Thursday, April 3, 2014

Essays in Gandhian Economics

_Essays in Gandhian Economics_ editors Romesh Diwan and Mark Lutz
New Delhi:  Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1985

(xii)  Whenever the economic man was found to be inconsistent in his behaviour or to give preference to non-economic considerations or seemed to violate every economic law, this was all explained by the non-operation of the phrase "other things remaining the same".  The difference between Gandhi and all other theorists is that he begins with the ceteris paribus. [JD Sethi]

(xx)  If the economic man and the economic society are so defined as to make them alwasy feel poor, no matter how rich they are, the core of this contrdiction lies int he theory of consumption and demand and not in the theory of production.  Even Alfred Marshall, the master creator of the theory was obliged to draw attention to the artificially generated wants.  He wrote:  "Although it is man's wants int he easliest stages of his development that fgive rise ot his activities, yet afterwards each new step is to be regarded as the development of activities giving rise to new wants, rather than of new wants givving rise to new activities."  In other words, "the purpose of economic organisation is not merely to satisfy wants but to create wants". [JD Sethi]

(32)  Underlying every page of his book [Unto This Last] is the basic premise that socially meaningful individual action cannot be deduced from utilitarian principles and "balances of expediency" but by _balances of justice_, "meaning in the term justice, to include affection - such affection as one man _owes_ to another".

We may conclude that it was Ruskin's prime contribution to make a strong case for including "social affections" (which Gandhi rephrased as "heart strength") into a more holistic principle of economics.

(38-39)  Axioms of Gandhi's Philosophy
Axiom A:  _Truth (Satya) exists in and beyond man in an absolute, eternal and living essence._  Nothing else exists besides it. Truth, not man, is the measure of all things.
Axiom B:  _The purpose of all life and evolution is to realize Truth._  For mankind this translates into the biological need for self-realization, to know one's self.
Axiom C:  _While truth is the end, ahimsa, i.e., self-givign love, is the means._  Truth and Love are ultimately two sides of the same coin.  One implies the other.  Pure, self-realizing love knows no distinction between ends and means.  From this follows the all-important principle that we cannot realize truth without giving up the means/ends dichotomy.  To Gandhi, "realizaton of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means".  This he considered "a proposition that admits no exception".  It follows that since "means to be means must always be within our reach... ahimsa is our supreme duty.  If we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the end sooner or later".
Axiom D:  _Human Truth is always relative._  Although we have the innate need to perfect ourselves, no man _is_ perfect.  Truth as we can apprehend it is always personal, subjective, and, to that extent, relative to our individual context of culture and history.  The individualized and contextual nature of human truth precludes any rigid and precise principles of social policy and social institutions.  What is "true" in one context may not be so in another.  All we can do is to serve the ultimate Truth by being truthful, open-minded, and tolerant.  Whatever is perceived to promote life and serve the vital needs of all men, particularly the poorest of the poor, _is_ true.

(39-41)  Foundational Premises of Gandhi's Socio-Economic Thought
Premise A:  _Economics, ethics, politics, and religion constitute an indivisible whole._  As such, Gandhi had no kind words about conventional economics:
True economics never militates against the highest ethical standard, just as all true ethics to be worth its name must at the same time be also good economics.  An economics that inculcates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to amass wealth at the expense of the weak, is a false and dismal science.  It spells death.

Premise B:  _Economics is the science of human welfare.  Its goal ought to be sarvodaya, the welfare of all._  "True economics stands for social justice, it promotes the good of all equally including the weakest, and is indispensable for decent life".

Implicit in the doctrine of sarvodaya is the basic presumption of equal dignity of and respect for hte life and welfare of every individual.  Translated into the sphere of economic policy, it entails top priority for meeting the most basic material needs (water, food, shelter) of everybody before we allocate resources for goods of a lesser importance.  Similarly, the individual preference for a dollar's worth of pet food cannot be put on the same scale as a dollar's worth of a peasant's brown rice.

In summary, "the welfare of all" entails satisfaction of the basic material, social, and spiritual needs of the poorest of the poor.  it recognizes that everybody has a right to live.  Sarvodaya is in contrast to the doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number which Gandhi considered "a heartless doctrine" which has done much harm to humanity.

Premise C:  _The supreme consideration has to be Man._  Economic theory that ignores the "human element" of owed social affection is meaningless.

Premise D:  _human welfare economics focusing on what Gandhi called the "human element" implies the crucial importance of a decentralized social economy._  The ideal is a _community economy_ allowing for a living interaction, mutual access, and voluntary cooperation of all its members.  It is only in such a setting "bound together in bonds of mutual cooperation and interdependence" that man can respond to his fellowmen and in the process realize social cohesion tantamount to the "universal" glue of Truth.

Premise E:  _Economics has to respect the law of Swadeshi._  As we saw earlier, Swadeshi was to Gandhi one of the most basic organizational principles consistent with our need to express ahimsa.  He applied it directly to economics:  "I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbours and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting"....

Premise F:  _At the very core of Gandhian economics is the concept of rationality._  Rather than mere cognitive calculations of means (i.e., the manipulating of Ruskin's balance of expediency), Gandhi broadens the concept to involve harmonious action of body, mind, _and soul_.  Rational action is guided by the inner faculty of _conscience_ which he also calls inner voice.  Gandhi's conscience is rational to the extent that it is critical.  In other words, even though an action is pursued regardless of its consequences to one's self, we do have to critically examine the consequences ex post and readjust our inner values and our conscience in the process.  This way, "even the mistakes committed while seeking the pure path take us a step forward in the quest".

(41-44)  Principles of Gandhi's Economic Thought
Principle (i):  Nonviolent Ownership - Trusteeship
Trusteeship recognizes the right to private property in the means of production as long as it is responsible to the needs of the community.  It is sarvodaya extended to the firm.  Absentee ownership of capital and land, investment and production violating swadeshi, excessiv salaries, and expense accounts are not consistent with trusteeship.  Violaters would be pressured by public opinion and in the last resort expropriated with appropriate legislation.  Trusteeship is also consistent with workers' self-management provided they act as trustees.

Principle (ii):  Nonviolent Production - Appropriate Technology
The term "appropriate" is used to designate the production function that maximizes human need satisfaction.  First and foremost, no technology should be used which economizes on manual labour, while there are unemployed workers in the community.  This is clearly postulated by the premises of sarvodaya and swadeshi as well as conscience and trusteeship.

Appropriate technology also recognizes the capacity of machinery for violence, i.e., to exploit.  Men are used to feed machines instead of viceversa.  Capital-intensive technology also promotes concentration of wealth and enables "a few to ride on the backs of millions".

Finally, the most appropriate technology does no harm to body, mind, or soul.  Machinery, according to Gandhi, should not be turned into a craze.  Mass production, yes, but in people's own homes.

Principle (iii):  Nonviolent Consumption - Non-Possession
Non-possession follows strictly from ahimsa.  "The less you possess, the less you want, the better you are.  And better for what?  Not for enjoyment of life, but for enjoyment of personal service to fellow beings;  service which you dedicate yourself, body, soul and mind".

Everybody is entitled to the basic necessities but the golden rule "to refuse to have what millions cannot" will prohibit the "infinite multiplicity of human wants" observed in modern western civilization.  The insatiable material ambition is evidence of an economic system characterized by violence (himsa) fueled by lack of trust and basic anxiety.

Principle (iv):  Nonviolent Work - Bread Labour
Throughout Gandhi's writing runs the thread of the importance of work in men's personal growth.  The doctrine of bread labour was inspired by Ruskin, Tolstoy, and the _Gita_.

"I cannot imagine anything nobler or more rational than that, for, say one hour in the day, we should do all the labour that the poor must do and thus identify ourselves with them and, through them, with all mankind."

As a corollary, mental and manual labour should not be divided up by classes but in everybody's lives.

Gandhi was convinced that just one hour of daily manual work would induce poets, doctors, and lawyers to moderate the fees they charge for their talents and that the social proliferation of wants would be minimized.

At the same time, he stressed that bread labour could never be forced on anybody, otherwise it would breed poverty, disease, and discontent.

Principle (v):  Nonviolent Allocation - Cooperation
Gandhi was no believer in competition,  He saw in it a lash of a material and sensuous stimulus that degrades the population.  Competition is predicated on fear and insecurity, both of which breed greed and violence (himsa).

Cooperation, on the other hand, appeals to the )human_ element, our need to serve others.

Yet, he felt it important to stress that true (nonviolent) cooperation could only take place after provision of the most essential material needs.  This is true both of the individual (bread labour) as well as of the village (swadeshi).  Only such a _voluntary_ cooperation "will produce real freedom and a new order, vastly superior to the new order in Soviet Russia".

The problem of scarcity would be largely dealt with by the institutional features of bread labour and localized eocnomy both acting to internally reduce wants as well as by the principles of non-possession and equality.

