Exploring mainly Heterodox type Economics, Monetary Reform, Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change. It is a resource of Internet articles, and also promotes awareness of a futuristic modern universal Paradigm known as TFE, or Transfinancial Economics which is probably the most advanced, and most "scientific" form of Economics in the world .
Joan Wilson reviews Diane Coyle‘s wonderful discussion on the future environmental and economic successes of society.
How can we ensure that we leave behind enough of an environmental, economic and societal legacy for future generations? This is the crux of the discussion behind Diane Coyle’s wonderful book, The Economics of Enough, which places a firm emphasis on our need to give weight to the future when making decisions about the organisation of our societies today.
Economic problems lying in wait
In the wake of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, brought on by the near collapse of the global banking system, Coyle reminds us that the financial crisis is just one of the many economic challenges we face. More pressing is the instability in our natural environment, as consumption demands by an ever-expanding world population continue to put strain on the earth’s resources. Add to this burgeoning government debt – already high in the face of demographic change and exacerbated by the bailouts of big banks – for which the burden of repayment rests on workers of the future.
Consider too that growing economic prosperity has primarily benefited the few, with those at the top end of the income dispersion gaining more than their due in financial bonus rewards and inflated salaries, while low-to-middle-income households have seen their disposable earnings drop. Inequality is rife in countries such as the US and the UK. Furthermore, an uneven distribution of the returns to economic growth is intensifying the corrosion of trust, the ‘social capital’ that forms the fabric of our society.
Should we give up on growth?
In all of these areas we have reached the stage of enough, we are on the brink of unsustainability. How can we redress the imbalance created by these challenges and deliver a positive future legacy? Many would argue that our relentless pursuit of higher economic growth, indicated through Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, is at the heart of our current dire circumstances.
Happiness-related research has risen in stature following the finding that when incomes reach over $15,000 per head we arrive at a satiation point, beyond which gains in earnings bring us no additional well-being. Because of this the task of economic policy should be diverted towards targeting greater happiness rather than more growth, so the argument goes. Then, if our appetite for joyless extra spending can be discouraged, the pressures we are putting on the environment as well as on society through increasing debt, inequality and decaying trust will become more manageable.
If only things were that simple. As Coyle argues, it would be a fallacy to replace the goal of GDP growth with a quest for well-being, when, in periods of recession characterised by the absence of growth, unhappiness prevails. Additionally, revised empirical testing of the growth-happiness relationship has highlighted that the two are, in fact, positively linked. People in prosperous countries derive ever-more satisfaction from the breadth of choice and access to an array of intangible provisions (such as live music) and ‘weightless’ features (including design and quality) that economic growth enables them to have. What is more, at a time when government debt is at untenable levels in countries across Europe, we need productivity gains and technological advances to ensure that we can keep up the repayments on our liabilities.
Measuring up to our economic challenges
So what changes could we work towards to avert catastrophe? Or at least what are some plausible solutions to our economic challenges? For one thing we need better measurement. If the statistics on which we formulate our policies are grounded in a more detailed and better understanding of the current state of our economy and our potential legacy then this will add legitimacy to policy goals that take account of posterity.
To this end, as the main indicator of growth, GPD data itself needs revision and substantiation to incorporate the value of our legacy. Economic activity statistics need to account for changes in the stock of goods and services, for comprehensive wealth in the form of natural resources, and both human and social capital, as well as for advances in the quality of our purchases and our rising consumption of intangibles.
Secondly, we need to reverse the decline in trust by restoring morality at the core of our institutions – including our markets, political organisations, households, and firms – and thus to regain “the richly woven tapestry of shared values and the sense of virtue” that previously featured in Western societies (pp. 48).
In harmony with this solution is the third suggestion, that establishments – especially political and governing groups responsible for managing our collective organisation – must realign themselves with the mass transformation of society led by huge advances in information and communications technology (ICT). Nowhere is this more necessary than in the public sector, where years of reform have failed to produce a system capable of dealing with the structural developments of the economy.
Education is simply the soul of a society
There is only one stone that the reader felt needed further turning in this intriguing book, and that is how we can ensure that individuals internalise their responsibility to bequeath equivalent welfare as we currently possess to future society. Or, to put it plainly, how can we entrust individuals to care for the future?
