MEMEnomics is the title of a book by Said Dawlabani, a cultural economist. The book, published in 2013,
is an application of the psycho-social model of human development pioneered by
Clare Graves and Don Beck. MEMEnomics has been praised by several prominent
people, including Deepak Chopra and Bruce Lipton, but I have yet to see any
praise by prominent economists. The author does not claim that his book is part
of the economics mainstream.
Said Dawlabani suggests that
MEMEnomics represents the coming together of two fields: memetics – the study
of the replication, spread and evolution of memes - and economics. Just as
genes carry the codes that define human characteristics, memes carry the codes
that define cultural characteristics. The book is focused on value-system memes
- the varying preferences and priorities that humans have in their lives
depending on their level of development. The way human values may change with
levels of human development was discussed in a recent post on this blog.
The author defines MEMEnomics as “the study of the long-term
effects of economic policy on culture as seen through the prism of value
systems”. Much of the book is devoted to attempting to explore the cultural
implications of changes in economic policy in the United States. The author
recognizes the desirability of ensuring that his model can explain history
before it is used to attempt to predict the future.
There are three memenomic cycles identified in the book:
·
a “fiefdoms of power” cycle, peaking around 1900,
in which American industrialists played a dominant role - large-scale
exploitation, fraud and corruption came to identify the values of that era;
·
a “patriotic prosperity” cycle, peaking around
1950, characterized by economic expansion and government intervention –
Keynesian macro-policies and social polices – and ending in stagflation;
·
and an “only money matters” cycle, peaking
around 1980, characterized by monetarism and deregulation of the economy, and
leading to the financial crisis of 2008.
I am not sure the author succeeds in demonstrating that
changes in economic policies have led to cultural change. The cycles identified
seem to me to be caricatures of beliefs held by powerful elites rather than
accurate descriptions of deep-seated changes in values held by ordinary
citizens. Nevertheless, it might be reasonable to argue that the cycles
represent changes in ideologies of opinion leaders that have been reflected superficially in
voting preferences and priorities of the American public.
The author suggests that we are standing on the cusp of a
fourth cycle, “the democratization of information cycle”, in which
technological advances are allowing social networks to play a pivotal role in
affecting social change. That view has merit in my view, but I think this
technology-driven change is better viewed as an exogenous factor rather than a
new ideology emerging from the down-side of “only money matters”. At this stage
it seems that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, social networks have
aided the return of economic nationalism rather than a policy environment placing
higher priority on human development and living in harmony with nature.
As discussed in previous posts (here and here) there does
seem to be scope for technological advances to have profound impacts on human
values and the way we organise ourselves relative to each other over the next
few decades. However, since some of those innovations threaten the scope of
government, it seems unlikely that government policy will play a top-down role
encouraging them to happen. Policy change seems more likely to occur in
response to the demands of ordinary citizens for governments to get out of the way,
so citizens can make effective use of new technology.
I enjoyed reading the final chapter of the book discussing
the concept of a sustainable corporation. Inspirational examples are provided
of corporation leaders setting out to define how the core values of their
organisations can enable them to simultaneously pursue profits and a higher
purpose. Unfortunately, some of the shining examples of 2013 do not all shine
so brightly today. Said Dawlabani has
written an interesting article recently on the reasons why that has happened.
Entrepreneurs
who are selling new sets of values to investors, staff and customers will
always encounter naysayers. In the face of this negativism some of these
pioneers will succeed, many will not.
One of the messages I get from MEMEnomics is that individual
entrepreneurs are likely to play a crucial leadership role in facilitating
transition from a subsistence value system limited to expressions of selfish
interests, to a value system that understands the interconnectedness of all
life on the planet.
It strikes me that for economics to shed light on the role
of the entrepreneur in this process it needs to recognize that the value
created by entrepreneurs is likely to have a large non-pecuniary component in
future. In pursuit of personal values some innovative entrepreneurs are offering
investors the opportunity to feel that their funds are being used for the betterment
of humanity and/or the environment, as well as generating financial returns. Similarly,
they are offering employees the opportunity to feel they are engaged in a
meaningful venture rather than just an income earning activity, and are also offering
consumers opportunities to feel good about their purchases.
The economic model that seems most relevant in this context
is 'identity economics' - as discussed in a book of that name by George
Akerlof and Rachel Kranton. The key idea is that people gain satisfaction when
their actions conform to the norms and ideals of their identity. In a tribal
society, identity economics is like identity politics – people adopt the norms
and ideals of the tribe to which they belong. In a cosmopolitan society the
relevant norms and ideals are those of the market economy, incorporating a
large measure of respect for the rights of others and social trust. Over the next few
decades, hopefully the relevant norms and ideals will incorporate greater
concern for the well-being of all humans and other living creatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment