Featured White Papers
Content provided in partnership with
Business Services Industry
The practice of Buddhist economics?: another view
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Oct, 1993 by Simon Zadek
Great care must be taken in analyzing these broad observations to avoid a denigrating caricature, or equally a rose-tinted ideal, to supplant a meaningful analysis of the relationship between the practice of Buddhism and social organization. Two particular approaches have constituted the historical pattern of analysis of Sarvodaya. The first, which is broadly the argument of those within the organization, is that it is the pressures from the international donor community to professionalize and become a "delivery mechanism" for aid that has resulted in this top-down form of decision-making. In this sense, the organization form is seen as a Western transplant that has little or nothing to do with Sri Lanka or Buddhism. There is, indeed, considerable evidence to support this analysis as a partial--but not a complete--explanation (Zadek and Szabo, 1993). International donors have been particularly influential since the early eighties, dominating key processes of organizational change up to the current time.
The second viewpoint, held by many of Sarvodaya's opponents, is that its autocratic form of organization has evolved from the very social structures that it aspires to oppose, and the (ego-based) interests that its Buddhist tenets renounce. There is also some support for this argument. It is clear that traditional patterns of paternalism are at work within the organization. This reflects, rather than opposes, some of the least attractive features of traditional society in Sri Lanka. Certainly this is the case regarding the acceptance of the principal of hierarchy and the place of women within that hierarchy.
A third view, and that held by the author, is that whilst the two preceding views are both valid as partial explanations, a further factor is at play that, while more difficult to describe, needs to be appreciated for any thorough analysis of the relationship between Buddhism, economics, and social organization. This other factor might be referred to as a "state of receptivity," and could be seen within Buddhism as concerning the matter of compassion. It is certainly the case, for example, that Dr Ariyaratne takes many important decisions himself, often without any formal or explicitly structured process of consensus seeking. At the same time, there is no doubt as to his concerns for the rights and well-being of villagers, and people at lower levels within Sarvodaya. The question needs to be asked whether it is necessary to consider the importance of a non-structural variable which concerns the extent to which a person or organization has developed a receptivity towards others, a condition that might be seen to be an aspect of compassion.
This third view would be largely unacceptable to most Western social analysts. A compassion not reflected structurally in institutionalized rights and practices would be seen as paternalistic in the extreme, from these perspectives, and so worthy only of rejection and replacement. At the same time, it is precisely whether such formal structures of democracy really mean that there is real social participation that is increasingly being questioned, particularly in the "newly democratized countries" of Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Furthermore--and almost certainly as a part of this questioning process--there is a steady growth in research geared towards interpretations of communication patterns that do not rely solely on formalized, "tangible" structural relationships (Levin, 1989; Varela et al, 1992). However, although such works are both scholarly and radical attempts to describe these non-structural relationships, they continue to be viewed with some skepticism by those that approach the subject without any engagement in the practice being discussed.
