Subscribe to our blog!

Your email:

Leverage Points Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

A Financial System Based on Natural Cycles

 

By Michelle Holliday

Here in Quebec, we are fortunate to have thousands of lakes. The tradition is to spend summer vacation splashing in the water at a lakelakeside cottage. Tragically, this tradition has been threatened in the past several years. Household use of phosphate-based lawn fertilizers and cleaning products has stimulated massive growth of blue-green algae in the lakes, which has choked out all other forms of aquatic life and turned the water toxic. It's poisonous enough to kill a dog.

It struck me one day how closely this situation mirrors the state of our financial system. We've over-stimulated growth to the point that all other forms of life are being choked out, and our biosphere has become toxic to us.

This isn't simply to say that we need to aim for zero-growth, as many in the sustainability movement propose. Physicist and author Fritjof Capra points out that, “Growth, of course, is characteristic of all life.” But he goes on to offer an important qualification: “[I]n the living world, it has not only a quantitative but also a qualitative meaning. For a human being, for example, to grow means to develop to maturity, not only by getting bigger, but also qualitatively through inner growth. The same is true for all living systems.”

How, then, do we develop an economic model that includes an appropriate level—and type—of growth?

Part of the solution may be found in a model called the Adaptive Cycle. Developed by Buzz Hollinger and elaborated by Frances Westley, the model shows that natural systems exhibit a continuous four-part process (typically depicted as a figure eight) of:

  1. Germination followed by
  2. Growth followed by
  3. Consolidation followed by
  4. Death and renewal, returning to germination, and so on.

In our economies, we have plenty of germination, growth, and consolidation. What our system generally lacks is sufficient death and renewal, with resources returned fully into the germination stage. The solution, then, may not be the total absence of growth—it may instead be a proportionate increase in economic death and renewal.

Getting more comfortable with the concept of death and renewal may not be as bad as it sounds. Some options might include:

  1. Producing only those goods that can be returned into the system fully and relatively quickly as germination (cradle-to-cradle manufacturing); making such “good” products cheap and “bad” products very expensive.
  2. Increasing the proportion of economic value generated by intangibles, which can germinate, grow, and consolidate without taxing the living system. This trend is already underway, both with the expansion of the technological and service sectors of the economy and with the individual shift toward meaning, experience, and connection.
  3. Reducing the pressure on companies to grow rapidly and incessantly (removing their legal obligation to do so, encouraging new forms of governance, such as cooperatives, and revising the general understanding of the purpose of organizations).
  4. Allowing failing companies to die so that the diversity of the economy is preserved—and so that society is not obligated to prop up companies that are “too big to fail.”
  5. Fundamentally reforming the financial industry (the debt and speculative markets, in particular) so that: (a) it no longer overstimulates growth unnaturally and faster than that growth can be processed through to renewal, and (b) it no longer jeopardizes an economy's resilience with excessive debt-to-GDP.  See www.slowmoney.org for one example of how we might make this shift.

With changes of this sort, economic value could continue to grow without limit, but material production would ideally net out to zero growth, in what some economists refer to as “dynamic equilibrium” or a “steady-state economy.”

This vision raises the challenge of determining just how much growth would bring us to an equilibrium state. And it may be that the Earth will give us the answer. As it stands, when consumer spending falls, it triggers the US Federal Reserve Bank to lower interest rates in order to stimulate more spending. Instead, perhaps we'll need a system in which any reduction in the health of the biosphere would trigger a tightening of financial stimulus to growth.

Michelle HollidayMichelle Holliday has 20 years of experience in brand strategy, with particular expertise in authentic marketing. She founded Cambium Consulting after observing that the predominant organizational concepts and ways of working are neither optimal nor sustainable. And she is driven by the desire to help usher in an expanded set of beliefs and practices based on a view of organizations as living systems.

lake photo: Ian Britton

systems thinker free issueStop giving in to inefficiency.

Find out how systems thinking can maximize your organization's potential.

Get your free issue of The Systems Thinker newsletter today!  

Comments

Everything in our financial system is so complex, that I have great trouble seeing where the leverage is. Michelle has written a very interesting and compelling analysis here that is very challenging to the current system. 
 