Coyle devotes a whole chapter to addressing the notions of fairness and altruism, and, based on psychological, evolutionary and primatology-based research, concludes that these compassion-related traits are innate to our being. Despite this, a yearning for a greater grasp of how the global nature of society is affecting our concept of altruism and our concern for the future remains. In this sense, uncertainties about the full shape of our future society and the pathways of humanity – which, of course, depend on the worth of the world’s legacy – abound to create an ambiguous ‘return’ (for want of a better word) to due thought for posterity.
Perhaps the answer to this question lies in one final point raised by Coyle – that our success in giving enough importance to the future depends on education. Then here the happiness debate and economic growth can be reconciled. If we can teach young children the principles of well-being such as empathy, mutuality and patience, then we can equip them with the forethought to embrace and safeguard sustainability in society alongside growth, to the benefit of all generations to come.
Dr Joan Wilson is a researcher at the LSE Public Policy Group
The costs of inaction on climate
change will be "catastrophic", according to US Secretary of State John
Kerry.
Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the
impacts of global warming as "severe, pervasive and irreversible".
He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by
a rapidly changing climate.
Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising
temperatures, the report says.
Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most
comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the
world.
In a statement, Mr Kerry said: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly,
science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.
Denial of the science is malpractice.
"There are those who say we can't afford to act. But waiting is truly
unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic."
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), which produced the report, told BBC News: "Even in rich countries, the
impacts of climate change could lead to greater incidents of pockets of poverty,
even in rich countries could lead to impoverishment of some particular
communities.
"However there is an equity issue, because some of the poorest communities in
the poorest countries in the world are going to be the worst hit.
Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of
flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability. Humans may be able
to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.
An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls
and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more
efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.
Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a
growing impact on humans is feared.
Members of the IPCC say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of
these effects.
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly
spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our
society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security
and economic development.
"The recent flooding in the UK is a testament to the devastation that climate
change could bring to our daily lives."
The report details significant short-term impacts on natural systems in the
next 20 to 30 years. It details five reasons for concern that would likely
increase as a result of the warming the world is already committed to.
In its own words, the IPCC is there "to provide the world with a clear
scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its
potential environmental and socio-economic impacts".
The offspring of two UN bodies, the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme, it has issued four
heavyweight assessment reports to date on the state of the climate.
These are commissioned by the governments of 195 countries, essentially the
entire world. These reports are critical in informing the climate policies
adopted by these governments.
The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time
staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary
basis.
In some parts of the tropics and in Antarctica,
potential catches could decline by more than 50%.
"This is a sobering assessment," said Prof Neil Adger from the University of
Exeter, another IPCC author.
"Going into the future, the risks only increase, and these are about people,
the impacts on crops, on the availability of water and particularly, the extreme
events on people's lives and livelihoods."
People will be affected by flooding and heat related mortality. The report
warns of new risks including the threat to those who work outside, such as
farmers and construction workers. There are concerns raised over migration
linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security.
Report co-author Maggie Opondo of the University of Nairobi said that in
places such as Africa, climate change and extreme events mean "people are going
to become more vulnerable to sinking deeper into poverty".
While the poorer countries are likely to suffer more in the short term, the
rich won't escape.
"The rich are going to have to think about climate change. We're seeing that
in the UK, with the floods we had a few months ago, and the storms we had in the
US and the drought in California," said Dr Huq.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the findings in the report
were "profound"
"These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay
for, and there's a limit to what they can pay."
But it is not all bad news, as the co-chair of the working group that drew up
the report points out.
"I think the really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of
thinking about managing climate change as a problem in managing risks," said Dr
Chris Field.
"Climate change is really important but we have a lot of the tools for
dealing effectively with it - we just need to be smart about it."
There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this
new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?
"It is not up to IPCC to define that," said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian
government official who attended the talks.
"It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to
pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the
climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation."
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Analysis
Roger HarrabinEnvironment analyst
The prognosis on the climate isn't good - but the doctor's changing his bedside manner with the people in charge of the planet's health.
The report's chair, Dr Chris Field, is worried that an apocalyptic tone will frighten politicians so much that they'll abandon the Earth to its fate.
There is nothing inevitable about the worst impacts on people and nature, Dr Field says. We can cut emissions to reduce the risks of catastrophe and adapt to some changes that will inevitably occur.
