Towards A Competitive Malaysia #20

Chapter 5: Consequences of Progress and Prosperity

We all like to be better off today then we were a few years ago, and our children to be better off than we are. The issue is not with the concept of progress and prosperity, rather with their content.

Economists measure prosperity by the GDP, per capita income, and other such indices because those are the easiest to measure and compare (although there are still complexities associated). By and large they correlate with what most people view as progress and prosperity. Citizens of nations with high per capita income generally live better and longer than those in countries with low figures. The Ethiopians with their low per capita income and GDP lead a miserable existence as compared to the Swiss with their generous per capita income. The Ethiopians are less healthy, less educated, and have shorter life span and plenty to worry about as they go through their daily existence.

The World Bank divides nations into four categories based on their per capita income: low, low-middle, high-middle, and high-income countries. Within each group, the per capita income loses its discriminative value. The Canadians and Swedes have much lower per capita income than the Americans, but few Canadians or Swedes would envy the Americans. To make a finer distinction, the Bank introduces the concept of “Development Diamond” by looking at four socioeconomic indicators: life expectancy, school enrolment, access to potable water, and per capita GDP. These are then plotted along four axes at right angle to each other, thus giving an easy graphic representation. The bigger and more symmetrical the diamond, the better is the overall quality of life of the citizens.1

The GDP figures, widely used, have their own limitations. They do not differentiate between the economic values of reconstructing of New Orleans damaged by Katrina, to building a new city. Similarly, the value of mothers taking care of their young at home, which is a valuable and significant investment in the nation’s future, does not add to the GDP. If she works at a factory and employs a maid, then the values of her work and that of her maid’s service count toward the GDP. Then there is the classic folly of the birth of a calf adding to the GDP (as future producer of milk and beef), while the birth of a human baby reduces the per capita GDP (by increasing the denominator).

Those broad considerations aside, there is still no universal agreement on what constitutes progress, or the good life. To Kelantan Malays, the good life would be when they are assured of a slot in heaven. A leader who promised them that would get their votes. To the likes of Osama bin Ladin, the good life is the promised virgins in the Hereafter. To the average American, the good life is when he or she can have a decent home in a peaceful neighborhood, and good medical care without bankrupting the family.

The Nobel laureate in economics Amartya Sen argues passionately in his book (Development as Freedom) that human freedom should be the primary end and principle means of development.2 Freedom in all its dimensions: political, economic, in opportunities and in security. Freedom in one arena feeds on freedom in other areas. He makes the profound observation that no famine (or viewed differently, absence of freedom from privation) has ever taken place in a functioning democracy.

Development, Sen continues, must go beyond the accumulation of wealth, GDP growth, and other related variables. It must ultimately relate to and be concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy. The founding fathers of America said it best: In the pursuit of happiness.

Culture plays a big role in defining what the good life is, the content of the concept of progress. In my book Malaysia in the Era of Globalization, I define progress as improvements in the ability of a society to take care of the basic needs of its members in terms of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as in ensuring that citizens are allowed to develop to their fullest potential.3 There are two points to this definition. One, it implies an ongoing process. There is no end point; you can always improve on your conditions. Two, there is still space for cultural interpretations as to what constitutes “basic needs” and “full potential.” In feudal societies you are deemed to have a full life if you have faithfully obeyed your lord and master. In many Third World societies, that is still true.

Cultural relativism notwithstanding, there are some sets of values and aspirations that are universally (or nearly so) shared. As stated in Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington’s book, Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, these include the premise that:

• Life is better than death

• Health is better than sickness

• Liberty is better than slavery

• Prosperity is better than poverty

• Education is better than ignorance

• Justice is better than injustice.4

Fanatical suicide bombers might take exception to the first statement; likewise hypochondriacs to the second. As for liberty over slavery, not too long ago slavery was accepted as an expression of God’s grand design, at least in the religion of the oppressors. Nobody bothered to ask the slaves.

As for education being better than ignorance, I once met an Education Minister from Brunei; he saw no merit in spending his nation’s vast wealth on schools or otherwise educating the masses. You only raised their expectations, he reasoned, and then they would become uppity and start complaining about their government. Before you knew it, you would have an uprising! That Brunei official was not alone. Many, especially in the Arab world, still hold the same view towards their women.

These fringe elements excepted, most accept the preceding six statements. Regardless of how we define progress, it has its own problems; some anticipated, others not. At times, mired in the problems of the day, we conveniently forget about the challenges and tribulations of the past. We wistfully long for the good old days when things were presumably much better, at least according to our now selective memory.

I illustrate this with the invention of the automobile, which most would regard as definite progress. It revolutionized the way we do almost everything. Even the most virulent Luddite would admit that cars and trucks are much better, superior, more efficient, and yes, even less polluting than the old horse-drawn carts. Yes, cars are noisy and spout out greenhouse gases. Every year thousands are killed or maimed by this contraption, and vast tracts of fertile land are being paved over to accommodate it.

Imagine if cars had not been invented and we were still stuck with horse-drawn carriages. The streets (and we) would by now be buried under horse excrement, with the associated flies and stench. Our cities would be inhabitable. Instead of greenhouse gases, we would have methane oozing out of every hole in the ground.

By the same token, those same dynamics that give rise to that remarkable progress in producing cars are also equally effective in managing the associated problems. Fatalities associated with automobile accidents are considerably lower in the First World than in the developing world because of improvements in safety and other designs. American cars are also equipped with catalytic converters that markedly reduce pollution. Meanwhile the air in many Third World cities are laden with airborne lead because of the still widespread use of leaded gasoline and highly polluting inefficient engines.

The problems associated with or created by progress would be more effectively solved through more progress, not less. These problems could be physical, social, personal, and moral. I will deal with each separately.

Next: The Physical Price of Progress