Title | : | Buddhist Economics |
Author | : | |
Rating | : | |
ISBN | : | - |
Language | : | English |
Format Type | : | essay |
Number of Pages | : | 9 |
Publication | : | First published January 1, 1966 |
http://www.colorado.edu/economics/mor...
The term "Buddhist economics" was coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1955, when he travelled to Burma as an economic consultant for Prime Minister U Nu. The term was used in this essay "Buddhist Economics", which was first published in 1966 in Asia: A Handbook, and republished in his influential collection Small Is Beautiful (1973). The term is currently used by followers of Schumacher and by Theravada Buddhist writers, such as Prayudh Payutto, Padmasiri De Silva, and Phrabhavanaviriyakhun.
Buddhist economists believe that as long as work is considered a disutility for labourers and labourers a necessary evil for employers, the true potential of the labourers and employers cannot be achieved. In such a situation, employees will always prefer income without employment and employers will always prefer output without employees. They feel that if the nature of work is truly appreciated and applied, it will be as important to the brain as food is to the body. Goods should not be considered more important than people and consumption more important than creative activity. They feel that as a result of this, the focus shifts from the worker to the product of the work, the human to the subhuman, which is wrong.
The term "Buddhist economics" was coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1955, when he travelled to Burma as an economic consultant for Prime Minister U Nu. The term was used in this essay "Buddhist Economics", which was first published in 1966 in Asia: A Handbook, and republished in his influential collection Small Is Beautiful (1973). The term is currently used by followers of Schumacher and by Theravada Buddhist writers, such as Prayudh Payutto, Padmasiri De Silva, and Phrabhavanaviriyakhun.
Buddhist economists believe that as long as work is considered a disutility for labourers and labourers a necessary evil for employers, the true potential of the labourers and employers cannot be achieved. In such a situation, employees will always prefer income without employment and employers will always prefer output without employees. They feel that if the nature of work is truly appreciated and applied, it will be as important to the brain as food is to the body. Goods should not be considered more important than people and consumption more important than creative activity. They feel that as a result of this, the focus shifts from the worker to the product of the work, the human to the subhuman, which is wrong.
Buddhist Economics Reviews
-
Other than the "women don't need to work outside the home" part, this is excellent.
Available online:
https://centerforneweconomics.org/pub...
(Just an essay. It's part of the book
Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.)