We have to re-frame climate change as an exciting challenge for the most creative minds.
Cutting local air pollution from, say coal, can also reduce carbon emissions that cause warming; creating decent homes for poor people in countries like Bangladesh can improve lives whilst removing them from the path of flood surges.
Some will criticise Dr Field for being too upbeat. But many politicians have gone deaf to the old-style warnings. Maybe it's worth a new approach.
The report was agreed after almost a week of intense discussions here in Yokohama, which included concerns among some authors about the tone of the evolving document.
This is the second of a series from the UN's climate panel due out this year that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming.
This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.
Be it the melting of glaciers or warming of permafrost, the summary highlights the fact that on all continents and across the oceans, changes in the climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems in recent decades.
In the words of the report, "increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".
"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' said Mr Pachauri.
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline".
A perspective on the UKDavid ShukmanScience editor, BBC News
British winters are likely to become milder and wetter like the last one but cold spells still need to be planned for, says the UK Met Office.
Summers are likely to be hotter and drier, but washouts are still on the cards, it adds.
The assessment of future weather extremes finds the role of human influence is "detectable" in summer heatwaves and in intense rainfall.
However, the Met Office says a lot more work must be done to confirm the links.
If the study is correct, it means everything from gumboots to snowploughs and sunscreen to anoraks will still be needed.
These include threats to unique systems such as Arctic sea ice and coral reefs, where risks are said to increase to "very high" with a 2C rise in temperatures.
The summary document outlines impacts on the seas and on freshwater systems as well. The oceans will become more acidic, threatening coral and the many species that they harbour.
On land, animals, plants and other species will begin to move towards higher ground or towards the poles as the mercury rises.
Humans, though, are also increasingly affected as the century goes on.
Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.
After 2050, the risk of more severe yield impacts increases, as boom-and-bust cycles affect many regions. All the while, the demand for food from a population estimated to be around nine billion will rise.
Many fish species, a critical food source for many, will also move because of warmer waters.What is the IPCC?
The world needs a Plan B on climate
change because politicians are failing to reduce carbon emissions, according to
a UN report.
It warns governments if they overshoot their short-term carbon targets they
will have to cut CO2 even faster in the second half of the century to keep
climate change manageable.
If they fail again, they will have to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
This could be achieved by burning wood and capturing the CO2 emissions.
The gas could then be stored in rocks underground.
But a leaked draft of the UN report also says that the technology for carbon
dioxide removal is untested at such a scale.
The authors warn that carbon removal systems may encounter resistance from
the public - and if the policy goes wrong, it could damage forests and
ecosystems..........
Government responses
Some comments on the draft text of the forthcoming UN report
Russia: "There are no CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal)
technologies by now. In the best case, they are pilot projects and small-scale
experiments. [The idea] looks unrealistic.
UK: "[The] technologies [are] not proven and may not be
available. There is a significant risk that the [summary document] misleads
policy-makers into thinking that mitigation action (cutting emissions) could be
delayed with little increased climate risk.
Germany: "Please indicate that CDR technologies are not
currently available and would be associated with high risks and adverse
side-effects."
..........The final draft report to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) adopts a new tone of realism in the face of repeated
failures by governments to meet their rhetoric on climate change with action.
It warns that governments are set to crash through the global CO2 safety
threshold by 2030. Humans have tripled CO2 emissions since 1970, it says - and
emissions have been accelerating rather than slowing.
The experts advise governments that it will be cheaper overall to cut the
greenhouse gas before 2030 if they want to hold emissions at 430-480ppm CO2 - a
level that's calculated to bring a 66% chance of staying within a desired 2C
threshold of warming by the end of the century.
These are not recommendations - the IPCC isn't allowed to make them - but
they are an acknowledgement that many countries appear to lack the will or the
ability to cut emissions.
A Greenpeace spokesman said: "This new report captures the choices we face.
It's not too late; we can still avoid the worst impacts of global warming but
only if the clean energy technologies that can slash carbon pollution are given
the green light.
"The more we wait, the more it will cost. The sooner we act, the cheaper it
will be."
But Bob Ward, from the LSE's Grantham Institute, said it was crucial to reach
safe levels by 2100.
"We are in a much worse situation politically than we were seven years ago,"
he said.
