fall of a society, is it realistic to ignore the integrity and stability of the family?
If the market, the family, the society and the state all have a role to play in human well-being, then the question is how to make them play their roles in a manner that complements yet does not hinder the effective performance of their role by others.While the market may operate efficiently if every individual tries to serve his or her self-interest, is it also possible for families, society, and the state to operate effectively and harmoniously if everyone were to behave in the same self-interested manner?
These are not new questions. They have been addressed by social philosophers for centuries. The majority seem to hold the view that the serving of self-interest is only one of the motivating forces in human society and that the maximization of wealth and consumption is only one of the goals. The spiritual and humanitarian goals stated above are of equal, if not greater, importance. Some of these goals may in fact conflict with each other and a compromise may need to be struck. But is it possible for a society to arrive at such a compromise if it sets maximization of wealth and consumption as its primary goal and its members are not willing to sacrifice their self-interest for realizing society’s humanitarian goals?
Sacrifice is of great importance in the case of the family and society. Experience shows that the more the parents are attached to each other and adopt an attitude of mutual sacrifice and cooperation, the greater harmony and stability there is likely to be in the family. The upbringing of children also requires a substantial degree of mutual cooperation and the sacrifice of parental self-interest. Similarly, social harmony may also require members to cooperate with each other, to sacrifice for the common good and to take care of the poor and the vulnerable. Even in the case of the market and the state, sacrifice may be unavoidable. In spite of competition, which helps safeguard social interest, it may be possible for operators in the market to make unjustified gains by cheating and obstructing competition in a manner that may be difficult to detect. Similarly, while democracy, public accountability, and a free press do help in protecting the public interest, it may still be possible for government officials to use their authority for personal benefit at the expense of the taxpayer.
Therefore, there has to be some motivating force that prevents individuals from wrongdoing even when it is possible for them to get away unscathed. Coercive government power has proved to be an effective motivating force. However, if this power were the only force in human society to prevent wrongdoing, the costs of enforcement may be very high. Is it possible to supplement competition, public accountability and coercive government power by some other motivating force that might induce members of society to abide willingly by agreed values or rules of behaviour, and to fulfil their contracts and social obligations faithfully even when this involves a sacrifice of self-interest?
This brings us to the question of why should any person sacrifice his or her self-interest for serving social interest either in the market place, the family, the society, or the government? If economics concentrates only on self-interest and has no place for a motivating force other than self-interest, then it may not be equipped to answer this question. If maximizing wealth and consumption is the only goal in the life of an individual, then there is no need to make any sacrifice for others. Serving self-interest is the best policy. Consequently, the family may then suffer, the quality of the future generation may decline, and even the performance of the market and the government may ultimately be adversely affected. The problem, therefore, is how to motivate individuals to fulfil their contracts and other commitments honestly and not to undermine competition or to resort to unfair means of earning even when it is possible for them to get away with it. This is the question which religions have tried to address by providing behavioural rules in the form of the moral obligations of individuals towards other human beings, animals and the environment, and by trying to motivate their followers to abide by these rules even when doing so hurts their self-interest. Whether or not they have succeeded in this task is a different matter. However, economics may not be able to ignore religious values and the associated motivating force if its goal is the realization of comprehensive well-being.
A society may have attained the pinnacle of glory in the material sense, but it may not be able to sustain it for long if the moral fibre of individuals and society is weakening, the family disintegrating, the new generation unable to get the kind of attention and upbringing that are necessary for an achieving civilization, and if social tensions and anomie are rising. The material and the spiritual aspects of well-being are not, therefore, independent of each other. Rather, they are closely interrelated. Greater family harmony may help raise better individuals to operate in the market, and better social harmony may create a more conducive environment for effective government and accelerated development. If this is true, then the emphasis on serving self-interest and maximizing wealth and consumption may have to be toned down so as to serve social interest and optimize human well-being. Some uses of resources which serve self-interest and fit well into the hedonist framework may have to be reduced to fulfil the needs of all individuals in society and, thereby, promote family and social harmony.
Available evidence supports the contention that material advance is not by itself sufficient to increase happiness and social harmony. “Rich countries are not typically happier than poor countries,” concludes Richard Easterlin after 30 surveys conducted in 19 developed and developing countries.5 There is something else that is also needed to create happiness and harmony and to remove tensions and anomie. Therefore, if economics concerns itself with well-being in its comprehensive sense, then it may not be able to confine its discussion to just material prosperity.6
How human well-being is defined is, therefore, an extremely crucial factor in the allocation and distribution of resources. If there is a difference in the concept of well-being, then there will also be a difference in the mechanisms and method for realizing it. There are three important mechanisms which determine the use of resources in any society or economic system. These are: filtering, motivation, and socio-economic and political restructuring.7 Just as it is possible to define well-being in a number of ways, it is also possible to have different mechanisms for filtering, motivation and socio-economic restructuring.
Firstly, all the different claims on limited resources need to be passed through a filter to create an equilibrium between all the claims on these resources and their supply, in a way that the realization of spiritual or humanitarian goals is not jeopardized. There may be different ways of filtering. Three of these are: central planning, market mechanism and moral values. Experience of socialist countries has shown that central planning is not an effective mechanism for filtering even in the material sense and almost all of them have abandoned it by now, except perhaps Cuba. However, market mechanism has performed extremely well. Prices determined through the interaction of supply and demand in perfectly competitive markets help filter out the various uses of resources in such a way that an equilibrium is established. But the problem with the use of market mechanism for filtering is that it is possible to have several market equilibria depending on which tastes and preferences of individuals and firms interact with each other in the market place. Any and every market equilibrium may not lead to the realization of humanitarian goals. It may, therefore, be desirable to complement the market system by some other mechanism that helps change individual tastes and preferences and which leads to the desired kind of equilibrium. Could moral values help bring about such a change?
Secondly, if coercion is ruled out, then the desired kind of filtering may have to be brought about by sufficiently motivating all individuals to put in their best performance and to abstain from using resources in a way that frustrates the realization of the desired kind of well-being. Motivation acquires great significance in economics as compared to say physics because economics deals with human beings who may or may not always behave in a set manner that is conducive to goal realization. The serving of self-interest has proved to be an effective motivating mechanism for increasing efficiency, while competition, public accountability, and government intervention have helped safeguard