Principle (vi):  Nonviolent Distribution - Equality
Equality meant to Gandhi primarily two things:  First, everybody has a basic right to live, I.e., to meet the basic vital needs and live a dignified life integrated in community with one's fellows.  As means to such a goal he strongly denounced charity, "the flinging of free meals" at people unable to find work, but advocated guaranteed employment for everybody who wants to work.  Secondly, equality as absence of exploitation.  He endorsed non-exploitative capital-labour relations as well as non-exploitation of manual by intellectual labour and _above all_ non-exploitation of the countryside by the city. 

Principle (vii):  Nonviolence in Reforming Economic Systems
Gandhi was no friend of capitalism.  On the contrary, he dedicated much of his life to its destruction.  But the destruction of an ideology could not be done with violence.  The capitalist had to be redeemed and converted to trusteeship.  The doctrine to be followed was that of peaceful communitarian socialism rather than the Marxian path of class war and violent revolution.  At the same time, it would be false to classify Gandhi as a utopian socialist.  He explicitly rejected such attempts at social engineering since they tended to disregard the dynamic quality of human nature.

(44)  More importantly, the Gandhian economic construction resting on this alternative set of axioms may very well be the _only possible_ economics that accepts love, or social affection, as a living _relation_, rather than a bounded object which can be squeezed into a utilitarian equation.  Ruskin deserves credit for having raised the issue early, a radical and paradigmatic challenge that we can no longer afford to ignore.  When Sir D. Robertson surprised his audience at Columbia University when answering his topical question, "what do economists economize?" with "_love_", he may have understated the problem.

(55)  A distinction has to be made among three different states.  One is the desired or the ideal state.  This state is as yet unachieved.  Critics doubt if it is ever achievable.  Gandhian thought persists in the possibility of achieving this state, otherwise striving towards it is meaningless.   For the individual, the ideal state is the achievement of moksha.  For the society, it is swaraj for everyone.  This is a state in which everyone is ruled by one's ownself and by no one else.  It involves absolute freedom of all kinds.  The ruling principle in this society is satya - the Truth.  The second state is the transition to the ideal state.  Gandhi is very clear about the transition path.  Conditions laid for this path are rather stringent.  That is why his emphasis on the purity of means become persistent.  The ruling principles of the transition are ahimsa and satyagraha.  The third is the state of the present order.  This determines what is possible and what is not possible.  This is what provides historicity to the Gandhian method.

(56)  In our view, there are six basic concepts that are essential in Gandhian economics.  These are all related to each other.  There is no hierarchy among them.  In other words, these all have equal importance.  The order in which these are present is irrelevant.  We feel that these six concepts come in pairs of two.  They are:  (i)  swadeshi, (ii) bread labour, (iii) aparigraha or non-possession, (iv) trusteeship, (v) non-exploitaton, and (vi) equality.

Swadeshi may be translated as self-reliance.  It follows from the concept of swaraj.  There are various interpretations of swadeshi.  Some interpret it narrowly as "autarky" or "self-sufficiency"....

Bread labour provides the ethical dimension to swadeshi at the level of personal action.  One cannot be self-reliant if one cannot produce the necessities of living by one's own labour....

Non-possession follows from truth and nonviolence.  It involves that a person should not possess _anything_ that one does not need.

(57)  We feel that non-possession is not compatible with capitalism....

By trusteeship is meant that all those people who possess things as well as "capabilities, abilities, or other natural gifts" must hold these possessions as trustees for all others.  In other words, they should not derive the benefits from these possessions for themselves.  On the contrary, the possession brings immediately an obligation.  Possession is a burden.
NB:  Responsibility

In view of the inequalities and the prevalence of alienation, the very concept of market may be exploitative...

Looking at the other concepts we feel that equality in the Gandhian system involves "all possible achievable quality".  It is something more than equality of opportunity.  It does accept difference in natural gifts.  But this is a part of diversity and not a question of equality.

(59)  The fact that consumption is limited does not imply the conclusion that the utilities are also limited.  On the contrary, even though the level of consumption is low, the acquisition of utilities may actually be far larger.  This follows from the fact that in neo-classical economics, consumption is the only source of utility.  In Gandhian economics, there are two other sources.

Work in Gandhian society is, by and large, a source of utility.  In neo-classical economics, it is full of disutility.  This difference arises from the nature of work.  Work in Gandhian economics is "self-defined" work, while in industrialized societies it is "stranger-defined" work.

Secondly the quantity and quality of leisure in Gandhian economics is also far higher.  In neo-classical economics, leisure is treated as a source of utilities via consumption of non-basic goods.  As Lindler has argued, the leisure in the American society is so little that it has led to the dissipation of the culture and the "very pleasure of life".  In Gandhian economics, not only is there more leisure, but the leisure is also not wasted in the process of consumption and its maintenance.  Instead, this leisure is available for genuine satisfaction.  

(61)  In the Gandhian system the production modes cannot be exploitative by their very nature.  The technological change must satisfy the following three major conditions:
1.  Technology must increase the productivity of the worker.
2.  Technology must not replace the worker.
3.  The worker must have complete control of the technology.
[Romesh Diwan, Sushila Gidwani]

(69)  Apart form economic feasibility, Gandhi's rationale rested on a moral and metaphysical notion of human labour.  To him, labour is not just a commodity for sale in the market in exchange for wages to compensate for the disutility of labour.  He was reluctant to measure the opportunity cost of work in terms of sacrifice of leisure.  In his system, labour had a dignity and a moral substance which was not for sale.  This notion he derived largely from the Bhagavadgita.  He was especially influenced by the following passage:

Work is more excellent than leisure;
The body's life proceeds not lacking work
...If one eats
The fruits of toil, that thief steals from his world,
He that abstains 
To help the rolling wheels of this great world, 
Glutting his idle sense,
Lives a lost life, shameful and vain.
[AM Huq]

(90)  If inequalities are minimized, what seems voluntary poverty today will become normal consumption.

(90-91)  The concept of "non-possession" implies a very different utility function and a different criterion for seeking an equilibrium value.  The basic assumptions are as follows:  (i)  Welfare depends not only on consumption and the economist's utility concept but also on service to others and the welfare of others;  (ii)  utility space is limited;  (iii) the objective is not maximization of utility but obtaining a certain level of welfare - the underlying philosophy is contentment or "enough instead of greed";  (iv) the prices are determined by an income distribution where inequalities are at a minimum or zero;  and (v) there is no need for the existence of a market.  However, such consumer behaviour is not incompatible with a limited market.

(93-94)  [Swadeshi Propositions]  The consumer will cooperate with the producer neighbour _in the process of improving the efficiency of production_.  This translates into the idea that the utility function contains not only the commodities produced in the neighbourhood but also a variable reflecting cooperation with the producer.  In this sense consumer and producer do not generate antagonistic relationships, such as in the dictum that the consumer is sovereign and the producer the willing slave.  On the contrary, the consumer and producer are jointly involved in a cooperative effort.

(96)  Gandhi:  Economic equality must never be supposed to mean possession of an equal amount of worldly goods by everyone.  It does mean, however that everyone will have a proper house to live in, sufficient and balanced food to eat, and sufficient khadi with which to cover himself.  It also means that the cruel inequality that obtains today will be removed by purely non-violent means...

(100)  Trusteeship is based on the idea that "what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than enjoyed by millions of others.  The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community." [Romesh Diwan]

(109)  In the last analysis, the fundamental problem of global destruction lies in the production of destructive nuclear weapons.  A major part of neo-classical economics deals with issues of production:  what, why, and how are "goods" produced?  ONe wonders if nuclear weapons are "goods".  However, neither economic texts, not economies of repute, have made any effort to explain the production of nuclear weapons.  On the contrary, economists have shied away from questions about nuclear weapons.  Simply because the economists have not raised these questions does not mean that these questions are not important.  These questions need to be raised.  The question is:  why are destructive weapons and things like that produced?  What motivates people to produce these things?  Who gains and who loses in the production of such destructive things?

(113)  It is proposed that the total production in a society be divided into three categories: (i) Production that creates "values-in-use";  these are the "goods".  These are the material goods and services that help the advancement of human beings  This production is best produced by the voluntary and cooperative systems.  (ii)  Production that generate "values-in-exchange".  This is a set that contains both "goods' and "bads".  The nature of htis production is defined by the market and exchange relations.  (iii)  Production that promotes "values-in-threat".  This is a set that contains nothing else but "bads".  It has the effect of harming people.  Weapons are clear examples.  There are a number of other goods that fall within this category.  This set is encouraged by large and centralized systems of authority and production.

(114)  Work involves two principles:  (i) exertion of strength and (ii) accomplishment of something.  To answer the question, what is work, one has to answer the two related questions:  (a) exertion of whose strength?, and (b) accomplishment of whose definition?  For the general case of work, there are tow parties involved:  one, the person who exerts the strength, call this person A;  and two, the person who defines the task, call this person B.  In the special case, A and B can be the same person.  The nature of work will depend upon the nature of the relationship between A and B.