"The current lack of action means that we may have to consider overshoot
scenarios, which would be better than abandoning our temperature target
threshold of 2 degrees. Some people think there's a degree of political
dishonesty in allowing governments to claim they will keep to their targets in
the short term."
The report says emissions are running at the high end of projections.
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to break the 450ppm threshold
by 2030. It adds that current pledges by governments made at climate summits in
Copenhagen and Cancun currently exceed this cautionary limit.
The share of clean energy sources needs to triple or even quadruple by 2050,
relative to 2010, the final draft explains. Delaying emissions reductions beyond
2030 will increase the challenge of bringing down CO2 to a safe level by the end
of the century.
The report will be discussed by government representatives and experts
through the week.
Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. While the "community" may be a family unit, it is usually understood in the wider sense of interactions between a community of people in a geographical location, or who have a shared history or interest.[1] Communitarian philosophy is derived from the assumption that individuality is a product of community relationships rather than only individual traits.
Though communitarianism as a philosophy originated in the 20th-century, the term “communitarian” was coined in 1841 by John Goodwyn Barmby, a leader of the British Chartist movement, who used it to refer to utopian socialists and others who experimented with unusual communal lifestyles. However, it was not until the 1980s that the term gained currency through its association with the work of a small group of mostly American political philosophers. Their application of the label ‘communitarian’ has invited controversy, even among communitarians themselves. For many in the West the term communitarian conjures up socialist or collectivist associations, so public leaders – and even several academics considered champions of this school – generally avoid the term while still embracing and advancing its ideas.
The term is primarily used in two senses:
Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centristideology that is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and moralism or conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers.
While the term communitarian was coined only in the mid-nineteenth century, ideas that are communitarian in nature appear much earlier. They are found in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and more recently in socialist doctrine (e.g. writings about the early commune and about workers’ solidarity) and subsidiarity (the principle that the lowest level of authority capable of addressing an issue is the one best able to handle it). Communitarianism has been traced back to early monasticism, but in the twentieth century began to be formulated as a philosophy by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. In an early article the Catholic Worker clarified the dogma of the Mystical Body of Christ as the basis for the movement's communitarianism. Communitarianism is also related to the personalist philosophy of Emmanuel Mounier.
A number of early sociologists had strongly communitarian elements in their work, such as Ferdinand Tönnies in his comparison of Gemeinschaft (oppressive but nurturing communities) and Gesellschaft (liberating but impersonal societies), and Emile Durkheim’s concerns about the integrating role of social values and the relations between the individual and society. Both authors warned of the dangers of anomie (normlessness) and alienation in modern societies composed of atomized individuals who had gained their liberty but lost their social moorings. Modern sociologists saw the rise of a mass society and the decline of communal bonds and respect for traditional values and authority in the United States as of the 1960s. Among those who raised these issues were Robert Nisbet (Twilight of Authority),[2] Robert Bellah (Habits of the Heart),[3] and Alan Ehrenhalt (The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues Of Community In America).[4] In his book Bowling Alone (2000), Robert Putnam documented the decline of “social capital” and stressed the importance of “bridging social capital,” in which bonds of connectedness are formed across diverse social groups.[5]
Responding to criticism that the term ‘community’ is too vague or cannot be defined, Amitai Etzioni, one of the leaders of the American communitarian movement, pointed out that communities can be defined with reasonable precision as having two characteristics: first, a web of affect-laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another (as opposed to one-on-one or chain-like individual relationships); and second, a measure of commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and meanings, and a shared history and identity – in short, a particular culture.[6] Further, author David E. Pearson argued that “[t]o earn the appellation ‘community,’ it seems to me, groups must be able to exert moral suasion and extract a measure of compliance from their members. That is, communities are necessarily, indeed, by definition, coercive as well as moral, threatening their members with the stick of sanctions if they stray, offering them the carrot of certainty and stability if they don’t.”[6]
What is specifically meant by “community” in the context of communitarianism can vary greatly between authors and time periods. Historically, communities have been small and localized. However, as the reach of economic and technological forces extended, more-expansive communities became necessary in order to provide effective normative and political guidance to these forces, prompting the rise of national communities in Europe in the 17th century. Since the late 20th century there has been some growing recognition that the scope of even these communities is too limited, as many challenges that people now face, such as the threat of nuclear war and that of global environmental degradation and economic crises, cannot be handled on a national basis. This has led to the quest for more-encompassing communities, such as the European Union. Whether truly supra-national communities can be developed is far from clear.
