The foundation of Riane Eisler’s “The Real Wealth of Nations” (RWN) is that our current economic system has failed and does not serve the needs of society. It was developed at a time when a strong domination system was in place and inequalities existed between race, sex and certain social demographic groups. She proposes a new economic model that incorporates a “partnerism” philosophy with a “caring orientation”. The caring element would incorporate building healthy communities through greater caring “…for children, the sick, and the elderly, caring for employees, customers, and other business stakeholders…” She notes the current system creates greater division between social classes. According to RWN the top 1% of the population owns 40% of the nation’s financial wealth and the bottom 80% only own 9% of the wealth. The domination system is not only outdated but is the foundation of the problem with our current economic system. Control and rewards are enjoyed by the few members of the system that are at the top ranks in business and society. She believes the system favors men and has not adequately rewarded or accounted for work traditionally performed by woman and that we still have a “gender double standard”. The “gender double standard” is supported with studies showing disparity with pay scales between sexes for identical work and the lack of accounting for unpaid work traditionally performed by women in the household. Additionally, she suggests the classification of “feminine” work, and all the stereotypes associated with it, must change under a new economic system. She proposes a partnership system where the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account. This would include stockholders, investors, managers, employees, customers, vendors, communities, society and the environment. Rewards and control would be less concentrated at the top and would be more equitable among the stakeholders. Hierarchies would still exist but would be centered on inspiration, support and empowerment. Competition would still exist but with a greater focus on “mutualism” so that any individual stakeholder gain is not at the expense of another. In addition to the societal benefits of a caring economic system she discusses the positive ROI benefits from “caring business practices”. Her position is supported with several studies, including one that reveals Western European workers, who receive greater vacation time and spend less time on their jobs than U.S. workers, are more productive when looking at GDP annual compound growth per worker-hour. The book reveals our current economic measurements do not adequately reflect society’s true wealth and would need to change in order to support a caring economic model. The current model even goes to the extreme of supporting irresponsible corporate behavior. The example she uses is the cleanup cost of the Exxon Valdez being included in the GDP. Although the event had a negative impact on our natural resources and society, it shows up on the positive side of one of the performance measurements of our current economic system. A caring economic system would develop measurements and indicators that would more accurately account for practices that have a negative effect on society. Additionally it would include accounting for unpaid activities, such as parental childcare, that benefit the economy and society but are not currently accounted for in GDP or other accepted economic measurements. The book discusses steps toward a caring economy and a call to action detailing what each of us can do to move the current economic model where it needs to go to sustain the world and its population.
I disagree with her position that our economic system is a social experiment that has not worked and that capitalism has failed. However, I do agree that today it does not work to its full potential, and for the many reasons outlined in her chapter summaries, is in need of a revolutionary change. In looking at the system we have to keep in mind that society was much different when the current economic system was developed. There were greater divisions among race, sex and social classes. Many of the issues we have today with our economic system are rooted in what was the norm at the time but is fortunately not the norm today. Timing in life is everything and I believe what needs to be done to our current system would have not worked if it was introduced at the time of Adam Smith and the beginning our capitalistic system. It needed to be what it was at the time, in order for us to get to where we are today, so we can get to where we need to be tomorrow. It’s not that I agree with where society was at the time, quite to the contrary, I just don’t believe enough support would have been possible for the societal change to have occurred. I believe a more accurate accounting of our capitalistic economic system is one that is maturing from the “me” stage to “self actualization”. Riane Eisler is on target with her analysis of the problems with the model in today’s society. With the economic condition in a recession, largely due to greed and some failures within our current system, I believe we are at a point where our capitalistic system can mature and reach “self actualization” or in Riane Eisler words move to a caring economic model.
Gary A. Coffin: 9/17/2009
Comments