(118- 119)  Gandhi:  The human body is meant solely for service, never for indulgence.  The secret of happy life is renunciation.  Renunciation is life.  Indulgence spells death...  No sacrifice is worth the name unless it is joy.  Sacrifice and a long face go ill together...  This service is impossible without bread labour, otherwise described in Gita as Yajna.  It is only when the man or woman had done bodily labour _for the sake of service_, that he or she gets any rights to life.  The Gita says that anybody who eats without performing yajna, in Tolstoy's language bread labour, is a thief, 'eats sin'.  _but body labour becomes yajna only when it is undertaken in a spirit of service not of indulgence...
[Romesh Diwan]

(129)  One can deduce three major _economic_ objective of the Gandhian economic system:  (a) full employment;  (b) economic equality;  nd (c) emphasis on Swadeshi.  These are strictly economic objectives.  In Gandhian economic thought, economic objectives are the handmaidens of the moral and ethical objectives of the system.  The goal of the Gandhian system is the welfare of total society - "Sarvodaya" - including the poorest of the society.  The structure of a Gandhian economic system and the attainment of the above-mentioned economic objectives within the framework of this structure should ultimately contribute to the realization of the overall goal of the Gandhian system - the welfare of the total society.

(131-132)  Self-reliance does not mean autarchy;  it simply means absence of dependence.  There are several elements in a policy of Swadeshi, of self-reliance:  (A)  The society must be capable of satisfying the basic minimum needs of its people without dependence on external sources.  This also means that each society will have to define its minimum standards in terms of its economic capacity.  They must be attainable within the productive limits of the society.  (B)  Self-reliance also means the maximum use of indigenous resources and technology.  Society will make an effort to obtain needed commodities from within by utilizing unemployed resources and by the development of an appropriate skill profile of the labour force and by the growth of appropriate technology  (C)  Swadeshi or self-reliance does not mean absence of trade with other societies, although foreign imports have to be discouraged if, as Gandhi believed, they injure the millions of India.  A self-reliant economy will buy only those goods that meet the following conditions:  (i)  they are essential for the growth of its people;  (ii)  they are not produced locally;  and (iii) it is not possible to produce them locally in the near future by the development of appropriate human skills and technology.

(132)  To quote Gandhi:  "In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never ascending circles.  Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom.  But, it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual, always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units."

(133)  ... led Gandhi to advocate an economic organization that can be characterized as a decentralized, market-negotiated economic system...

First, Gandhi believed that economic decisions are to be taken by individuals...
Secondly, Gandhian economy postulates a system of private property.  Production firms will be privately owned or will be cooperatives of workers and farmers....
Thirdly, a Gandhian economic system uses material incentives for the least-paid members of the society who also have least decision-making authority and rely heavily on moral incentives for the elite.  Gandhi advocated the concept of "trusteeship".

(134)  Fourthly, a Gandhian economic system postulates participatory democracy in all institutions and emphasizes that economic decisions should be group-negotiated rather than individually-managed decisions....
Fifthly, Gandhian economy visualizes village communities as primary macro units;  with the primary responsibilities to attain the goals of full employment, economic equality, and self-reliance...
Sixthly, Gandhian economy emphasizes individual choices and decisions.

(135)  Seventhly, a Gandhian economic system will be characterized by some income differentials that are functional in the sense that they are necessary for ensuring the growth of the individuals concerned....
Finally, Gandhian goals of full employment and providing minimum standards of consumption to all can be easily ensured by (a) fixing a minimum wage that will enable a worker to by the minimum amounts of basic necessities at socially determined product prices; and (b) giving him a right to seek a job in productive enterprise - farm or firm - in the community.
NB:  Living wage?

(137)  A Gandhian society will make these decisions by following Wicksell's "unanimity rule".  If the elite or some other group requests a higher income to satisfy some needs, which they claim to be necessary for their moral and creative development, they will have to justify and convince the other members of the validity of their requests.  If satisfaction of their unique needs has some adverse impact on other groups, e.g. the cutback in their consumption of basic needs, loss of their jobs, etc., this alternative cost will become visible and will be taken into explicit consideration in social calculus.  Such an open dialogue will enable the society to search for an optimum solution.  Open and full participation by all in the process of decision-making will ensure that the merging hierarchy of needs will be the one that is necessary for the fullest development of all individuals in the group.

(141)  Gandhian society has several in-built mechanisms to control abuse of power by the elite.  These mechanisms are:
(a)  right to minimum living standard and right to a job;
(b)  full participation by all in the decision-making process;
(c)  complete access to all information;
(d)  clear definition and careful enforcement of elite's prerogatives and responsibilities;  and
(e)  right to nonviolent non-cooperation and civil disobedience (satyagraha) granted to all individuals.

These mechanisms will help individuals to take themselves away from the rigidities of orthodoxy and from the fanatical furies of collective bodies...

In fact, the smallness of size and large number of firms plus the public availability of all information makes Gandhian economy more akin to the "ideal" competitive system than the ones actually prevailing in the Western world.  A Gandhian economic system, therefore, is likely to more efficient in the attainment of the twin goals of such a society - full employment and economic equality. [Suresh Desai]

(146)  It was a fundamental creed with him that social evil and economic exploitation go on because they are allowed to go on.  Nothing was inevitable in social reality but thinking made it so.  

(149)  Kenneth Rivett has adequately analyzed this aspect of Gandhian thought by formulating the question"what was Gandhi against?"  His answer is that the Mahatma was fundamentally not against the process of economic development, nor against machine civilization as such but against the particular brand of "capitalistic rationality" that leads to a neglect of the social and moral costs of over-urbanization and lays an exclusive stress on the personal profitability of locating the next factory nearest to the major industrial center.

(154)  To Gandhi, the right choice was not to plunge into capitalist development but to develop a "communaucratic" social economy, based on decentralized rural life.
[Amritananda Das]

(161)  "The end to be sought", he wrote, "is human happiness combined with full mental and moral growth".  The Gandhian doctrine of economic growth, being a part of his general theory of growth, cannot meaningfully be formulated purely in economic terms.

(161-164)  Gandhian Doctrine of Balance Growth
(a)  Philosophical Balance:  a balance between economic progress and moral progress.  To achieve such a balance, one must shift the emphasis from maximization to optimization of production, from abundance to adequacy of the production of material goods and service.
(b)  Structural Balance:  a balance between the rural and urban sectors of the economy.  To achieve such a balance, growth of the urban sector must not take place at the expense of the rural sector.  Here one must shift the emphasis from centralization to decentralization of economic activities.
(c)  Ecological Balance:  a balance in the relationship between man and his environment.  Long before social concern grew over the environmental crisis in the Western industrial societies, Gandhi showed his awareness of this crisis as a natural by-product of uncontrolled economic progress and autonomous development of modern, large-scale technology.  He stressed the need for deliberate choice of technology and for restraints on the level of production in order to maintain a proper balance between man and his environment.
(d)  Technological Balance:  a balance between small-scale and large-scale technologies.  Gandhi's views on technology have often been misinterpreted  Gandhi was not opposed to the use of modern technology as such.  He was opposed to indiscriminate, non-selective adoption of imported technology, purely based on its effect on productive capacity.  In the context of the Indian economy, he saw a tremendous need for the development of small-scale technology that would increase the efficiency of rural production without creating any technological displacement of labour.  At the same time, he saw the need for large-scale technology for which the ideal location would be large urban centers.  The point that he strongly emphasized is that the adoption of Western technology to economize on labour and expand production at the cost of rural de-industrialization and mass unemployment was not the proper choice of technology under the prevailing economic conditions in India.  He endorsed a proper mix of technology in order to optimize the social benefits of science and technology.
(e)  Distributional Balance:  a balance in income distribution.  Given the existence of gross inequality, to achieve a greater balance would require strategies to redistribute income.  In the context of a growing economy, Gandhi's doctrine may be interpreted as a doctrine of dynamic equilibrium in the pattern of income distribution so that exploitation is reduced to the minimum.  In modern growth theories, the problem of income distribution is generally assumed away.  Gandhi was fully aware that a high rate of growth does not necessarily guarantee an equitable distribution of income.  The latter issue is tied up not so much with the rate of growth as with the pattern of growth.  This is the reason why Gandhi opposed Western-style economic progress through urban-oriented large-scale industrialization.  He would settle for a slower rate of growth for the sake of a greater diffusion of technology and productive capacity to revitalize the rural economy and also for the sake of a greater regional balance in the distribution of income. [AM Huq]

(172)  Gandhi once wrote:  "The world of tomorrow will be an must be a society based on non-violence.  That is the first law...  Equal distribution - the second great law of tomorrow's world as I see it - grows out of non-violence.  It implies not that the world's goods shall be arbitrarily divided up but that each man shall have the wherewithal to supply his natural needs, no more."

