The Mystic Economist. Clive Hamilton. 203pp. Willow Park Press $16.50. Green and Gold. Peter Hancock. 277pp. The Australian National University Press. Price
Review Crispin Hull
Economic rationalism covers a multitude of sins these days. Every economist is being branded with its excesses. There is an extreme form of economic rationalism. It argues that humans act with rational and intelligent self-interest. That they will chose between various products, services and outcomes by paying a price either in money or in foregone income. An extreme economic rationalist, for example, would argue that people will have more leisure or have a national park after consciously deciding to forgo the income that could otherwise be obtained.
Further, they suggest that this free choice should not be interfered with by governments. Free markets provide the best outcome, they say.
Clive Hamilton challenges this view of the world. He says that people are invariably not fully informed when they make their choices. They are duped by advertising, lied to by governments etc. And even if they are well-informed they often make impulsive irrational choices which cannot be explained in rational terms.
That ground has been reasonably well-covered. The new and interesting element in Hamilton’s writing is the mystical element.
He says the dominance of rationalist-utilitarian philosophies since the Industrial Revolution has caused dominance of the individual over community and family, alienation, loss of self-knowledge and loss of spirituality. This has manifested itself in the environment movement.
There is a Catch-22 here. Hamilton’s writing can be dismissed as New Age, sentimental twaddle. However, if you do that you presumably have to do so from a rational base. Hamilton would then respond that the critic has been so inculcated with a rational approach that he or she has been blinded to the spiritual, which is the theme of his approach in the first place.
The book does not lend itself to rational analysis. It does, however, challenge readers to ask questions about the extent to which rationalism dominates governments, institutions and their own lives, and to look at the consequences of that.
Peter Hancock, on the other hand, is a pragmatist rather than rationalist or mystic.
He has interviewed many of the key players in the mining debate. He explains why there is room for a middle course between the mining-environment debate and deplores the present polarisation which does not do Australia any good.
He calls for greater integration of environmental and development planning.
Essentially, he argues that Australia can have it both ways: we can have the wealth that mining generates and we can have excellent environmental outcomes. But that will not be possible while there are stereotyped images of both sides and a negative image of the mining industry.
He stresses the importance of mining to Australians. It makes up 41 per cent of exports and 9.3 per cent of GDP, and has been growing in importance while rural and manufacturing decline.
He argues that unless the stereotypes are put aside and there is greater common striving towards sustainable development, this wealth generation will be put at risk.