More modern communities can take many different forms, but are often limited in scope and reach. For example, members of one residential community are often also members of other communities – such as work, ethnic, or religious ones. As a result, modern community members have multiple sources of attachments, and if one threatens to become overwhelming, individuals will often pull back and turn to another community for their attachments.
Communitarianism in philosophy, like other schools of thought in contemporary political philosophy[citation needed], can be defined by its response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Communitarians criticize the image Rawls presents of humans as atomistic individuals, and stress that individuals who are well-integrated into communities are better able to reason and act in responsible ways than isolated individuals, but add that if social pressure to conform rises to high levels, it will undermine the individual self. Communitarians uphold the importance of the social realm, and communities in particular, though they differ in the extent to which their conceptions are attentive to liberty and individual rights. Even with these general similarities, communitarians, like members of many other schools of thought, differ considerably from one another. There are several distinct (and at times wildly divergent) schools of communitarian thought: academic communitarianism, authoritarian communitarianism (sometimes called Asian or East Asian communitarianism) and responsive communitarianism.
The following authors have communitarian tendencies in the philosophical sense, but have all taken pains to distance themselves from the political ideology known as communitarianism, which is discussed further below:
Whereas the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment can be viewed as a reaction to centuries of authoritarianism, oppressive government, overbearing communities, and rigid dogma, modern communitarianism can be considered a reaction to excessive individualism, understood as an undue emphasis on individual rights, leading people to become selfish or egocentric.
The close relation between the individual and the community was discussed on a theoretical level by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor, among other academic communitarians, in their criticisms of philosophical liberalism, especially the work of the American liberal theorist John Rawls and that of the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. They argued that contemporary liberalism and libertarianism presuppose an incoherent notion of the individual as existing outside and apart from society, rather than embedded within it. To the contrary, they argued, there are no generic individuals but rather only Germans or Russians, Berliners or Muscovites—or members of some other particularistic community. Because individual identity is partly constructed by culture and social relations, there is no coherent way of formulating individual rights or interests in abstraction from social contexts. Thus, according to these communitarians, there is no point in attempting to found a theory of justice on principles decided behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance, because individuals cannot exist in such an abstracted state, even in principle.
Academic communitarians also contend that the nature of the political community is misunderstood by liberalism. Where liberal philosophers described the polity as a neutral framework of rules within which a multiplicity of commitments to moral values can coexist, academic communitarians argue that such a thin conception of political community was both empirically misleading and normatively dangerous. Good societies, these authors believe, rest on much more than neutral rules and procedures—they rely on a shared moral culture. Some academic communitarians argued even more strongly on behalf of such particularistic values, suggesting that these were the only kind of values which matter and that it is a philosophical error to posit any truly universal moral values.
In addition to Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel, other thinkers sometimes associated with academic communitarianism include Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Seyla Benhabib, and Shlomo Avineri.
Beginning in the late 20th century, many authors began to observe a deterioration in the social networks of the United States. In the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s, there are fewer bowling leagues.
This results in a decline in "social capital", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.
Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus:[7]
"Many social goals ... require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned."
Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.
A common objection is that by providing such rights, communitarians violate the negative rights of the citizens; rights to not have something done for you. For example, taxation to pay for such programs as described above dispossesses individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies—a central tenet of communitarianism—and thus have a personal responsibility to give something back to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of natural rights. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics, as well as historically; for example, whether or not universal health care, private property or protection from polluters can be considered a birthright.
Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. In the same vein, supporters of positive rights further argue that negative rights are irrelevant in their absence. Moreover, some communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own".[8]
Communitarianism cannot be classified as being wholly left or right, and many theorists claim to represent a sort of radical center. Progressives in the American sense or Social democrats in the European sense generally share the communitarian position on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues. Communitarians and Conservatives generally agree on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs, but communitarians do not support capitalism generally embraced by American conservatives.
In the early 1990s, in response to the perceived breakdown in the moral fabric of society engendered by excessive individualism, Amitai Etzioni and William A. Galston began to organize working meetings to think through communitarian approaches to key societal issues. This ultimately took the communitarian philosophy from a small academic group, introduced it into public life, and recast its philosophical content.