(173)  Thus it is clear that despite the emphasis on self-sufficiency, to the extent it si possible, as suggested by the Doctrine of Swadeshi, a positive doctrine of international trade from the Gandhian perspective does indeed emerge out of the mixture of Gandhian idealism and Gandhian pragmatism.  The following distinctive features of this doctrine may be noted as follows:
a)  it accepts the logic of the principle of comparative advantage but rejects it as the sole basis for trade among nations.
b)  it accepts reciprocal _need_ rather than reciprocal _demand_ as the determinant of terms of trade among nations.
c)  it postulates an international economic order based on international cooperation and understanding of mutual need, rather than on market forces and competition.
d)  it is guided by a purpose higher than the purpose of pure economic gain.  That is the moral purpose embodied in the notion of service to govern the flow of trade among nations.  It suggests an international economic policy which is hte antithesis of "beggar-my-neighbour" policy, well-known in modern international economics.
e)  it is an economic doctrine into which is infused the philosophical principle of "Ahimsa" of Nonviolence and non-exploitation.
f)  it offers maximum protection against unequal distribution of gains from trade among nations in sharp contrast with the conventional doctrine of international trade.  [AM Huq]

(186)  A non-exploitative technology must not create hierarchy and privilege.  It must not encourage centralism.  For these reasons, technology must satisfy four basic conditions:  (i)  the operators must have full control of the technology;  (ii)  the technology must not replace the worker;  (iii)  the technology must increase the productivity of the workers;  and (iv) it must be productive of goods and services _needed_ by the worker.  [Romesh Diwan]

(196)  Gandhian focus is on the "simplicity" of life founded on basic human needs and a progressist view of moral and ethico-spiritual fulfilment of life...
The Gandhian view is one of Man-in-Nature.  This leads to a sensitivity to an ecological balance and man's place in it.,,,,,,,,,

(197)  The Gandhian concept of man is one of an integral man and the Gandhian concept of society is that of an integral society.  The Gandhian concept is one of an integral transformation of man and society.  In the Gandhian conception, the processes of individual (spiritual) transformation and political transformation are inevitably interconnected.  The Gandian concept basically pursues the unity of the individual and the social order.  Gandhi stresses the unity of the private and public life.  It is the Gandhian view that private life must be transparent and in that transparency, we can see the public life too.  In the Gandhian thought, the stress is on the unity of the individual and social praxis.  The Gandhian conception may be termed as the "Unity of Existence".

(198)  Elements of a Gandhian paradigm:
(ii)  The cause of all contradictions is centralism.  It may be described as a situation in which a few control the means and the power to make decisions which affect many who are left out.  By this criterion, for instance, an elective representative system of the present type is centralist.  So are, of course, the communist (so-called people's democratic) conceptions and practices.
(iii)  Centralism, as the source of social contradiction, has two major locii:  (a) the sphere of production (Economy);  and (b) Power (State).

(199)  (v)  Centralism in production leads to exploitation.  Centralism in power leads to oppression.  The two centralisms reinforce each other.

(200)  (xiv)  No meaningful process of change can be generated by those who are in the "centralist" structure, either of production or of power - because these are structures of privilege.  It is only the victims of centralism, that is, those who are exploited and oppressed, who alone will initiate change.
(xv)  The process of change started by the victim of the "structure of privilege" will only reproduce the system if it copies the centralist system itself, even if only in a new form.  That is, the victims of change in their process to change society should not have centralism of production or power.  This means that for the praxis of change, the following conditions should be fulfilled:
(a)  The praxis must be broadly based, that is, it should be a mass movement.
(b)  The mass movement be not characterized by centralism in its ideology or in its organization.
(c)  If the movement becomes centralist in its organization, then it will acquire the property of the State (such as the Bolshevik Parties are).
(d)  The movement should be free of violence.  In its objective conditions it should not arm itself.  In its subjective conditions it should be firmly rooted in the ideology of nonviolence.  It is these two characteristics of the movement to expose exploitation and oppression that gives it the moral force of "truth" against "non-truth".  The movement must not engage itself in falsifications like the State.  Otherwise this moral force will be weakened and the goal of real and lasting changed will be defeated.
(e)  Individuals have a central role in this praxis.  It is be incarnating the values of trust and nonviolence, and by the magnificence of their example that individuals express moral force.

(201)  A Human State will be a decentralized society of equal partners.
[Madan Handa]

(220)   [In Gandhian economics]  Labour had four components:  (a) bread labour which is a kind of minimum physical labour which must be performed by everybody from the philosopher to the ordinary labourers;  (b) earning labour for living as is normally understood in economics;  (c) as an instrument for self-actualization;  and (d) as a method of service to others.  Once this fourfold view of labour is accepted; no degree of division of labour can really dehumanize man totally.

(224)  Gandhi defined a polity as some kind of system of oceanic, concentric circles rather than as a pyramidal system as all modern political systems are.  In his view, the larger circle has to get its support from the smaller circle so that no matter however small a circle may be, one can play one's role there as well as be linked to the largest circle.

(229-230)  But it would be necessary to understand the preconditions Gandhi laid down as absolutely necessary for the practice of Satyagraha.  First, there can be no Satyagraha for an unjust cause.  Otherwise the principle of truth will be flouted.  Secondly, Satyagraha excludes the use of violence in any shape or form, in thought or action.  Thirdly, Satyagraha presupposes a clear distinction between a willing obedience to the laws which are good and opposition to those which are immoral.  In the final analysis, the superiority of the law of conscience has to assert itself over other laws for a Satyagrahi.  Fourthly, Satyagraha is an instrument available only to those who have no hatred towards their opponents.  Fifthly, a Satyagrahi must have the capacity and willingness to suffer.  That is why Gandhi insisted more on a small revolutionary minority rather than a whole people undertaking it.  Sixthly, Satyagraha means, among other things,8 constant engagement in constructive social work so that Satyagraha as a struggle does not become negative.  Seventhly, Satyagraha calls for total humility on the part of those who practise it.  Last but not least, Satyagraha is the expression of discipline and sincerity.  As Gandhi said, it challenges our honesty and our capacity for national work and our willingness to submit to discipline.  [JD Sethi]
(232)  Collard, David.  1978 _Altruism and Economy:  A study in Non-Selfish Economics_.  New York, Oxford University Press.

(237)  Mathur, JS.  (ed) n.d.  _The Economic Thought of Mahatma Gandhi_.
McLaughlin, Elizabeth T.  1974 _Ruskin and Gandhi_.  London:  Associated University Press.

(238)  Narayan, Shriman.  1970 _Relevance of Gandhian Economics_.  Ahmedabad:  Navajivan Publishing House.

(242)  Varma, Vishwanath Prasad.  1965 _The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvodaya_.  AAgra:  Lakshmi Narain Agrawal.

More notes from books about Gandhian economics:

Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and Swadeshi
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/sarvodaya-swaraj-and-swadeshi.html

Foundations of Gandhian Economics
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/foundations-of-gandhian-economics.html

Gandhi’s Economic Thought
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhis-economic-thought.html

Inclusive Economics:  Gandhian Method and Contemporary Policy
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/inclusive-economics-gandhian-method-and.html

Economy of Permanence
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/economy-of-permanence.html

Gandhian Economics:  A Humane Approach
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhian-economics-humane-approach.html

Inclusive Economics: Gandhian Method and Contemporary Policy

_Inclusive Economics:  Gandhian Method and Contemporary Policy_ by Narendar Pani
New Delhi:  Sage Publications, 2001
ISBN0-7619-9580-3

(30)  For instance, Bhabatosh Datta [Indian Economic Thought:  Twentieth Century Perspectives] outlined the 'basic principles' of the Gandhian economic programme to be:

...first, avoidance of mechanisation and encouragement of cottage industries...;  second, improvement of rural small scale agriculture;  third, making the village community as much self-sufficient and self-reliant as practicable;  fourth, decentralisation of the administrative and economic structure;  fifth, reducing income inequalities, by raising the income level among the poor and by changing the attitude and motivation of the rich;  and sixth, ensuring that capitalists and big businessmen serve as 'trustees' for the whole community.

(32)  [Kenneth] Boulding, for instance, contended that 'the culture of the scientific community is profoundly Gandhian.  It is based quite fundamentally on the principle that people should be persuaded by evidence and never by threat.  The extraordinary success of science in expanding human knowledge is a direct consequence of this principle.'

(33)  Even when Gandhi's ideas are being compared to other thinkers, like Popper, the focus will only be on their methods of understanding society.
NB:  Soros as a follower of Popper

(36)  The way to be liberated from this cycle of birth and death was 'to do good deeds, to have compassion for all living things, and to live in truth'.  Given this underlying faith, it is useful to begin our exploration of the Gandhian method with his concept of action.

