SUFFiciENcy EcONOMy ANd GRASSROOtS DEvElOPMENt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

180 The Meaning of Sufficiency Economy International Conference With their focus on sustainable livelihoods, both SLA and SE are holistic, people-centered development approaches. That means people—rather than resources or governments or economies—are at the heart of development activities, and priority is placed on people’s own goals and how best to realize them. They are holistic in that they are non-sectoral, applicable across geographic region and social group. They are also holistic in that they recognize multiple livelihood outcomes (such as becoming self-sufficient in food production, limiting labor migration, or recovering from a tsunami) as well as multiple, diversified livelihood strategies (such as market and subsistence activities, borrowing, social networking, changing consumption practices, technical innovation, and so on). This sort of development approach, endeavoring to enhance people’s multi-dimensional livelihoods, can have a direct and immediate impact on wellbeing. This is even more needed now that the development industry is turning its attention to good governance, climate change, and other macro issues, which, though certainly important, are not amenable to household- and community-level projects that can respond quickly when survival is at stake. These two models diverge, however, in terms of their core characteristics, and hence, their strengths. SLA is fundamentally an analytical framework. As such, it is a useful tool for understanding the nature and dynamics of sustainable livelihoods, especially how they are affected by their larger contexts. In particular, SLA delves deeply into the vulnerability context: the trends, shocks, and seasonality over which people have limited or no control. Shocks, such as natural disasters, civil conflict, crop failure, and other health or economic shocks can destroy assets, force people to abandon their homes, and otherwise leave them in dire circumstances. Trends are more predictable changes in population, resources, governance, health, technology, and so on. Trends may not always be negative—they may create favorable conditions and opportunities, but livelihoods must be flexible enough and have sufficient institutional support to be able to adapt to these changes. Finally, seasonal variation in prices, employment opportunities, food availability, and the like can be a tremendous source of hardship for those struggling to achieve livelihood security. SE draws attention to these dynamics with its condition of self-immunity; however, it could go much further in terms of urging analysis of specific contexts. Understanding these vulnerabilities as well as the resources necessary to address them is vital to ensuring wellbeing for individuals and society as a whole, and it is in this area that SLA excels. In contrast, SE is essentially a philosophical framework that finds its strength in the mental and moral conditions necessary to create sustainable livelihoods. All the analysis in the world will make no difference if individuals cannot commit to a change in thinking about what will bring true wellbeing. Dominating the global economy is the belief that a high material living standard indicates a high quality of life, and material possessions have quickly become global symbols of success. This trend is most evident in Bangkok, but it is also apparent in rural areas where TVs, cell phones, and other modern trappings are privileged over building materials, fish
The Meaning of Sufficiency Economy International Conference 181 ponds, or other investments in the homestead that would increase self-sufficiency. In order to resist mainstream materialist values, individuals must cultivate internal fortitude to imagine and construct an alternative way of life. Divergent conceptions of development that challenge the hegemony of global capitalism may emerge from religious or cultural beliefs and ethics or the realities of alternative economies. Thai social critic Sulak Sivaraksa advocates “true development” from a Buddhist perspective: Development must aim at the reduction of craving, the avoidance of violence, and the development of spirit rather than of material things. . . . The goal of increasing the quality of life is understood differently. From the materialist standpoint, when there are more desires, there can be further development. From the Buddhist standpoint, when there are fewer desires, there can be further development. (1990:171) While not necessarily explicitly Buddhist, SE facilitates this attitude adjustment with its insistence on moderation and reasonableness, which can be interpreted from a Buddhist perspective. Moderation is the quintessential Buddhist notion of the Middle Way, the path of neither extreme asceticism nor extreme luxury. Two Thai concepts relating to moderate consumption were articulated during my research on the Santi Asoke Buddist Reform Movement (Essen 2005). The first is mak noi, “to be content with little,” though various Asoke members cautioned: “Use enough; don’t use little to the level that one is lacking—not a shortage” (Ah Oi personal communication) because “the Buddha taught to support life by a proper amount, not to be too needy and not too luxurious, but just right to be able to have happiness” (Ah Jaenjop personal communication). How much is enough must be found by each individual. Equally important is sandood, “to be satisfied with what one has.” This relates to the Buddha’s second Noble Truth that desire—in this case, wanting more than one already possesses—is the cause of suffering. According to one Asoke member, “Being content with what one has is important because if [what you have is] enough, you are richer, suddenly richer” (Ah Wichai personal communication). Without this feeling of satisfaction, a livelihood may be sustainable, but it cannot produce real wellbeing. Of course, moderation is not an exclusively Buddhist notion; it is found in economies all around the world that value frugality—economizing or minimizing the means to a certain end. For example, economic anthropologists Gudeman and Rivera (1990) observed in Columbia that in contrast with profit-driven capitalists, swidden agriculturalists aim to “sustain” rather than “gain.” Gudeman and Rivera theorize that subsistence-based economies strive to achieve a level of production sufficient for the continual reproduction of their system; anything left over (the surplus) is considered progress. The question remains: what should be done with that surplus to generate genuine and lasting wellbeing for individuals, society, and nature?
Page 1: Group 2 Sufficiency Economy and Gr
Page 5 and 6: The Meaning of Sufficiency Economy
Page 11 and 12: As the national network grew, maint
Page 23: Sufficiency Economy and Grassroots
Page 28 and 29: 182 The Meaning of Sufficiency Econ
Page 59: Sufficiency Economy and Grassroots
Page 76 and 77:
230 The Meaning of Sufficiency Econ
Page 79 and 80:
The Meaning of Sufficiency Economy
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
8 The Meaning of Sufficiency Econom
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
show all

SUFFiciENcy EcONOMy ANd GRASSROOtS DEvElOPMENt

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?