By Anil Netto
The global recession or depression could force us to review our current model of development.

For one thing, we would need to reexamine some of our long-held assumptions: that we need constant economic growth to promote social well-being. All along, we have been led to believe that the higher the growth, the better. The more we produce, the better off we are. Another assumption that we have taken for granted is that selfish individuals in competition with one another to maximize market share (and profits) would somehow, magically, promote the common good. Not so. Rather, it was the unselfish distribution of resources that miraculously produced enough loaves and fish for the multitude.

We have also assumed that the private sector (private corporations), driven by the profit motive, can perform better than other organisations such as cooperatives, worker- run factories, charitable bodies, voluntary bodies or non-profit organisations.

Because of this false assumption, government subsidies and tax incentives are often channelled to large corporations. All the time, other non-profit organisations providing a great and noble service to the public often have to beg for money.

Another false assumption is that the less market regulation, the better. We now know better. It was precisely financial liberalization and deregulation promoted by the neoliberals that led us to this mess in the first place. Even in the rescue packages, we have witnessed the scandalous way in which public bailout money given to AIG is then forwarded to those financial bodies and fund managers who got us into this mess in the first place. Public money is being used to prop up private corporations who may then go out and acquire more banking and other assets very cheaply using the bailout money.

We even think that large corporations can better manage agriculture and farming. In reality, however, they want to control the whole cycle from the seeds to retailing, while independent farmers are turned into little more than contract workers and lose control of their decision-making.

This emphasis and focus on the elites, the corporations and neoliberal policies have led to greater income inequalities in industrialised economies. New research findings have shown there is a distinct correlation between income inequalities and health and social indicators. The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the more the health problems and social ills and the greater the stress, which is felt surprisingly even by the more affluent in unequal societies.

The old economy is decaying and falling apart. So what now? What is the alternative to all this? Some one thousand civil society group representatives meeting in Bangkok in February have outlined their vision of what they would like to see. They want a larger portion of national budgets to go to adult education, youth empowerment, a people's media, and safe, affordable and accessible health care.

They want an end to large-scale development projects, which until now have been the key drivers of the economy. These have often led to environmental degradation, undermined local cultures and livelihoods, and worsened income inequalities and food security.

Unbridled industrial and energy development is only worsening global warming. They are saying we need to get out of such unsustainable development and adopt a rights-based approach to development, empowering local communities and ensuring their meaningful participation in themanagement of natural resources.

Development should be people-centred and based on human rights and people's welfare and the protection of the environment. A more egalitarian market system could be promoted that would guarantee that farmers, fisher folks, and other workers rights' are protected so that they can all secure decent incomes. Increase their access to land, unpolluted rivers and seas and other natural resources. Help farmers to improve their productivity through sustainable methods and via organic farming.

Large corporations should be made to observe international and local standards and laws for the protection of the environment and workers' rights. They should be held accountable if they flout these laws.

The civil society representatives are also saying no to nuclear energy. Instead, they ask that we explore alternative energy sources and, more importantly, energy conservation. They also want governments to promote food security and put an end to speculation on agricultural products.

We also need to promote food security to ensure everyone has access to a balanced diet through genuine agrarian reform and a just distribution of land and other resources. Agribusiness and agrichemical corporations should be controlled to ensure they don't harm and control traditional farmers through land acquisition and expensive agrichemical inputs.

Underlying all this is the need for governments to review their export-oriented economies and create people-oriented, self sufficient domestic economies so that nations will no longer be vulnerable to the vagaries of global economic forces and speculators.

At the heart of all this is a turning away from a short-term view of development as a form of maximization of wealth for a few. Instead, we should be adopting a longer-term view that would focus on amore just distribution of wealth to maximize the social well being of the vast majority of people.

Everything mentioned above would be highly unpopular among the immensely wealthy groups in society that stand to benefit from the unequal distribution of wealth and the preservation of the status quo. Perhaps that would explain why the rich man walked away sadly when Jesus told him to sell everything he owned and follow him.

Jesus could see through him and his wealth and was calling him to take a radically new path in his kingdom. Jesus probably recognised that in a situation of great income inequality, as experienced in the society of his day, the wealthy stood to benefit from the preservation of the status quo - that is, the rich often derived their wealth from the exploitation, directly or indirectly, of the majority of the peasants. Often this was through the the lending out of excess funds as loans, the acquisition of land from peasants when they were unable to settle their debts, and the cultivation of cash crops for export.

Perhaps, what was stopping the rich man from entering the kingdom was not so much his wealth per se, but his failure to recognise the exploitative sources of his wealth and how his wealth was hindering him from recognising the sort of kingdom that Jesus was envisioning. This was a kingdom where no one would be exploited or go hungry or sick; a kingdom based on a more egalitarian distribution of resources. No wonder it was so hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! It was so much easier to just follow some religious “obligations”. No wonder he walked away sadly. It was all too much to give up.