(37)  'Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the knower compose the threefold urge to action;  the means, the action and doer compose the threefold sum of action' (Bhagvadgita, Chapter XVIII)

(39)  In Gandhi's words, 'There is no difference between means and ends'. 

(40)  As Gandhi put it:  'fundamental rights can only be those rights the exercise of which is not only in the interest of the citizen but that of the whole world'.  Society would then work towards protecting these rights.  It is important to stress here that the role that society plays cannot be played by the state alone.  Gandhi was, in fact, sceptical about how much the state could achieve on its own.  The onus of protecting rights then falls primarily upon the individuals who together form society.  The protection of rights is then the duty of individuals.  And if individuals consistently fail to perform their duty towards the protection of a right, that right would automatically wither away.  In Gandhi's words, '...all rights emanate from duties - if there is no duty, there is no right either'.  'The man who neglects his duty and cares only to safeguard his rights does not know that rights that do not spring from duties cannot be safeguarded.'

(40-41)  Similarly, the right to a completely free market would be best protected if individuals did their duty of ensuring that markets did not destroy society.  If markets are allowed to destroy society, the right to a free market will necessarily be challenged.  Every time a duty is not performed, it erodes the ability of society to protect the corresponding right.

(42)  In Gandhi's words:  'There is no such thing as absolute morality for all times.  But there is a relative morality which is absolute enough for [the] imperfect mortals that we are.'

(42-43)  Gandhi:  I will give you a talisman.  Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, try the following expedient:  Recall the face of the poorest and the most helpless man whom you may have seen and ask yourself whether the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.  Will he be able to gain anything by it?  Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny?  In other words, will it lead to ... self-rule for the hungry and also spiritually starved millions of our countrymen?  Then you will find your doubts and your self melting away.'

(44-45)  In Gandhi's words:  'Whether an act is moral or otherwise depends upon the intention of the doer.  Two men may have done exactly the same thing; but the act of one may be moral, and that of the other to the contrary.  Take, for instance, a man who out of great pity feeds the poor and another who does the same, but with the motive of winning prestige or with some such selfish end.  Though the action is the same, the act of the one is moral and that of the other non-moral'.  In addition, it was not 'enough for a moral act to have been done with a good intention, but it should have been done without compulsion...  There is no morality in my living a simple and unpretentious life if I have not the means to live otherwise'.  It is the purity of intention combined with the sacrifice involved that provides strength to the moral idea as a means of convincing  others.  

(49)  The severity of the conditions on the person seeking knowledge has contributed to the Gandhian perspective being treated as an idealistic one.  Few, if any, living in a modern society will be willing, or even able, to meet the stringent conditions that Gandhi lays down for the ideal person seeking knowledge.  But the critical element here is that Gandhi was only defining the ideal.  And, as he was fond of pointing out, the ideal could never be realised.  The persons seeking knowledge woudl then necessarily be less than the ideal.

(52)  In the words of the Gita:

Those who, with the eyes of knowledge, thus perceive the distinction between the Field and the knower of the Field,... they attain to Supreme.
NB:  OODA [Observation Orientation Decision Action] Loop of John Boyd

...It is thus essential to include as many elements as possible in the search for knowledge.  It is this inclusiveness that is elaborated in the Gita's concept of the field:

The great elements, Individuation, Reason, the Unmanifest, the ten senses, and the one (mind), and the five spheres of the senses;  Desire, dislike, pleasure, pain, association, consciousness, cohesion - this, in sum, is what is called the Field and its modifications.

(53)  For Gandhi absolute truth was but an ideal.  And like all ideals, absolute truth could not be realised.  'Euclid has defined a straight line as having no breadth, but no one has yet succeeded in drawing such a line and no one will.  Still we can progress in geometry only by postulating such a line.  This is true of every ideal'.

(54)  As Gandhi saw it, 'Faith has no place in a sphere in which we can exercise our reason.  Faith has meaning only in relation to what is above reason.'

(65-66)  ...'ultimately it is the individual who is the unit';  'if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society?'.  The focus of policy making thus had to be on the final consequences for individuals.

But the individual is not an island.  He or she interacts with other individuals in a society.  As Gandhi put it, 'Love, kindness, generosity and other qualities can be manifested only in relation to others'....  'Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle...  Willing submission to social restraint for the sake of the well-being of the whole society enriches both the individual and the society of which one is a member'.
NB:  Margaret Thatcher:  "...there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families."

(67)  Again, rather than arguing that a classless society was possible, he argued for cooperation between classes.  The Gandhian method's focus on the individual thus does not imply that other groups do not exist, or even that they should not exist.  All that the Gandhian method would like to see is that the individual is not treated as a faceless entity in a group...

For consensus to be a practical instrument, it has to be used even when there is a conflict.  In other words, consensus has to also be a means of resoving a conflict.  As this consensus is not based on unanimity of views, it has to involve a compromise.  The details of such a compromise would be worked out through a process of bargaining.  And in this bargaining process each individual would be able to use moral pressure.  This view of bargained consensus is reflected in Gandhi's insistence that 'non-co-operation... is a prelude to co-operation'.

(68)  First, he ruled out the violent disruption of the bargaining process by emphasising non-violence.  Non-violence had to be the norm not just in the physical sense, but also in the realm of the intellectual.  There had to be a willingness to listen to alternative points of view.  Tolerance to alternative points of view and non-violence are thus essential parts of the Gandhian method.  Any compromise on this score would lead to the bargaining process becoming socially disruptive.  A deeply divided and angry society would make bargaining impossible.  The Gandhian method would then not be in a position to complete even the first step of identifying the desired consequences for a society.

The second measure to reduce the possibility of an unfair bargained consensus is the empowerment of the weaker groups.  

(69)  Gandhi did not believe that merely increasing the availability of commodities would be able to satisfy human wants.  As he saw it, 'The mind is a restless bird;  the more it gets the more it wants. and still remains unsatisfied'.  Satisfaction, therefore, is dependent not just on increasing the availability of commodities, but also on ensuring that the individuals' demands are within achievable limits.

(70)  Those who are oppressed today may be empowered tomorrow and become the new oppressors the day after.  The third essential requirement for effective bargaining in the Gandhian method is thus the creation of a method of fairness.

(71)  Gandhi argued that 'workers instead of regarding themselves as enemies of the rich, or regarding the rich as their natural enemies, should hold their labour in trust for those who are in need of it'.

This concept of Trusteeship has two distinct dimensions to it.  The first is the definition of fairness that is implied in the concept, and the second the question of its practicality'.

(73)  In 1916, Gandhi announced, 'After much thinking I have arrived at a definition of swadeshi that perhaps best illustrates my meaning.  Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote'.

(80-81)  The ideal knower then faces the difficult challenge of not being attached to the consequences of the action based on the knowledge he generates, while at the same time being able to identify with the subject of his knowledge.  In this task it would help if the knower recognises that the two attributes are not, strictly speaking, in direct conflict with each other.  Non-attachment relates to the consequences of an action, while participant observation helps in improving the understanding of a particular situation.  The skill of the knower in making this distinction in a real life situation will determine the quality of the subjective components of his or her knowledge.

In dealing with the objective elements of knowledge, the Gandhian method is guided by its inclusiveness.  The method militates against reducing any situation to a single grand theory.  Instead, it seeks to put together all the objective knowledge available at a point of time to develop a comprehensive picture of a particular economic situation.  This would involve piecing together a number of economic models.  The method, therefore, does not presume that models that may have meerged from different perceptions of the same situation are mutually exclusive.  It is open to the possibility of models that focus on different factors having a role to play in understanding the same situation.

(82)  The Gandhian method does not also believe that the state and the market are the only instruments of intervention in the economy.  Gandhi was particularly fond of using a direct appeal to the individual as an instrument of intervention in the economy.  He often sought to change economic trends by getting individuals to change their economic behavior.

(101)  By explicitly ruling out a reliance on any grand theory, the method makes it clear that no single model can claim to be an approximation to reality.  There is instead a larger analysis with a focus on consequences.  This focus makes it imperative that all the factors that influence the consequences, directly or indirectly, are taken into account.  Indeed, omitting factors from an analysis, even if they were relatively minor, would be treated as a serous shortcoming of an analysis based on the Gandhian method.  The method would also allow for the significance of each factor to vary across different situations.  The required consistency is to be found in the predefined morality, the focus on consequentialism and the goodness of the actions in themselves.

(115)  In contrast, the Gandhian method deals squarely with the methodological issues that are thrown up by subjectivity.  Indeed, the most striking aspect of the Gandhian method's approach to subjectivity is that it does not seek to reduce it.  It recognises that knowledge has both its subjective and objective dimensions, and both dimensions must be understood.  While it recognises that subjectivity could lead to bias, it does not believe the focus of the Gandhian method is on improving the quality of subjective judgements.  A biased judgment would then call for improvement in the use of subjectivity rather than believing that the role played by subjective judgements can be wished away.

