interconnected whole. A world where economic systems cannot be divorced from the lives of the real people using them.

One of these people is Professor Stephen A. Marglin. His current research, including that published in his book The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community, brings the notion of the community back into the spotlight as fundamental to understanding how economic systems ought to function. He questions the foundations of mainstream economic thought and asserts that they distort our understanding of humanity’s true nature and the purpose of human relationships in a way that renders the ‘community’ irrelevant:

Economics substitutes a mantra of market freedom based on assumptions of dubious merit, whether considered as facts about people or ethical norms.In adopting a particularly extreme form of individualism, in abstracting knowledge from context, in limiting the community to the nation and in positing boundless consumption as the goal of life, economics offers us no way of thinking about human relationships that are the heart and soul of community other than as instrumental to the individual pursuit of happiness.

So perhaps before we think about human relationships, we ought to rethink: who are the ‘individuals’ forming them, if not isolated ‘atoms’? One could compare individuals to the cells of the human body, which are interconnected yet diverse in their functions. The cells within a human body both depend on and fortify one another. They must work together accordingly to form more complex vital organs. Much like humanity itself, the body relies on this diversity to meet its various needs, as well as a certain harmony and coordination. The interconnectedness of the system is even more apparent when something is amiss. If one part of the body is suffering, the rest of the body must work harder, and may also suffer as a result.

So we could evince this from current global trends in climate change, the world economy, natural disasters and health pandemics. But on a more profound level, this analogy of the human body implies a deeper thread between individuals, who share more than just a planet, but also a common purpose and responsibility to fulfill the destiny that a shared Creator has set for humanity. A somewhat daunting task. But then, if we think about the human body, it is not just the sum of individual cells that makes it work, but rather the unity among them.

If the above-mentioned assumptions beneath mainstream economics render it incompatible with a more profound exposition of human nature and human relationships, the relevance of economics to an investigation of reality disappears. Marglin argues precisely that, pointing out that mainstream economics is getting the focus wrong. Particularly, he addresses the use of market models in economics, which economists oftentimes use as a tool to propagate assumptions associated with self-interested individuals devoid of community. He doesn’t purport that markets are inherently bad, but claims that mainstream economists use market-modeling as an end in itself. Furthermore, he claims that economists are driven to persuade the world that market-based models thoroughly describe reality as it is and create models to justify their inherent value rather than trying to understand how markets work and the insights they provide into reality:

The problem with the idea that economics is purely, or even primarily, a descriptive undertaking is that the apparatus of economics has been shaped by an agenda focused on showing that markets are good for people rather than on discovering how markets actually work.

Rather than helping the world to function and advance, the economy is simply reinforcing a definition of the self-interested individual that contributes to the break-down of human relationships and consequently the increase of injustice – both economic and social – in the world.

A shift in focus, towards understanding how markets work, may just reveal profound insights about the dynamics of community life and the human relationships that define it. And it may very well change our assumptions about how the economic system ought to function in the world.

Marglin suggests that one of the ingredients of an ideal community would be love. Faithful to an integrated, holistic vision of the economy, he calls love a “hyper public good” that “increases by being used and indeed may shrink to nothing if left unused for any length of time.” He then goes on: “The sensible thing to do is to create institutions to draw out and develop the stock of love.”

A great start – though one can’t help but feel it’s just the tip of the iceberg. What is this love that bonds individuals of a community together and how is it linked to a greater shared destiny for humanity? What implications would this have on forming a new paradigm for economic thought?

If we really are intent on keeping the economic system integrated in the world, we could ask: once all the cells of the body are functioning healthily, what does the human body do? The body’s functioning is not an end in itself but rather a means for that individual to engage with the world, to participate in a two-fold process of individual and societal transformation. What would the purpose of this new community be? How would a new economic system work naturally to help advance this purpose?

We would argue that a ‘healthy body’ version of the community is still in the making, though there are certainly many models in existence today that would be worth studying. That being said, an interesting next step could be to closely study communities that are built on values such as love, and to identify other ‘hyper public goods’, such as trust, unity, or a desire for justice. As these individuals are empowered to promote the interests and well-being of all, connected by bonds of love, fortified by a collective undertaking to work together for the well-being and advancement of humanity, we could perhaps start to set the new foundations to a just, fruitful economic system. That could be a start.

Ariely: Religion as a Source for Research Ideas

Behavioral Economist Dan Ariely posted some thought-provoking insights on his personal blog recently, raising questions about the potential role of religious teachings in providing insights into human nature that could be used to motivate scientific research:

Given religion’s role in society and the way it evolves over time, I think we could benefit from using its wisdom to direct social science research. The key is to zero in on a religious tenet and ask why it’s there and what is suggests about human behaviour, and then to empirically test the hypothesis with the hopes of deriving science from religious texts.

Science, especially the social sciences, is not immune from the subjective lenses through which we view reality. All scientific inquiry requires some sort of faith in the basic assumptions that form the foundation beneath the work of a scientist. In the social sciences, these assumptions are more pronounced, given the confusion and divergence of opinion among scientists regarding the nature of human behaviour.