Perhaps she has found the leverage points, but I would need some additional analysis by other systemic thinkers to know if these solutions might lead to the right outcomes without difficult unintended consequences.  
 
I am looking for enlightenment. 
 
Jon
Posted @ Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:12 PM by Jon Bergstrom
Jon, you raise a great point, and I would welcome further analysis by other systems thinkers. In the meantime, I'll offer a partial answer, again with an invitation to others to comment.  
 
In her 1999 article (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf), Donella Meadows proposes many of the changes I've outlined, framing them specifically in the context of leverage points and consequences. In the article, she lists "changing or transcending the current paradigm" as the most powerful leverage points possible. And paradigm change is at the heart of what I have described above, in which we are not isolated parts existing only to compete and consume within an economic machine, but integral living beings existing to make life-enhancing contributions. If you're interested, this blog post is excerpted from a chapter describing a theory of economies as living systems (available at http://www.solarium.cambiumconsulting.com/book/v-terrain-integral-economy).  
 
Even with reassurances from Donella Meadows, someone else recently pointed out the most obvious unintended consequence of my suggestions: that slowing economic growth results in declining living standards, even (especially) for those already in poverty. This is the premise of the current economic model, in any case. And we certainly witnessed and experienced hardships during the recent financial crisis (which was a prime example of death and renewal, by the way). 
 
Here was my response to that comment – possibly overly simplistic and optimistic, but I'll offer it for further discussion: 
 
* Much of the hardship experienced in the financial crisis was the result of excessive debt taken on during "good" (I would say: artificially inflated) times. Maybe as people come to embrace a living systems model we'll be a little more sober and prudent about how much debt and responsibility we take on during boom cycles. This applies to both households and companies. Similarly, maybe we would save better for down times (the ant model rather than the grasshopper model). 
 
* Maybe a shift toward a living systems view will be accompanied by a shift toward more meaningful work, in service to others as well as to self. And maybe this will finally alleviate the poverty that is waiting for wealth to trickle down to it through continuous economic expansion. What if the problem is not that we don't know how to solve problems of hunger and homelessness -- it's that we lack the collective will?  
 
Looking forward to further discussion! -- Michelle
Posted @ Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:39 AM by Michelle Holliday
Michelle, 
 
Wow! This is important additional information and very helpful. Donella Meadows and others also identified growth as the most difficult issue the world faces in "Limits to Growth" and the "30 year update". Restraining growth was the number one leverage point in these books. The update indicates that no one is really listening to this important reality - as the world has done nothing to slow growth. 
 
Your thoughts are a wake up call to all of us to rethink this issue. Thanks for sharing your important views. 
 
Jon 
 
Jon
Posted @ Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM by Jon Bergstrom
Michelle, 
Great piece.  
 
It seems the human drive for growth and productivity is as innate as the drive to procreate. It underlies all that we do. It is embedded in our institutions, our laws and our Psyche.  
 
I have brought the subject of modifying our reliance on growth before and have been greeting with blank stares because it is such a foreign thought. To me this seems to be the crucial defining problem of our present times whose symptom’s manifest as global climate change, wealth inequities, and failing systems like health care to name but a few.  
 
I like the approach that you lay out as a way to start to redefine our current paradigm of unlimited growth. It's important that we have ways to allow grow as a species (concerning intellectually, productivity and spiritually) without destroying our selves. 
 
Most religions have a concept of an inner god—that we are creators and with this God-like power of creation comes a lot of responsibility, responsibility that we have not stepped up to yet. This is now becoming apparent in our DNA work where we have the creation of plants and animals that have never existed before. And DNA work is just an extremely apparent example, the unintended consequences of our actions like pollution, poverty, and loss of biodiversity are areas where we have not stepped up to the full responsibility of our creations.  
 
I am hopeful that we can. We have made great changes in our drive to procreate; with birth control and family planning we have split apart the ideas of sexual drive and the drive to have kids in most parts of the world. In countries where population growth is still a major problem, education of women is a great systems intervention. Through the progress we have made population growth has dramatically slowed in my lifetime.  
 
In a similar way, with concerted effort, I'm sure we can make great strides in our thoughts of about growth. 
 
Thank you for writing this piece and getting dialog happening in this important area.
Posted @ Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:43 AM by Chris Abbey
Comments have been closed for this article.