(120-121)  With the Gandhian method being based on the concept of knowledge in the Bhagvadgita, there is always an awareness of the role of interpretation.  Since knowledge in the Gita is defined in terms of its specific elements, knowledge of the whole of the parts is itself influenced by knowledge of the whole.  There is thus a recognition of the need to address the hermeneutical circle, where interpreting a text requires pre-knowledge of the text.  This circle is, however, not as much of a constraint for Gandhi as it would be for those seeking objectivity.  For those seeking objectivity the circle would have to be broken so as to arrive at the absolute objective truth.  Gandhi, on the other hand, believed that the absolute truth was an ideal towards which we could work but which would never be attained.  And he recognised the role of subjectivity when working with relative truth.  As such he only needed to enter the hermeneutical circle and his knowledge would keep growing with the knowledge of the parts improving his knowledge of the whole, which would in turn improve his knowledge of the parts.  This approach is consistent with the view of Heidegger that what is decisive is not to get out of the hermeneutical circle but to come into it the right way.

For Gandhi, the right way to enter the hermeneutical circle was to seek to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential.  As this ability would vary from person to person and over time, interpretations of the same situation could vary.

(122-124)  As the Gandhian method opposes the reduction of reality into a single model, its method of intervention in the economy is necessarily more pluralistic.  Its focus on consequences makes it open to any instrument that is available at a point of time to achieve a particular consequence.  Its inclusiveness implies that the analysis cannot be restricted to a few key factors, no matter how important they may be.  As a corollary, the intervention in the economy cannot be through only a few select factors.  And since the Gandhian method deals with a multiplicity of units of analysis, the intervention in the economy too would have to be at different levels of aggregation.  In the Gandhian method, the system of regulation and policy implementation would operate at a multiplicity of levels, beginning with the local and going on to higher degrees of aggregation right up to the global.  The movement from a lower degree of aggregation to a higher one would only be justified when the more decentralised unit cannot, for whatever reason, operate effectively.  The Gandhian mechanism for intervention in the economy would then not be just a single macroeconomic agency.  Instead, it would be a variety of agencies working together to develop as inclusive a picture of the economy as possible.  The specific agencies that need to come together would vary from one desired consequence to another.  The efficient utilisation of water might call for a group of agencies related to that river basin, while the efficient utilisation of power might call for a group of agencies that includes representatives of all the users of power.

The main advantage of such a pluralistic, flexible method of policy implementation is that it increase the instruments available to a policy maker.  He does not have to rely on the market or the government machinery alone to intervene in the economy.  There could be collective action to achieve a specific economic objective.  Gandhi used his movement against foreign cloths as, among other things, a means of changing the conditions faced by Indian cloth manufacturers.  In a more modern context too collective action has had some success in influencing demand patterns.  Environmentalists have influenced a variety of economic factors including the fuel consumption of automobiles.  But such changes have often been brought about through external pressure on policy makers.  In the Gandhian method these pressures would be internalised into the mechanism of formulating and implementing policy.  Groups such as the environmentalists would be an integral part of the process of formulating and implementing policy.  This would serve to make these pressure groups more aware of the factors influencing others in the policy making process.  Environmentalists, for instance, would be forced to also address factors other than the environment.  And if the pressure groups do not get bureaucratised, they will provide policy makers with new instruments of policy implementation, such as collective action.

If this pluralism of policy instruments is not to lead to complete anarchy it is essential that policy makers are very sensitive to unintended consequences.  Since the Gandhian method also recognises the fallibility of all knowledge, the implementation agency must be in a position to change course at the first sight of a policy developing unintended adverse consequences.  A reform programme based on the Gandhian method would then begin gradually, with an extensive monitoring of unintended consequences.  It is only when the unintended consequences are manageable and there is sufficient evidence of the measures leading to the desired consequences, that the the momentum of the reform will be speeded up.  The sensitivity to the fallibility of policy will also ensure that the focus will be on first alleviating the more extreme pain of a crisis, if need be through short term measures.  And once the economy is in a position to absorb the shocks of unintended consequences, the necessary systemic changes will be brought about.  The mechanism to implement a policy would thus be sensitive both to the need to reduce the possibility of error as well as the need to reduce the undesirable consequences of an error.

(144-145)  In the Gandhian framework it is the method that is important, and not any ideological theory.  The focus is on consequences rather than any specific theories.  The Gandhian method would be open to consider alternative theories to achieve a particular consequence, if one set of theories fails.  there cannot then be a commitment to any specific ideological theory.  Moreover, the tendency to treat most problems as a choice between the market and the state goes against the inclusiveness of the Gandhian method.  The market and the state are just two of the many instruments available to intervene in the economy.  For instance, the intervention in the economy could occur through social institutions.  the activities of a religious institution, such as opening schools, could very well influence the economy of a region [Mondragon cooperative].  Social institutions could also influence the social behaviour of an individual.  And since the Gandhian method focuses on the consequences to an individual in a local society, these influences could, at times, be very much more important than either the state or the market.  This would be particularly true of remote, say tribal, economies where neither the state nor the market has penetrated.  But even in more modern economies there are dimensions of economic behaviour that are influenced by institutions other than the state or the market.  The attitude to specific ethnic groups, for instance could well determine the role they play in the economy [untouchables, Romany peoples].  It is for this reason that Gandhi remained largely outside the capitalism-versus-socialism debate that dominated global thinking in his time.

(175)  The first step in building a Gandhian alternative is to decide what should be the objective of the entire exercise.

(176)  In the Gandhian method, on the other hand, the focus is on the individual in the context of the local economy.  All measures are chosen on the basis of the impact on the individual within the local economy.  The removal of poverty, ignorance and disease would undoubtedly require measures not only at the local level, but also at the levels of the larger region, the nation, the regional bloc and the global.  But all these measures would have to be continuously evaluated in terms of the impact on the individuals within the local economy.

(177)  The objective of a Gandhian Budget in July 1991, would then have been to contribute to the removal of poverty, ignorance and disease for all individuals in their context.

(178)  The response to the power crisis, for instance, would have concentrated not only on increasing generating capacity, but also improving the efficiency of utilisation of power.  The value of a unit of power saved would have been more than the value of a unit of power generated because of the transmission and distribution losses between the point of generation and the point of consumption.  This difference would have been used to provide incentives for power conservation, including duty cutbacks on pumpsets or lighting systems that make more efficient use of power.

(179-180)  The next best option would be to focus on small towns.  If a large enough number of small towns are developed across the country, and the links between the small town and the village are improved, it would be possible for a substantial section of the rural population to work in industries in these towns even as they continue to reside in the familiar environment of their village.  The Gandhian alternative would thus have focused on creating a vast network of modern, industrialised small towns.  It would have built on the inherent benefits of these small towns, such as the ability to tap low cost rural labour or even capital generated by the Green Revolution.

(182)  There has been, for instance, a tendency India to use the tractor for transportation.  This could be interpreted as a latent demand for other more efficient systems of mass transportation.  Similarly, the huge wastage in vegetables produced in a large number of widely dispersed villages could be seen as an indicator of the demand for small food preservation units.  And if urban industry remained sceptical about the potential about the potential of the rural market, the Gandhian alternative would have focused on rural capital.  It could then have gone so far as to demonstrate this potential to urban industry by tapping capital that was generated as a result of the Green Revolution. 

(183-184)  Even as it found new roles for the government, the Gandhian alternative would not have lost sight of the fact that the state was only one player in the economy.  Most economic decisions had to be implemented by individuals outside the employment of the state.  This meant that it was not just the government but all organisations that had to be sensitive to signals from a variety of sources, from the local economy to the global one.  One way of increasing this sensitivity woudl be to encourage organisations that listened to all those who had a stake in it.  This is more likely to happen in organisations would retain their sensitivity to local conditions even when they grow into global giants.  The Gandhian alternative would thus have encouraged the development of stakeholder organisations.  The managements of these organisations would be able to distance themselves from any set of stakeholders and represent all stakeholders.  These managements would provide a modern version of Gandhi's concept of Trusteeship.  The task of developing such modern stakeholder organisations in a relatively backward industrial climate that existed in India in 1991 was not an easy one.  But a Gandhian alternative would have taken a significant step in this direction by encouraging the distancing of ownership from control.

(190)  There is then clearly a need for a method that does not attempt to reduce reality to a single model.  At the same time the method must not compromise on the rigour offered by models.  The Gandhian method seeks to meet these apparently contradictory objectives  by shifting the focus of analysis to the consequences.  Instead of searching for a model that can explain a particular situation, the emphasis is on identifying a set of desired consequences.  The policy maker can then take into account all the factors that influence these consequences.