It appears that much of Ariely’s work has led him to this realization (or vice versa). In one of the chapters of his book, Predictably Irrational, Ariely discusses the power of expectation in shaping our perception of reality. In one of his experiments, he provides free coffee at a University, and then asks students to state how much they would pay for the coffee if it were sold at the café around the corner. On some days, he would serve the coffee in simple Styrofoam cups next to odd containers of sugar, cream, and coffee spices. On other days, he would provide the exact same ingredients, only the serving items provided were more classy-looking. He found that students were prepared to pay more for the coffee with the classy set-up, suggesting that their preconceived opinion of the coffee’s value ultimately affected their judgment of how good it tasted, or of its actual value. On a broader scale, this could illustrate how human perception of reality is never neutral, but always biased by one’s preconceived assumptions and values.

Let us now turn to Ariely’s thoughts on the potential of using religious teachings to enlarge the scope of scientific research. In a sense, he’s suggesting that scientists’ ‘expectations’ be informed by religious teachings. Let’s use economics as an example. We could take religion’s golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and accept this principle about social behaviour as one conducive to individual and shared prosperity. How would this ‘expectation’ then guide an economist’s research into human behaviour? Surely he would set out to prove different theories and shed light on new areas of research previously hindered by assumptions about the individual (i.e. that an individual is motivated by self-interest). Such work could shake the entire foundation of the science of economics. What would be the consequences on economic theory as we know it?

Certainly, economic theory would be obliged to tackle new and perhaps more complex questions. Assumptions about human nature promote and institutionalize a certain vision of progress based on the perceived potential of human beings. Once these fundamental assumptions change, a scientist’s theories and expectations would naturally evolve. Thus, the objectives they set and, by default, the indicators they choose, must be raised to heights commensurate to this new vision of human potential and human purpose. Questions asked may not simply be, how do we progress human society, but rather, how do we tap into human potential? What is the role of religious teachings here?

Ariely’s research also shows that whether religious or atheist, there seemed to be a universal attraction within an individual to act in a ‘moral’ way once presented with a ‘moral reminder’. But there is a point Ariely doesn’t consider in much depth: what is the force that motivates an individual to follow the laws or tenets provided by religion or social norms? What are the forces that can shape – even transform – human behaviour? What motivates man to reach to higher, nobler aspirations? These are evidently the big questions perplexing social scientists today, and we should consider how religion can provide insight here, too.

Some further considerations:

v Ariely defines religion as ‘a social mechanism that has evolved over time’. How would this definition change our understanding of religion’s role in motivating scientific research when compared with a definition of religion as a set of divinely-inspired teachings that responds to the spiritual and material needs of humanity?

v Could this extend beyond the social sciences to other areas in science? Are there limits to the relevance of religious teachings to science?

Economic Indicators of Recovery and the Reality on the Ground

Joseph Stiglitz provided the following quote in a recent interview:

"Very clearly things are better than they were a year ago. We have pulled back from the precipice. But in a meaningful sense the global slowdown is in sight. Economists refer to crisis in terms of a series of quarters of negative growth. But for most citizens the recession means [whether] they can get a job. For homeowners it means whether there is equity in their home, whether its prices go down 10-20-30-40 percent, for business it is whether they can sell the goods that they have the capacity to produce. In these perspectives the recession is not over, and in many respects, particularly in employment, it might get worse.

For the US the official unemployment rate is 9.8 percent, but the broader unemployment rate shows that one out of 6 Americans cannot get a full-time job. The broader rate calculation includes discouraged workers, workers who have stopped looking for a job but are not employed and those who accept a part-time job because there is not a full-time job available. There are hundreds of people who have applied for disability pay who would be working if they could get a job. It’s true that the labour market situation in America is worse than at the outset and from this point of view the recession is going on. "

Stiglitz highlights a key point related to the inconsistency between reports of economic recovery and the reality experienced by citizens in our community. I've been increasingly reflecting on the idea that even when people are employed, seldom are they able to be as productive in their employed position as their inherent training/capacity allows them to be.

For example, a friend of mine was recently evicted from his home because he hasn't been able to pay rent for a number of consecutive months. He was working a security job at a construction site for a while, but as construction slowed down, there was no reason for his employers to keep him around. This same friend was providing wonderful services to his neighbors and other community members whenever he could. He would mentor kids that lived on his street, show them how to cook, cook food for his roommates, etc. Every day, he would go out to look for a job - any job - and would often find himself doing some sort of landscaping work just to have enough to get by at the end of the day.

I kept thinking to myself, this man is highly capable of being productive either as a chef, landscaper, construction worker, daycare worker, etc. His only shortcoming, if it can be called that, was that he was unable to figure out how to be productive within the context of the market dynamics in Durham and did not have the start-up capital to pursue an entrepreneurial career. There are no structures in place that would allow him the necessary insurance/security blanket to pursue an entrepreneurial passion, which would allow him to be far more productive than he would be with any job.

This scenario plays itself out in less dramatic fashion for far too many individuals in society. I feel that much of this stems from the inclination for many people to think of labor as a commodity rather than a necessary component of human civilization. What I mean by this is that our indicators for success (GDP, financial indices, etc.), as mentioned by Stiglitz, do not direct us to make policy decisions in a manner that recognizes the dignity of the human station and acknowledges the unique talents and capacities that individuals possess. There are a couple related questions I will think about as I continue my daily reflections:

• How would economic policy be shaped if ability to work was a right that we would incorporate into social reality?
• What sorts of indicators (other than poverty levels and unemployment) can we use to demonstrate economic success? How would micro-indicators differ from macro-indicators? How would they be able to indicate worker satisfaction vs. worker discouragement? Would this be akin to saying that the worker feels as though he/she finds purpose and stability in work?