Deeming themselves “responsive communitarians” in order to distinguish the movement from authoritarian communitarians, Etzioni and Galston, along with a varied group of academics (including Mary Ann Glendon, Thomas A. Spragens, James Fishkin, Benjamin Barber, Hans Joas, Philip Selznick, and Robert Bellah, among others) drafted and published The Responsive Communitarian Platform[9] based on their shared political principles, and the ideas in it were eventually elaborated in academic and popular books and periodicals, gaining thereby a measure of political currency in the West. Etzioni later formed the Communitarian Network to study and promote communitarian approaches to social issues and began publishing a quarterly journal, The Responsive Community.
The main thesis of responsive communitarianism is that people face two major sources of normativity: that of the common good and that of autonomy and rights, neither of which in principle should take precedence over the other. This can be contrasted with other political and social philosophies which derive their core assumptions from one overarching principle (such as liberty/autonomy for libertarianism). It further posits that a “good” society is based on a carefully crafted balance between liberty and social order, between individual rights and social responsibilities, and between pluralistic and socially established values.
Responsive communitarianism stresses the importance of society and its institutions above and beyond that of the state and the market, which are often the focus of other political philosophies. It also emphasizes the key role played by socialization, moral culture, and informal social controls rather than state coercion or market pressures. It provides an alternative to liberal individualism and a major counterpoint to authoritarian communitarianism by stressing that strong rights presume strong responsibilities and that one should not be neglected in the name of the other.
Following standing sociological positions, communitarians assume that the moral character of individuals tends to degrade over time unless that character is continually and communally reinforced. They contend that a major function of the community, as a building block of moral infrastructure, is to reinforce the character of its members through the community’s “moral voice,” defined as the informalsanction of others, built into a web of informal affect-laden relationships, which communities provide.
Responsive communitarians have been playing a considerable public role, presenting themselves as the founders of a different kind of environmental movement, one dedicated to shoring up society (as opposed to the state) rather than nature. Like environmentalism, communitarianism appeals to audiences across the political spectrum, although it has found greater acceptance with some groups than others.
Although communitarianism is a small philosophical school, it has had considerable influence on public dialogues and politics. There are strong similarities between communitarian thinking and the Third Way, the political thinking of centrist Democrats in the United States, and the Neue Mitte in Germany. Communitarianism played a key role in Tony Blair’s remaking of the British socialist Labour Party into “New Labour” and a smaller role in President Bill Clinton’s campaigns. Other politicians have echoed key communitarian themes, such as Hillary Clinton, who has long held that to raise a child takes not just parents, family, friends and neighbors, but a whole village.[10]
It has also been suggested that the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign was a form of conservative communitarian thinking, though he too did not implement it in his policy program. Cited policies have included economic and rhetorical support for education, volunteerism, and community programs, as well as a social emphasis on promoting families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based projects.
President Barack Obama gave voice to communitarian ideas and ideals in his book The Audacity of Hope,[11] and during the 2008 presidential election campaign he repeatedly called upon Americans to “ground our politics in the notion of a common good,” for an “age of responsibility,” and for foregoing identity politics in favor of community-wide unity building. However, for many in the West, the term communitarian conjures up authoritarian and collectivist associations, so many public leaders – and even several academics considered champions of this school – avoid the term while embracing and advancing its ideas.
Reflecting the dominance of liberal and conservative politics in the United States, no major party and few elected officials openly advocate communitarianism. Thus there is no consensus on individual policies, but some that most communitarians endorse have been enacted. Nonetheless, there is a small faction of communitarians within the Democratic Party; prominent communitarians include Bob Casey Jr., Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill. Many communitarian Democrats are part of the Blue Dog Coalition. It is quite possible that the United States' right-libertarian ideological underpinnings have suppressed major communitarian factions from emerging.[12] Communitarians are often easily villainized as those seeking big governments and nanny states. Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies. Some, such as John DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches."[13]
In August 2011, the right-libertarian Reason Magazine worked with the Rupe organization to survey 1,200 Americans by telephone. The Reason-Rupe poll found that "Americans cannot easily be bundled into either the 'liberal' or 'conservative' groups". Specifically, 28% expressed conservative views, 24% expressed libertarian views, 20% expressed communitarian views, and 28% expressed liberal views. The margin of error was ±3.[14]
A similar Gallup survey in 2011 included possible centrist/moderate responses. That poll reported that 17% expressed conservative views, 22% expressed libertarian views, 20% expressed communitarian views, 17% expressed centrist views, and 24% expressed liberal views. The organization used the terminology "the bigger the better" to describe communitarianism.[14]
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, founded and led by Imran Khan, is considered the first political party in the world which has declared Communitarianism as one of their official ideologies.[15]
A variant of the Nolan chart using traditional political color coding (red leftism versus blue rightism) with communitarianism on the top left.