(191)  As it does not see any action in isolation, an action is not evaluated in terms of its predetermined consequence alone.  All possible consequences are taken into account.  Since the very fact of an action being taken instantly changes a given situation, it is a consequence in itself.  There is then no difference between means and ends.  And the goodness of the consequences automatically implies the goodness of the actions as well....

The Gandhian method recognises the difficulty in defining an absolute morality.  It therefore recognises that it can function only with a relative morality.

(192)  For instance, the right to work is an extremely desirable right, but few societies are able to guarantee it.  The Gandhian method's answer to this challenge is to link each right to a duty.  The right to work would be linked to the duty to work efficiently so that the economy could grow at a pace that generates an increasing number of jobs.  The moment a duty is not performed the corresponding right cannot be protected.  The relative morality must then only be defined in terms of the rights that a society is willing to do its duty to protect.

(192-193)  Our case for consequentialism has been built primarily on its inclusiveness.  It encourages taking into account all factors that can influence consequences.  But clearly no analysis can take into account all consequences in the universe.  The Gandhian method thus focuses on a chosen set of desired consequences.  It excludes consequences other than the ones chosen.  The analysis then becomes very sensitive tot he choice of consequences.  And the policy maker will tend to be preoccupied with consequences that directly affect him or those whom he represents.  There is thus an inherent tendency to prefer the immediate surroundings.  The Gandhian method explicitly recognises this inherent tendency developing it into the concept of Swadeshi.  Through this concept the method advocates a focus on immediate surroundings when choosing the desired consequences.  But the immediate surroundings would depend on the level of aggregation.  The immediate surroundings for a rural individual would be his village, while for a nation it could be a regional bloc.  The precise components of an aggregation too would vary from issue to issue.  An individual's immediate surroundings for a religious issue would be his religious group. while for an economic issue it could be all groups, irrespective of their religion, in the local economy.  There is thus always a variety of groups at different levels of aggregation, each with its own set of desired consequences.

To arrive at a common set of desired conseqences at any level of aggregation, the Gandhian method advocates a bargained consensus.  The method recognises the prerequisites of such a consensus.  If the consensus is not to be unequal, all groups must be empowered.  If the system of bargaining is not to break down, there must be a tolerance of opposing views.  The ability to arrive at a consensus would improve if there are more options.  For the consensus to be accepted it would have to be seen to be fair.  And the Gandhian method believes that if those involved in the consensus were not seen to be attached to the fruits of that consensus, there is a greater chance of their judgements being considered fair.

(194)  A great deal of the emphasis of the [Gandhian] method, for instance, is on identifying the questions that must be raised, while much of conventional economics concentrates on finding answers to questions that are taken as given.

(195)  _Towards a New Economics:  Critical Essays on Ecology, Distribution and Other Themes_ by Kenneth E. Boulding
_Gandhi's Power:  Nonviolence in Action_ by Dennis Dalton

(196) _The Bhadvadgita_ by Mohandas K. Gandhi Delhi, Orient Paperbacks, 1996

(198)  "The Core of Gandhi's Social and Economic Thought" by Sugata Dasgupta in _Gandhi's Significance for Today_ edited by J Hick and LC Hempel

More notes on books about Gandhian economics:
Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and Swadeshi
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/sarvodaya-swaraj-and-swadeshi.html

Foundations of Gandhian Economics
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/foundations-of-gandhian-economics.html

Gandhi’s Economic Thought
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhis-economic-thought.html

Essays in Gandhian Economics
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/essays-in-gandhian-economics.html

Economy of Permanence
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/economy-of-permanence.html

Gandhian Economics:  A Humane Approach
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhian-economics-humane-approach.html

Gandhi's Economic Thought

_Gandhi's Economic Thought_ by Ajit K. Dasgupta
NY:  Routledge, 1996
ISBN 0-415-11430-6

(6)  Gandhi wrote:  'I must confess that I do not draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics.'

(7)  Gandhi insisted that the relationship between economics and ethics works both ways.  While economic concepts were laden with ethical implications, ethics too must descend from the clouds and become 'good economics'....

'Whatever is basically harmful on economic grounds is also certainly harmful from the religious point of view.  Untainted wealth can never be opposed to religion.'

(20)  And again, 'Everyone must have balanced diet, a decent house to live in, facilities for the education of one's children and adequate medical relief.'  For the same reason, spinners' wages should be adequate for ensuring 'wholesome and nutritious food, necessary clothing, comfortable houses and other amenities necessary for a happy home'.  The tiller of the soil should have a 'sufficiency of fresh, pure milk and oil, fish, eggs and meat if he is a non-vegetarian, adequate but not fine clothing (what would fine clothes, for instance, avail him if he is ill-nourished and underfed?)' facilities for sanitation, comfortable housing, clean drinking water, dirt-free roads and a sense of participation in decisions that affect his daily life.

(21)  The [moral] principle that he invoked most often for this purpose was that of neighbourhood.  Gandhi defined swadeshi as 'a principle which is broken when one professes to serve those who are more remote in preference to those who are near'.  A teaching that is shared by all humankind, states Gandhi, and one that is common to all religions alike, is that one must be kind and attentive to one's neighbours.  The duty of helping one's neighbours is at the core of the ethics of Swadeshi.

(27)  The test of swadeshi 'was not the universality of the use of an article which goes under the name of swadeshi but the universality of participation in the production or manufacturing of such article'.  Judged by this test spinning had a potential unmatched by other contenders....

On one occasion, he found that a number of women had been spinning who were not without occupation or means of making a living.  'Perhaps they spin in response to our appeal and because they realise it is for the good of the country.'  Nevertheless, Gandhi remained firm in his resolve that their spinning should stop, for the charkha movement had not been conceived with such people in mind but only for able-bodied people who were idle for want of work.

(31)  'It is a grave delusion to say that one cannot preserve truth while earning wealth.'

(36-37)  First, the term bread-labour in Gandhi's sense was inapplicable to work motivated by economic compulsion.  Grinding toil for the sake of eking out a miserable livelihood, which is the lot of millions of poor peasants and factory workers throughout the world should not, he thought, be dignified by the name of bread-labour....

Second, it must be performed in a spirit of service to others rather than solely to please oneself.  'If a young man who has trained his body with rigorous exercise spends eight hours every day in doing such exercise, he is not doing bread-labour.'...

Third, there must be scope for exercise of the mind.  This depends not so much on the nature of the task itself as on its context and milieu and on the spirit in which it is performed.

(40-41)  On the whole, however, bread-labour does not play an important role in Gandhi's social and economic thought and there are few references to it in his later writing.

(46)  'When you do your duty the rights will drop into your lap.'

(71)  Gandhi's stand against the adoption of mechanised techniques for industrial development in India need no longer be seen as advocacy of a 'return to nature'.  Gandhi himself makes this quite explicit  In the course of justiyfing his opposition to the grinding of corn by a mechanical process in the mills he states:

'I have no  partiality for return to the primitive method of grinding and husking for the sake of them.  I suggest the return because there is no other way of giving employment to the millions of villagers who are living in idleness.'

His plea was not so much for using capital less as for using labour more.  The same concern underlies his opposition to methods of production which involve utilising natural resources more intensively than labour.  Any plan which exploited the raw materials of a country to the full while neglecting utilisation of man-power was lopsided and could not lead to equality...

'I am against machines just because they deprive men of their employment and render them jobless.  I oppose them not because they are machines but because they create unemployment.'

(73)  Gandhi:  'Organisation of machinery for the purpose of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few and for the exploitation of the many I would hold to be altogether wrong.  Much of the organisation of machinery of the present age is of that type.'

If that kind of organisation were to spread in India it would lead to further encroachment of the cities on villages, making the villages even more dependent on the cities than they already were...

'If you multiply individual production a million times would it not give you mass production on a tremendous scale?'  This he describes as 'mass production in people's own homes'.  Income distribution, he believed, could be equalised only when production was localised, in other words when the distribution and production of goods were simultaneous.
NB:  cottage industry

(79)  He described as ideal villages those which are self-reliant in food, which have not a single flour-mill and in which the residents grow all the cotton they need and manufacture their own cloth right up to the stage of stitching garments in their own homes.  If he was in charge, he would reward such villages by giving them prizes and exempting them from all taxes.

(79-80)  In the same spirit, he defined as a helpful machine 'any machine which does not deprive masses of men of the opportunity to labour but which helps the individual and adds to his efficiency and which a man can handle at will without being its slave.'

(91)  Elsewhere Gandhi argues that the acceptable degree of inequality in society should be seen in terms of differences in consumption, life-style and the standard of living rather than just income.

(99)  In order to remove untouchability a programme of action was required.  His programme included such things as organising the untouchables, especially  in the villages, so that they were better able to protect their human rights; offering satyagraha in order to secure their rights of entry to hotels and restaurants and places of worship ('But not a single Hindu restaurant should be allowed to function which does not permit the entry of Harijans'), and making the abolition of untouchability an election issues.  Some of these techniques were later adopted by the Civil Right movement in the United States during the 1960s.

