Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development

Human Flourishing in Progress
and De-development
This section presents Jason Hickel’s development framework focused on de-
development. As a departure from traditional frameworks of growth and development,
Hickel’s concept of de-development is discussed as an alternative to narrowing the gap
between rich and poor countries. Thus, taking off from this alternative framework, the
section critiques human flourishing vis-ā-vis progress in science and technology.
Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this unit, the students should be able to:
1. discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and
technology;
2. explain de-development as a progress and development framework; and
3. differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development
and Hickel’s concept of de-development.
Recent researchers found that 70% of people in middle- and high
income countries believe that overconsumption is putting the planet
and societies at risk. Form groups with three members each and discuss
your thoughts about the following:
1. How do you think overconsumption puts the planet and society

at risk?
2. What are the manifestations of society’s tendency to
overproduce and overconsume?
3. Should middle- and high-income countries regulate their growth
and consumption? Why or why not?
Thoughts to Ponder
Despite efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries,
a BBC report in 2015 stated that the gap in growth and development just
keeps on widening. Although there is no standard measure of inequality, the
report claimed that most indicators suggest that the widening of the growth
gap[ slowed during the financial crisis of 2007 but is now growing again.
The increasing inequality appears paradoxical having in mind the efforts that
had been poured onto the development programs designed to assist poor
countries to rise from absent to slow progress.
With this backdrop and in the context of unprecedented scientific and
technological advancement and economic development, humans must ask
themselves whether they are indeed flourishing, individually or collectively.
If development efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor
countries have failed, is it possible to confront the challenges of
development through a nonconformist framework?
In the succeeding article, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London
School of Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and development
efforts to eradicating poverty seven decades ago. More importantly, he
offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and development.
Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich
countries
by Jason Hickel
This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s
new sustainable development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to
eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncē, One Direction and Malala are on
board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a
fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s
business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the same:
growth.
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70
years, despite the fact that it’s not working. Since 1980, the global
economy has grown by 380% but the number of people living in poverty
on less than $5 (£ 3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion.
That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down
effect.
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More
progressive types tell us that we need to shift some of the yields of
growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones,
evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because
even at current levels of average global consumption, we’re
overshooting our planet’s biocapacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much.
Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at
breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to
overconsumption in rich countries.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8
“global hectares” annually – a standardized until that measures resource use and
waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala
consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per
person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward
argues that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we
should be thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate
levels of development. We should look at societies where people live long and happy
lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that
need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living.
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life
expectancy is 79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000. but many countries have
achieved similar life expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a
comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the highest literacy rates in the
word with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares –
right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of
Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yield
improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even
literacy rates. But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing
in addition to life expectancy, a number of low-and middle-income countries rank
highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and
life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as
underdeveloped, but rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we
need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong

rallying cry in the global south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners.
Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent consumer research, 70%
of people in middle-and high-income countries believe overconsumption
is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe
we should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not
compromise our happiness. People sense there is something wrong with
the dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for an
alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using
the wrong language. They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst
of all- de-development, which are technically accurate but off-putting for anyone
who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive because they run against
the deepest frames we use to think about human progress, and, indeed, the
purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively through life,
to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state”

economics is a step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still
doesn’t get the framing right. We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive
future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward quality instead of
quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing
amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is
that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing
alternative visions around the indigeneous concept of buen vivir, or good
living. The west has its own tradition of reflection on the good life and it’s
time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his
book, How Much is Enough?, where they lay out the possibility if
interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working week and a
basic income, all of which would improve our lives reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We

can’t go on ignoring the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of
progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a development one. If
we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as
food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen
since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living
a life of voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On
the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and
consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
Direction: After reading Hickel’s article on the concept of de-development,
answer the following questions in two to three sentences.
1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?

2. How is the de-development framework different from traditional
frameworks of development?
3. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?
4. Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de-growth, zero
growth, or de-development in describing an alternative framework?
5. Some people might think that de-development is about giving things up.
How does Hickel explain that this is not the case?

Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Flourishing in Progress and De-Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Flourishing in Progress

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. How do you think overconsumption puts the planet and society

The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong

Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state”

Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We

1. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?

You might also like