Commentary:

There is a skeptic living inside most of us that regards new or challenging information suspiciously. That skeptic regards a film like The Economics of Happiness rather strictly as a polemic, and proceeds about its business as usual, just doin’ what a skeptic does. But then, maybe our inner skeptic has bought into the prevailing, singular worldview sold to us by the dominating corporations. Snap out of it inner skeptic! (As Slow Food Utah’s Christi Paulson puts it, you don’t need a bigger closet, just fewer clothes!) Alternatively, maybe our skepticism is just a rational side of us attempting to deal with (rather than ignore) the condition of our planet in a meaningful way, and acting upon the knowledge. (The alternative being dismissing the science because it is more convenient to do so.) Ideally, because we are rational, we understand that we are not being pitched a fabrication because the storyteller, well, simply has nothing to gain by telling the story—other than hope for a better a future.

The story in this case is globalization. It’s a rather far-flung term bandied about topically by everyone from serious economists to blowhard cable news hosts. Like climate change, globalization is wrapped in controversy and challenged by divisive, partisan politics. But much of the politics that benefit global corporate interests are directly tied to powerful lobbyists representing the monied interests of those global businesses. Breaking the chain of interest between elected officials and powerful multi-national corporations (and closing the revolving door of personnel between the two) is, perhaps, the end goal, but achieving that goal begins with changing the way we think, as consumers and government at the local level, about how we consume.

The Film

The Economics of Happiness is a documentary film by Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick, and John Page. While globalization is the overarching theme of the film, the plot is framed with the before globalization/after globalization cultural collapse witnessed by Norberg-Hodge’s during her work in the Himalayan region of Ladakh. In brief, as the title suggests, the film urges a new kind of measurement of
“success”: a Gross National Happiness (as first employed in Bhutan) rather than a Gross National Product. The reason? Polls have shown American who identify themselves as happy with their lives have dropped every year since 1956—concurrent, it is worth noting, with a sharp increase in availability of and possession of goods.

In a very real sense, The Economics of Happiness takes hold of the baton dropped by former Vice President Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and runs it all the way to the finish. Where Mr. Gore’s film makes a case about the reality of global warming and the need to act, The Economics of Happiness punches the viewer in the face with a disconcerting reality that, environmental concerns notwithstanding, the human species has tragically disconnected itself from place, tradition, and wellbeing and allowed itself to be governed by powerful, multi-national corporations wherein possession, rather than community and belonging, is the path to happiness.

Tradition and community exchanged for image and materialism.

To make its argument, the film presents eight inconvenient truths about globalization. It is unlikely that any viewer won’t relate to at least one of them. Those truths, in no particular order save for the order they are presented in the film:

1. Globalization Makes Us Unhappy

2. Globalization Breeds Insecurity

3. Globalization Wastes Natural Resources

4. Globalization Accelerates Climate Change

5. Globalization Destroys Livelihood

6. Globalization Creates Conflict

7. Globalization is Built on Handouts to Big Businesses

8. Globalization is Based on False Accounting

The Solution

Of course the rejection of materialism and consumerism is not a new trend. Rather, the film parades the consequences of global consumerism and greed to advocate constructively using our consumer tendencies and energy to build a better local infrastructure as a response to the single world market model of globalization builds community, increases choice, and reduces waste. To better understand the implications of the benefits of localization espoused by the film, visit www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org as well as the website of the International Society for Ecology and Culture at www.localfutures.org.

For now, consider the film’s definition of “localization”:

1. The removal of fiscal and other supports that currently favor giant transnational corporations and banks.

2. Reducing dependence on export markets in favor of production for local needs.

Tens of billions of dollars in the United States alone annually subsidize big business and multi-national corporations at the expense of small business. There’s a competitive disadvantage for small business built into the American fiscal landscape, which one of the film’s commentators notes is the exact opposite of a free market.

Overall, the film portrays the bleak outlook of the unstoppable cogs of globalization in motion, but not without optimism. In fact, the momentum of the plot carries the viewer with full force into the localization response. The slap in the face of the inconvenient truth of globalization is nothing compared to the impact of that answer. Localization.

The Local Response

In the panel discussion that followed, David Everitt, Chief of Staff of the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office, noted that government, in particular at the state and federal level, can be frustratingly slow to change its course. But, Mr. Everitt eloquently added, it’s municipal government that has the most maneuverability, being the closest to its constituents. Salt Lake City is particularly lucky, he says, to have a mayor who is especially receptive to great new ideas.

City-wide recycling, Mr. Everitt pointed out, didn’t result from a sudden collective epiphany on the part of the city council, but from demand of its constituents.

The city also has a “local preference” policy in place, as another example, for sourcing goods and services for city institutions.

Rounding out the panel was Slow Food Utah’s Christi Paulson, Wasatch Cooperative Market board member Allison Einerson, and Local First’s own.

Ms. Kanshepolsky explained how Local First Utah has been endeavoring for over five years to educate consumers and government alike on the importance of small, independent business to the local economy.

While Utah has been praised for its fiscal conservatism, the state is still caught up in the global economy and all that implies.

Major corporate interests are lured in with incentives, and it is all-too-often at the expense of small business owners and small farmers. This is tricky territory, because government officials are drawn to the prospect of the perceived economic growth and job creation that comes with bringing certain big businesses into the state, whether through tax incentives, or perhaps most disturbingly through our laxer environmental law.

But sometimes, positively, it’s simply Utah’s quality of life that lures businesses to Utah, and keeps our local business community strong. If all businesses and government in Utah operated with our quality of life in mind first and foremost, many of the consequences associated with globalization could be reduced. The definition of quality of life, however, must not be limited, say, to access to ski resorts.

Alas, the state is tasked with striking a balance between creating a positive environment for new- and existing-small business to thrive while also luring in bigger businesses that don’t damage the foundation of our communities or degrade Utah’s environment.

If the film has taught us anything, that inner skeptic should be concerned about policy that strictly favors economic growth and the GNP.

We as consumers can make choices that are local, support community, and favor our own personal health, the health of our families and neighbors, and the health of the planet. If enough of us insist on those choices, our municipal governments will follow our lead.

The new economic model is localization.

Buying Local First is no longer a fringe movement. It is the movement upon which our future—our local future—depends.

One more round of applause for the sponsors who brought the film to Utah: Wasatch Cooperative Market (with added thanks to Brian Emerson) KRCL, Local First Utah, Edible Wasatch, Slow Food Utah, and Wasatch Community Gardens.

Author: Andrew Dash Gillman

Images Credit: The International Society for Ecology and Culture