(119)  'The rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal need and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for the society.'

Gandhi adds:  'In this argument honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.'

(125-126)  Gandhi's theory of trusteeship:  What I expect of you therefore is that you should hold all your riches as a trust to be used solely in the interests of those who sweat for you and to whose industry and labour you owe all your position and property.  I want you to make labourers co-partners of your wealth.

(131)  'I never said that there should be cooperation between the exploiter and exploited so long as exploitation and the will to exploit persist.'  His point rather was that the exploited themselves cooperated with their exploiters  'All exploitation is based on the cooperation, willing or forced of the exploited.  However much we may detest admitting it the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refused to obey the exploiter.'

(142)  Gandhi's own ideas on what constituted a proper curriculum for elementary education were spelled out in a number of articles on Nayee Talim and also reflected in his school in Wardha.  Handicrafts, which included spinning, weaving, carpentry, horticulture and animal care were to provide the foundation.  Music, drawing, arithmetic, citizenship, history, geography, science and languages were also to be taught, both directly and through the crafts, a learning-by-doing approach being used wherever possible.  Schools would also give lessons in practical sanitation and hygiene, including efficient use of water and the repair and maintenance of village wells, knowledge which students would take back to their parents, taking on the role of silent revolutionaries.  Cooperation between home and school would be encouraged by operating primary schools on a shift system, with two half-day shifts so that the children could also work in the field or help in household tasks.  This, Gandhi, believed, would go some way towards reducing the reluctance of parents to send their children, especially their daughters, to school.

(158)  Gandhi opposed the movement for birth control with much vehemence.  He regarded the use of artificial methods for preventing births as morally unacceptable and he held fast to this opinion to the very end of his life though the topic itself appears less and less often in his later writing.

(164-166)  Early in his political career Gandhi entered into a controversy with Tilak on the relationship of politics to ethics.  Was the absolute commitment to truth and non-violence that Gandhi wished to impose on the Indian national movement really appropriate to the political arena?  The Lokamanya thought not.  It might be more appropriate, he suggested, for sadhus.  But politics was a game of worldly people, not of sadhus.  In a spirited rejoinder to Tilak, Gandhi insisted that the Buddhist maxim that non-anger wins over anger lays down an eternal principle and that this was the law not for the unworldly alone but essentially for the worldly.  'With deference to the Lokamanya, I venture to say that it betrays mental laziness to think that the world is not for sadhus.' Ethics, according to Gandhi, was essentially a worldly enterprise and at its core was a desperate attempt to become sadhu.  This debate has an ancient parallel in Indian political thought.  According to Kautilya's _Arthasastra_ each sphere of action had its own appropriate rules of conduct which represented its own morality.  In politics 'reasons of state' were therefore to be regarded as binding.  Buddhism on the contrary stood for the over-riding authority of moral law.  While different types of activity might, indeed, be conducted by their own rules, these remained subject to the claims of ethics.  'Buddhism', notes Ghoshal, 'with its stern and unbending code of ethics stood for the unqualified supremacy of the moral law over governmental affairs.'  So did Gandhi.  And this applied just as well to economic affairs.

Buddhism does not, however, regard economic activity as such as unethical.  On the contrary it gives economic, and in particular business, enterprise an honoured place.  For a proper perspective on Gandhi's economic thought, certain specific elements in the Buddhist approach to economics are especially relevant.  First, a persistent theme of Buddhist texts is that the worldly and the spiritual spheres of activity are not different in kind.  They are, as it were, cut from the same cloth and the conditions required for success in them have  large overlap.  In the Majjjmanikaya, for instance, one who is successful in spiritual enterprise is likened to 'a rich and wealthy man on a long journey through the woods who should eventually emerge safe and sound without a loss of goods'.  Gandhi thought in much the same way.  In formulating economic concepts such as swadeshi or trusteeship Gandhi often used a 'saintly idiom'.  This, I believe reflects not so much his religiosity as a belief that material and spiritual considerations can be described in much the same language.

Second, the general principle of economic conduct for the Buddhist layman is appamada, which translates roughly as paying attention and taking care.  The basic virtues that this principle invokes are attention, carefulness, conscientiousness and diligence.  The householder who seeks to follow the _Dhamma_ must therefore work hard, avoid wasting resources, cultivate his skills, practise thrift and, without becoming possessive, take good care of his possessions. The householder who succeeds in acquiring wealth by honest means and through his own energy and effort, who does not run into debt and retains ownership of his property, who enjoys both material well-being and independence and who uses his wealth for the public good is commended by Buddha;  and the wealth of such a man is described as 'wealth that has seized its opportunity, turned to merit and is fittingly made use of'.  Gombrich sums up:  'Buddha _never_ suggests that laymen should eschew property, he _commends_ wealth which is righteously acquired by one's own effort.
Gandhi's concern with appamada runs through his writings on economic topics.  It underlies his praise of productive power as a form of godliness:  'There is no separate species called gods in this universe, but all who have the power of production and will work for the community using that power are gods-labourers no less than capitalists.'  The same concern explains his emphasis on the crucial importance of personal effort.  Even his own favourite project, khaddar, would, he said, be quite useless if it could be obtained without effort.  'Khaddar has the greatest organising power in it because it has itself to be organised and becase it affects all India.  If khaddar rained from heaven it would be a calamity.'

For the same reason, bettering one's economic condition by one's own active effort was superior to having the same outcome brought about by the state.  'It is one thing to improve the economic condition of the masses by state regulation of taxation and wholly another for them to feel that they have bettered their condition by their own sole personal effort.'

The principle of appamada also provides a moral justification for being concerned with economic efficiency.  Unlike many other who have criticised capitalist enterprise on moral grounds, Gandhi never rejected efficiency as a worthy norm. Whatever the project, be it a school or a khadi shop or a rural health care system or even arranging a marriage ceremony Gandhi always insisted on costs being reduced to the absolute minimum required to achieve a desired outcome.  His persistent refusal despite criticism from the left, to condemn the acquisition of wealth, expresses the same spirit:  'my advice that monied men may earn their millions (honestly of course) but so as to dedicate them to the service of all, is perfectly sound.

Likewise, while condemning exploitation of workers by capitalists, he refused to condemn all businessmen as individuals:  'My relations with the rich will continue.  I don't look upon the rich as wicked and upon the poor as angels.'  Statements of this kind are consistent with a Buddhist attitude to wealth which is in sharp contrast to that of the Christian Fathers who culd see 'no possibility of acquiring great riches without resort to evil practices or inheritance from those who had resorted to the', and for this reason called on all Christians to avoid seeking riches.

(168)  The only other 'predecessor' of Gandhi whom I shall discuss is John Ruskin.  Gandhi is commonly described as a disciple of Ruskin whose book _Unto This Last_ he rendered into Gujrati in a series of articles under the title _Sarvodaya_ (literally, the welfare of all)

(175)  Gandhi's insight that his erstwhile fellow-workers who were now in charge of the Government did not believe in Gandhian economic policies and had no wish to put them into practice was entirely correct.

(177)  Last, Gandhi is concerned not only with what ethics can do for economics but also with what economics can do for ethics.  The latter concern, which is quite unusual among moralist critics of the economic approach, leads him to suggest that if a project, however good it may be from an ethical point of view, requires continuing economic loss, it is unsound and should be avoided.  

(178)  As we have seen Gandhi's over-riding concern was the decentralization of production, which was to be achieved through village industries.  He was also opposed to centralised state control of the distribution of foodgrains or other necessary items, and spoke out against price-control and rationing which were being used as techniques of food planning in independent India.

(179)  Three-quarters of the Indian people lived in villages, but the villagers no longer had the self-respect they had once enjoyed...

Economic development was a means of bringing self-respect to the individuals who lived in villages and thereby to village society as a whole.  It was not just a matter of money: 'You cannot bring a model village in being by the magic wand of money.'

(182)  In both economics and ethics it is the individual who is, for Gandhi, the relevant unit of account.

(183)  'If the individual ceases to count what is left of society?'  That one can be a determined enemy of the inequality and injustice that are characteristic of societies driven by 'possessive individualism' without giving up a commitment to the individual is a valuable part of the legacy of Gandhi.

More notes on Gandhian economics texts:
Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and Swadeshi
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/sarvodaya-swaraj-and-swadeshi.html

Foundations of Gandhian Economics
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/foundations-of-gandhian-economics.html

Inclusive Economics:  Gandhian Method and Contemporary Policy
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/inclusive-economics-gandhian-method-and.html

Essays in Gandhian Economics
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/essays-in-gandhian-economics.html

Economy of Permanence
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/economy-of-permanence.html

Gandhian Economics:  A Humane Approach
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhian-economics-humane-approach.html