Human security - from the economic notion of scarcity viewpoint

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

The economic notion of resource scarcity differs from what scientists consider for physical abundance of resources. For economists, the net value of resources over the course of time is a measure for making judgment for resource scarcity. From an economic point of view, if marginal costs increase as remaining reserves decline, but market price does not increase as fast as the costs, then the net value is declining and it indicates NON growing scarcity. The fact that remaining reserves are declining would indicate geologic scarcity, but unless market price increases fast enough than marginal cost, the resource is not becoming economically scarce.

Indeed from an economic perspective market forces; technology costs, future demands, substitute commodities prices and their availability will determine the level of scarcity for resources rather than geologic and physical availability of resources.

What about environmental quality; fresh water and clean air? What about species face the danger of extinction? Could we apply this commodity-based and private goods notion of economic scarcity to public and environmental goods? Can this notion guarantee the irreversible exploitation of the life-support resources?

Scarcity is an economic fact of life and can be manageable for commodities that flow through organized institutions such as markets. However where the case is about the scarcity of life support resources and human security may another institution should be in play. In the latter case, interchangeability, market price and demand fluctuation are not applicable.

Having the reality of limited capital and human resources and necessity of their optimal allocations, we need a framework to help us to effectively prioritize our environmental objectives. The more non-market the environmental service, the harder it will be to adapt this economic notion of scarcity. It is suited to private commodities that exchanged in markets.

The existing value system cannot appropriately calculate the real value of environmental goods. Furthermore the prevailing and dominated development model for societies cannot accommodate all aspects of human security.

These all may require the development of new economic value system within new global governance, with focus on effective regional cooperation and conservation efforts, to fulfill the human security needs.        

Contrary to principle: Budget deficit reduction policy

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

For reducing budget deficits, governments face two policy choices, either reducing government spending such as health care or raising tax on rich. WHICH one is good?

There are many ways to judge the value of a policy target. To answer the above mentioned question we should answer to the essential questions. How can we distinguish between good and bad?

Utilitarian theory requires, which is one of the most dominant doctrines with stronghold in North America, a policy to maximize pleasures.

According to a utilitarian theory, it assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent. It describes the good not only as pleasure, but also as happiness, benefit, advantage. J. S. Mill particularly emphasizes the importance of pleasures. Thus the values of the consequences of an action are evaluated based on not only the quantity but also the quality of the action’s pleasure.

So if one accepts utilitarianism, its policy target must be set based on the greatest-happiness principle of majority as a standard of right and wrong. Hence, the Budget Deficit Reduction Policy should be judged as good if it improves the greatest happiness of the greatest number, by either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain.

The notion and motion that denies health care to the poor who outnumbers rich, is a BAD policy when it makes the majority unpleased.

By this standard: “should not deficit-reduction policy raise taxes on the very rich?” However one can sticks to only the collective cost-benefit numbers, so then the value judgment is not something it can justify at all on the basis of those numbers.

Value Judgment and Progress

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

What we discussed in my earlier post “progress” on October 23^rd 2011and in the social scientists group, briefly covered origins for the idea of progress and its implication for society development.  Similar lines of inquiry might be pursued through other sociological literature, with the result of showing case studies that attempt to explain society, and particularly social advance. What was missed, explicit definition for the significant and essential characteristic of human beings, for striving after the accomplishment of certain life-purposes (E. Kant).. Such terms as "struggle," "conflict," "survival," and "adaptation stand for legitimate and highly important concepts in social theory, but concepts nevertheless which can give us no clue to the true nature of human progress.  

 

The definition of progress does not imply continuous, uninterrupted advance along a smooth path, but rather the halting, infrequent lunges forward which the actual page of history discloses (B. Woods). It is possible to assume an attitude on the subject of human evolution and denying all significance to judgments of better or worse, passed on human life conditions in different ages. No matter which standards or codes picked, the concept of social valuations is universal, and, indeed inevitable. It is decidedly worth while that they should be founded, not on narrow interests or artificial conceptions of life, but on a survey of the largest horizon of truth about humanity which it is possible

In contrast to the prevailing original idea of gradual and continuous progress, the orthodox idea of cycles of change existed in the fabric of the philosophies of east and their perceptions of progress. It means regular succession of changes seen in the movements of perfect bodies the return of the seasons, the course of growth and decay in the animal and vegetable world, as well as by periods of degeneration and decline visible in the history of nation. This idea also could survive long and worked well in that part of the world. (Fukuyama)

In social level, progress is essentially an idea of value and teleological idea (Flint). It cannot, therefore, be reduced to a formulation in terms of mechanism. The theory of natural selection is essentially a theory of the mechanics of a process. Evolution in general is a process from homogeneous to heterogeneous (Spencer). In social level, the progress is path-determined (Arrow) and the process’s goal must be set and judged to be good, and involving both the process and the judgment.

However one may still argue that with separating the process from the value judgment, the element of subjectivity appears which it may misguide societies toward a sound direction. The counter argument is “Societies, whose values have survived over the course of history, can set a series of values which suit and serve their space and time (context) as they have done”. This standpoint may fall short when the value judgment is supposed to be taken in a collective global scale (globalization). The problem lies in reconciling a standard of human values, which is valid not because it corresponds to a social actuality, but to a social need with that other dominant conception. So remote the global society ideal of life may be!

A great deal of efforts has been made by social scientists to develop a universal framework to explain the conditions of human development, though this universal framework is inconsistent where the value judgments, ethics and priorities are at play. As Bury highlighted, progress itself, does not suggest its values as a doctrine. So in social level, there may not be a supreme object of action toward the union of human thoughts.

Environmental Issue through Realism lens - Policy

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Aljazeera news held a panel to discuss a controversial proposition:

 “Is it time to consider shifting efforts away from saving some of the world's most famous species?”

The program claims that in a recent survey of nearly six hundred scientists involved in wildlife protection, sixty percent agreed with the idea of shifting efforts away from species that are too difficult or too costly to preserve in the wild. 

If this proposition is converted into a policy, it would have both moral and environmental implications. Unsurprisingly opposition rejects the proposition and argues that it is absolutely immoral to make the species survival value judgment basing on the business fundamentals and prefer one species at the expense of another. Inevitably, this view is a perfect and rich-virtue attitude.

From idealistic viewpoint, the best policy is the one that addresses the needs of all or at least majority. However realistic perspective underscores few shortcomings in the counter proposition which may raise a couple of questions such as “how can one make value judgment out of the business fundamentals when the species protection needs resources and resource allocation and would be costly?”

Imagine a situation, having scarce financial resources, morality and environmental conscience level high, many people suffer hungers, famines, and water diseases, climate change and environmental degradation threaten, and extinction of some species imminent and no one wishes to forgo its basic rights and needs, so

where should funds be invested? How should policymakers set priorities? In the real world, is it feasible to adopt and design a collective policy to favor the protection of all species while people are desperately in need?

Perhaps priority setting and value judgments are the most subjective and controversial areas of study in the realm of policy analysis and policy making process. Both significantly influence the implications of policies. Despite this consciousness and the acknowledgment that the international community lacks a universal source for value judgment where international public goods matters, a little, for profoundly understanding them, has been conducted by research community. They deserve more research contributions.