4th Amerang Dispute: Less Prosperity – And Yet Content?
Prosperity in Times of Sinking Economy.
What Level of Material Prosperity do People Need in order to be Happy?
What level of material prosperity do people need in order to be happy? This is a question experts have been debating for a long time. While some hold that material prosperity has to augment continually for people to be happy and content others believe that there are certain threshold values beyond which people attain happiness and contentment via non-material modes of prosperity.
Politics is still focusing nearly exclusively on the first path said Ernst Freiberger in his opening speech for the 4th Amerang Dispute. Faced with the current economic and financial crisis politicians promote growth more than ever without giving consideration to this strategy’s long-term effects.
Yet the citizens already takes a much more refined view of the situation. This is what Professor Dr. Meinhard Miegel, director of the Amerang Dispute and chairman of the foundation “Denkwerk Zukunft”, explained following a survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute at behest of the Ernst Freiberger Foundation. According to this survey, the general state of contentment does depend to some extent on how people judge their personal economic situation. Life satisfaction in general, however, only for very few people equals “prosperity”, “the good life” or even “overall happiness”. Across all layers of society the material aspect clearly stands back. A good life, a happy life depends for most people on good health, financial security, close friends, a working partnership, political freedom. Further sources of happiness are a comfortable flat, sound family relations, a sense of nature, being in charge of one’s own life and enjoying work. A high salary, good looks, power, possessions and political activity, on the other hand, do not play a significant role with respect to happiness.
What is the upshot? What significance does material prosperity hold for people in Germany and other industrialised countries should prosperity in the future stagnate of decrease due to lack of resources, augmenting environmental costs, or an over-aging population? What are the likely effects on happiness, contentment and social peace?
Eckhard Janeba, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Mannheim, who was one of four experts on the panel said that material aspects will continue to play a decisive role for the majority of the population. Rising incomes do not in themselves guarantee happiness since claims and expectations rise accordingly; yet people will continue to strive for more material prosperity because they imagine becoming happier by being able to meet existing demands. The fact that social status still depends to a large extent on income and property sustains this trend. Therefore diminishing prosperity will most probably lead to disappointment, the more so since income loss is much more strongly felt than an increase of income. In other words: Earning less makes people feel more strongly unhappy than mounting incomes can lead to happiness.
Dr. Claus Schäfer, head of the Institute for Economics and Social Sciences (WSI) of the Hans Böckler Foundation explained that disappointment will be strongest among the steadily increasing number of people who already live on a very low income and who will thus experience “de facto a shortage” of material goods. If unemployed who receive ALG II or people living on a very low pension or poorly paid employees are to receive still less, this poses a major social risk and could lead to social unrest. In order to prevent upheavals, possible financial cuts must to be shouldered by those people with relatively high incomes. Other measures to be taken should aim to guarantee jobs and incomes, a good example being the organisation of working time. By cutting working hours, introducing sabbaticals, parental leave, short-time work and other measures the work load could be allocated more even-handedly. What is more, people would have more time to spend with their family, friends and leisure activities and thereby strengthen sources of happiness not depending on material riches. However, the prerequisite for all of these measures is a very different political agenda. It would have to be much more regulatory than before, it might even have to prohibit very long working hours, thus pushing people towards their own happiness.
Jan Delhey, Professor of Sociology at the University of Bremen and a member of the Amerang working group on contentment, thought that the link between contentment and material prosperity to be much weaker than estimated by his predecessors. He holds that there are five reasons why satisfaction with life does not necessarily decline in case of stagnating or diminishing prosperity: (1) A majority of Germans, for instance, are postmaterialists. Prosperity and progress for them spell out as freedom, justice, individualism and tolerance. And these values cannot be swung around that quickly. (2) If material decline sets in rather slowly we will not experience a “re-materialisation” of views and habits. (3) This becomes evident in the fact that in Germany real incomes have been stagnating over the past ten years, yet people have not become less content. They have already cut down on their material claims and therefore they will be less prone to experiencing disappointment in the future. (4) This is the more so since significant material needs like mobility are still met. People mainly have to cut down on their wish list, e.g. a BMW 7 series. (5) If it were possible to create a “better” society, i.e. one in which confidence and participation dominate, then the level of contentment might even rise. For this, everyone has to contribute and politicians and government should promote people’s commitment by means of suitable conditions.
Professor Dr. Erich Witte, Director of the Institute of Social Psychology at the University of Hamburg and like Delhey a member of the working group on contentment, emphasised that people tend to strive towards security and freedom rather than self-centred and hedonistic values. He therefore doesn’t think that sinking prosperity puts contentment and social peace at risk as long as certain minimum criteria are met: The decrease must not bee too abrupt and a certain threshold must not be transgressed; people must consider the allocation of losses to be just (which doesn’t mean that the losses themselves have to be allocated in a just manner); and people must have a certain level of material security and a certain stability in their planning capacities. In addition, it is essential for society to develop a new sense of values. Politicians have to provide guidance, a prerequisite being that economic factors (GDP, salaries, pensions) cease to be the sole criteria. Under conditions of declining wealth these criteria can no longer be upkept. Setbacks, taking place on a regular basis, will elicit frustration within the public, therefore, politics should concentrate on positive, non-economic goals. One such goal might be a happiness and longevity for as many people as possible. Because this goal, just like others, depends on much more than just economic factors, the room for manoeuvre begins to unfold. You can check whether such policies are successful by looking at changing life expectations and levels of contentment.
During the ensuing discussion between the participants on the panel as well as the auditorium it became evident that contentment and social stability in the future will depend on those factors that are the cause of receding prosperity. If the latter follows from the fact that our current economic paradigm based on material growth remains unchanged and if this situation continues to go hand in hand with a further shortage of resources, environmental damages, social degradation, international conflicts etc. then there will be considerable public discontentment. If, however, the losses are the effect of changes in the social and economic framework in an ecologically and economically sustainable way then people will be less affected in their sense of well-being, in fact, this sense might even be enhanced by the changes.
No consensus was found regarding the questions how long such a change would take, how extensive it would be and which measures would be suitable for it. In general, there were two positions:
One group thought that there will be a long transitory phase before the economy and material prosperity de facto begin to decline. Up until that point every possible measure should be taken in order to create further (material) growth. Because growth is the condition for integrating the large number of the financially poor, for keeping pace with international developments, for handling demographic change, stabilising the national budget and the social welfare system. Innovative products for the world market and solidifying domestic demand are key factors. Technological innovation and increased efficiency are to help handle resources and the environment in a responsible and sustainable manner.
Adherents of the opposing view think that time is running out. Technological innovation is important, yet in spite of major efforts it will probably take quite a while until the innovations allow for further increases in prosperity, for providing essential resources and preventing an ecological collapse. What is more, the current focus on growth in Western societies puts too much pressure on the citizens and destroys social networks. That is why quick action is called for. We need social security, a high employment level, level national budgets and a sustainable economy with or without economic growth. Therefore, virtually all social and economic sub-systems need to be reformed: pension schemes, health insurance, the labour market. We need to mobilise all social resources and turn towards non-material aspects of prosperity. The decisive issue is a fundamentally new mode of living focusing on those aspects of life that make people truly happy and content.