Early communitarians were charged with being, in effect, social conservatives. However, many contemporary communitarians, especially those who define themselves as responsive communitarians, fully realize and often stress that they do not seek to return to traditional communities, with their authoritarian power structure, rigid stratification, and discriminatory practices against minorities and women. Responsive communitarians seek to build communities based on open participation, dialogue, and truly shared values. Linda McClain, a critic of communitarians, recognizes this feature of the responsive communitarians, writing that some communitarians do “recognize the need for careful evaluation of what is good and bad about [any specific] tradition and the possibility of severing certain features . . . from others.”[16] And R. Bruce Douglass writes, “Unlike conservatives, communitarians are aware that the days when the issues we face as a society could be settled on the basis of the beliefs of a privileged segment of the population have long since passed.”[17]
One major way the communitarian position differs from the social conservative one is that although communitarianism’s ideal “good society” reaches into the private realm, it seeks to cultivate only a limited set of core virtues rather than having an expansive or holistically normative agenda. For example, American society favors being religious over being atheist, but is rather neutral with regard to which particular religion a person should follow. There are no state-prescribed dress codes, “correct” number of children to have, or places one is expected to live, etc. In short, a key defining characteristic of the ideal communitarian society is that in contrast to a liberal state, it creates shared formulations of the good, but the scope of this good is much smaller than that advanced by authoritarian societies.
Authoritarian governments often embrace extremist ideologies and rule with brute force, accompanied with severe restrictions on personal freedom, political and civil rights. Authoritarian governments are overt about the role of the government as director and commander. Civil society and democracy are not generally characteristic of authoritarian regimes. For the most part, communitarians emphasize the use of non-governmental organizations, such as private businesses, churches, non-profits, or labor unions, in furthering their goals. This places communitarianism close to neoliberalism, while development of the third sector is a part of the politics of dismantling of the institutions of welfare state.
Liberal theorists such as Simon Caney[18] disagree that philosophical communitarianism has any interesting criticisms to make of liberalism. They reject the communitarian charges that liberalism neglects the value of community, and holds an "atomized" or asocial view of the self.
According to Peter Sutch the principal criticisms of communitarianism are:
That communitarianism leads necessarily to moral relativism.
That this relativism leads necessarily to a re-endorsement of the status quo in international politics, and
That such a position relies upon a discredited ontological argument that posits the foundational status of the community or state.[19]
However, he goes on to show that such arguments cannot be leveled against the particular communitarian theories of Michael Walzer and Mervyn Frost.[citation needed]
Other critics emphasize close relation of communitarianism to neoliberalism and new policies of dismantling the welfare state institutions through development of the third sector.[20]
Jump up ^McClain, Linda, C, “Rights and irresponsibility,” Duke Law Journal (March 1994): 989-1088.
Jump up ^Douglass, R. Bruce. "The renewal of democracy and the communitarian prospect." The Responsive Community 4.3 (1994): 55-62.
Jump up ^'Liberalism and communitarianism: a misconceived debate'. Political Studies 40, 273-290
Jump up ^Peter Sutch, Ethics, Justice, and International Relations, p.62
Jump up ^Pawel Stefan Zaleski, Neoliberalizm i spoleczenstwo obywatelskie (Neoliberalism and Civil Society), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Torun 2012.
Sterling Harwood, 1996, Against MacIntyre's Relativistic Communitarianism, in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company), Chapter 3, ISBN 0-534-54251-4 and ISBN 978-0-534-54251-1
Robert Putnam, Communitarianism, National Public Radio, February 5, 2001: "The term 'Third Way' was used to describe President Clinton's form of liberalism. Now 'Communitarianism' is being used in the same way to describe President Bush's form of conservatism. They're both an attempt to create a middle ground ... an alternative to the liberal-conservative paradigm."
The dictionary definition of