THERE ARE ALSO MORAL BENEFITS IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

The paradigm of Benjamin Friedman: development generates fairness

USA and Italy have the tools to move forward, but it is necessary to change the way of talking about and discussing economic policy

When one talks of the “moral consequences” of processes of economic growth, we all think negatively, about aspects such as environmental pollution, inequality between social classes, ethical decline, the emergence of attitudes of rejection and intolerance towards those who are different (immigrants for example) and withdrawal into individualism. This interpretation is the fruit of our culture, also corresponding with phenomena which we can all observe in the society in which we live. However, this interpretation is completely turned on its head by Benjamin Friedman, Professor of Economics at Harvard (his lastest book was published in Italy in 2007 with the title Il valore etico della crescita. Sviluppo economico e progresso civile), proposing another paradigm, which identifies a direct and positive link between economic growth and the moral progress of a society. This takes place not so much in relation to the GDP as to citizens’ perception of their standard of economic wellbeing, at the current time or in the future, as compared to their past, that of their parents or of other societies. “An awareness of living better than in the past”– Friedman asserts – “reduces the craving to live better than others, consequently much of the behaviour which derives from this competitive desire is sublimated into other objectives” Attracted to the new theoretical frontier, the public (mostly made up of young people) coming to Palazzo Geremia to listen to Friedman, thus learnt about a new creed. Indeed, Friedman stated : “Countries tend to go in a morally positive direction when most citizens see an opportunity to improve their quality of life, vice-versa when they do not perceive this opportunity we see entrenchment in ethically anti-democratic and morally reprehensible positions”. In short, it is more likely that citizens will develop greater tolerance towards immigrants, for example, if they feel secure about their own economic position. What is more: “When most citizens benefit from good material standards, the society to which they belong will make greater efforts to create new and more advanced democratic institutions”. It should not be assumed that this paradigm is only valid for societies which consider themselves, or which are considered to be “democratic”. For Friedman the case of China is emblematic: “If China continues to move in the direction in which it is going, it is clear that sooner or later it will move towards some form of liberalisation and democratisation of its institutions and social structures, even if this does not mean that their democracy will be similar to our own”. The illuminist thinking evoked by Friedman has always been characterised by fundamental optimism as regards economic progress, but the Harvard economist looked at the present and admitted that while it is true that it is not important how rich a society is so much as whether it is progressing or not, “most countries are not progressing”. Friedman was speaking about the USA, but also about Italy. “In 1989 the average income of an Italian family, parametrized in euro, was 22,500 euro, in 2004 it was 21,700 euro, whereas in 2006 it exceeded the 1989 level, standing at 22,700 euro, having shown an increase of 200 euro, equivalent to 1 per cent, in seventeen years. “The malaise of the Italian middle classes” –Friedman assured – “is the same as for the American middle classes”. American and Italian societies are therefore two examples of societies which are not progressing What are the possible consequences? “Movement away from a positive model of illuminist society, tolerance, democracy and equal opportunities”. There is clear evidence of this, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, in attitudes towards immigration. “Today immigration has become the aspect of internal politics which creates the greatest conflict, but both American and Italian society have the tools in order to promote economic growth while maintaining morality”. On one condition, which may appear surprising, but which in Friedman’s view is perfectly in line with the emphasis laid on the “perception” of individuals as regards their economic status. The condition is “changing the way of talking about and discussing economic policy. In the last few decades” – the economist concludes – “we have increased our awareness as regards the negative aspects linked to economics, assigning them with moral characteristics, see environmental decline for example. Consequently when speaking about economic growth in the public sphere it is taken for granted that it is intrinsically negative morally. For this reason the debate inevitably ends up by contrasting material advantages and moral disadvantages. It is an incorrect form of discussion, because it cannot be asserted that the advantages of growth are only of a material nature, economic growth also brings clear moral benefits”.