Walter G. Moss reviews a conference in Antwerp, Belgium, searching for new economics:

“Professors Luk Bouckaert (Catholic University of Leuven), Hendrik Opdebeeck (University of Antwerp), and Laszlo Zsolnai (Corvinus University of Budapest) have done much, as Schumacher had, to stress the necessity of spiritual values in economics and business. In 2004, they were among the founders of the European SPES [SPirituality in Economics and Society] Forum, which sponsored the 2011 Antwerp Schumacher conference. The Forum’s mission is “to make spirituality accessible as a public good to as many people as possible. It focuses on experience based spirituality that succeeds in making a connection between day-to-day activities and the inner quest for meaning.” But “Spirituality is deliberately defined in broad and pluralistic terms so that the Forum may bring together people from different spiritual backgrounds and traditions. The Forum defines spirituality as people’s multiform search for meaning interconnecting them with all living beings and to God or Ultimate Reality. Within this definition there is room for differing views, for spiritualities with and without God and for an ethics of dialogue.”

Thus, what the Forum encourages is not some narrow, dogmatic approach to spirituality, but the broadest method possible, yet one that recognizes the centrality of values to economics and life itself. One of the European SPES Forum founders, Zsolnai (who in 1990-91 studied at the University of California, Berkeley), has followed the example of Schumacher and written on Buddhist economics.

He has also joined with Bouckaert and Opdebeeck in editing the book Frugality. They start off their book with two quotes from unlikely sources, Adam Smith? and Time. Smith wrote, “Every prodigal appears to be a public enemy, and every frugal man a public benefactor.” And Time (April 9, 2007): “There is an older path to reducing our impact on the planet that will feel familiar to Evangelical Christians and Buddhists alike. Live simply. Meditate. Consume less. Think more. Get to know your neighbors. Borrow when you need to and lend when asked.” The three editors then define “frugality as an ideal and an art de vivre, which implies low material consumption and a simple lifestyle, to open the mind for spiritual goods as inner freedom, social peace and justice or the quest for God or ‘ultimate reality.’ Frugality as a conception of the good life has deep philosophical and religious roots in the East and the West.”

Later on in their first chapter, they conclude: “The present unsustainable lifestyle of mankind requires drastic changes. Western-style consumer capitalism has failed. It has resulted

in global climate change, dramatic ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. Also, it has caused unhappiness and emptiness in rich countries and social disintegration worldwide.”

But, you might ask, would not such frugality if widely practiced subvert our consumer economy and if mishandled create economic chaos. Yes, as Hamlet said–in a different context–“there’s the rub.”

And yet, as the poet, Wordsworth, wrote:

The world is too much with us; late and soon,

Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;

Little we see in Nature that is ours;

We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

During the depths of the Great Depression?, some people spoke of capitalism being outdated, but President Roosevelt and World War II? revived it. Following the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the USSR from 1989 to 1991, other people saw that collapse as marking the triumph of capitalism. Meanwhile, our environmental problems, including climate change, continue to worsen. Our present economic crisis and national malaise, coupled with governments and peoples puzzled about which steps to take, suggest we need bold new thinking, not just tired old nostrums. We need a transition fitting for a new century.

In his talk at the Antwerp Schumacher Conference, Stewart Willis suggested that such a transition from an economy of consumption to one of sustainability will begin to “happen if enough of us start to live differently; to buy differently, and above all, demand that our politicians change the ‘rules of the game’ and the incentive structures.” But to accomplish this in a democracy, enough of us have to want to wean ourselves from the infantile habit of always wanting more—from a consumer culture constantly encouraging the “cultivation and expansion of needs” in Schumacher’s words. In the final words of his Epilogue to Small Is Beautiful he wrote: “Everywhere people ask: ‘What can I actually do?’ The answer is as simple as it is disconcerting: we can, each one of us, work to put our own inner house in order. The guidance we need for this work cannot be found in science or technology, the value of which utterly depends on the ends they serve; but it can still be found in the traditional wisdom of mankind.”

Schumacher is correct that we need to emphasize wisdom more, that we need to rethink how our economy can best enable us to live happy lives in ways that will sustain our planet for future generations. But to reject an economic system and consumer culture that we have all become accustomed to will not be easy, either for ourselves or others. Resistance to meaningful change will be great, and the consumer capitalism of the 1960s and 1970s displayed enough adaptability to co-opt much of the countercultural movement of the times and then continue on its path of ever-increasing production.

The participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement that has now spread to so many cities are sometimes accused of lacking a clear focus. Perhaps that is because they know something is wrong with the present economic system, but offering concrete workable solutions to fixing it is terribly complex—and how many of the protesters really want fundamental changes to our economic system and not just a bigger share of the consumer capitalism pie? The days of believing in simplistic solutions like communism or state socialism are over, or at least should be, as Schumacher correctly perceived already in the 1970s. What label we pin on any newly emerging economic system is not as important as its ingredients. The problem with our present consumer capitalism is not the name. Critics do not desire an anti-consumer capitalism, just one that does not overemphasize consumption. Prior to the Civil War, we had capitalism, but also an emphasis on frugality. Consumer capitalism that emphasizes increasing consumption is not the only possible type of capitalism.

The only way forward is by open-minded trial and error. In democratic countries this can be messy and frustrating. Stewart Wallis told us that “he is pro-markets . . . pro-profits and pro-companies, but they “need to be managed . . . . for the wider good.” Steve Jobs?, who contributed perhaps as much as any single individual to our consumer economy, was married in 1991 by a Zen Buddhist monk and is quoted on the Spirituality in Economics and Society “Words of Wisdom” page. If consumer capitalism is indeed replaced by a new economic structure, many capitalist bricks may still be needed for any new construction. Whether we choose to attempt new building or just apply a little patching here or there is up to us. Wallis stated that “if we fail to get our voices heard and the necessary changes made then the world is heading for disaster of one kind or another. Perhaps those disasters will bring people to their senses, but they could equally do the opposite.”

Schumacher greatly admired Gandhi, and Gandhi’s central concept was Satyagraha, sometimes thought of as non-violent resistance but more literally rendered as “soul force” or “truth force.” The great Indian leader thought that truth could be a powerful force. Perhaps the best we can do in our present period of malaise is to seek the truth and wisely attempt to bring our lives and societies more in keeping with it. For myself, I am grateful to all the colleagues I met in Antwerp and to the resources they have provided to continue the search for a more humane economic system.”