Editorial

Citation

Rankin, A. (2005), "Editorial", European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2005.05417bab.001

Editorial

Editorial

Aristotle observed that there is a natural limit to the size of states, just as there are limits to the size of plants and animals. By this he meant that states, like biological systems, become sclerotic and unworkable when they grow too quickly and in an unrestrained fashion. In our twenty-first century world, the quest for sustainability is more than a series of fashionable buzzwords. It shows and increasing awareness that, far from being the measure of all things, we are in danger of losing control of our environment, as well as our economic and political systems. In the environmental sphere, part of the problem stems, paradoxically, from our attempts to exert too much control, to the idea that human beings can stand outside of and dominate the rest of nature. Events such as the South-East Asian tsunami remind us of nature’s power, but also unleashes forces of generosity, creativity and a sense of interdependence that could become the positive face of globalisation. In politics, the problem is the idea of progress carried to an inhuman extreme, the assumption that larger institutions are invariably more rational than smaller ones, that local peculiarities can be ironed out, that systems can be standardised. Economics, once the “law of the household” is now a series of procrustean “models” into which men and women, and human communities, are forced to fit.

This issue of New European looks at the questions of size and scale from the angles of economics, political campaigning and education. Frances Hutchinson, a distinguished British economist and author, examines arguments for the introduction of a citizen’s income as a means of encouraging individual creativity and rebuilding local economies. She supports the idea, but realises that in itself it is not enough. It should be part of a larger process of restoring to economics its original meaning. Or, to put it another way, she reasserts that economics was made for human beings, not human beings for economics. The loss of this understanding has contributed to ecological crisis and gross inequalities, because it leads to the pursuit of economic growth as an end in itself, regardless of the economic and social cost.

Globalisation and its discontents are the basis of Paul Kingsnorth’s concerns as well. In a heartfelt, but tightly argued piece he describes the way in which the European Social Forum in London last year was hijacked by extremists of the authoritarian left. The agenda of these activists, it transpired, mirrored that of the impersonal corporate power to which the forum sought an alternative. Paul Kingsnorth’s account is a case study in the co-option that can occur easily in new campaigns which are ideologically unformed and consciously non-hierarchical. However he holds out a powerful ray of hope that campaigners for a sustainable world will be able to rise above discredited ideologies and that decentralisation will turn out, eventually, to be a strength.

Chris Wright applies Aristotle’s principle of living within limits to education. It is the size of modern schools, he believes, that contributes to the factory-like nature of so much of modern education. Too often, the process of schooling involves the stifling of creative talent rather than its fulfilment. This affects both pupils and teachers, for both are caught in an inflexible system. Chris Wright therefore calls for smaller schools, with closer links to their localities and a more holistic approach to learning that is about far more than passing exams. The idea of human scale education is growing in popularity in European countries such as The Netherlands and Denmark, as well as some areas of Central and Eastern Europe, and regions of North America. The questioning of mass education’s priorities is part of a wider questioning of centralised structures, of which the debate over Europe’s future is an important part. Are we to be a centralised Europe that values uniformity of law and custom? Or are we to see our diversity of culture and experience as a source of strength?

Aidan Rankin