tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/human-economy-38627/articlesHuman economy – The Conversation2017-06-04T12:10:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/785672017-06-04T12:10:56Z2017-06-04T12:10:56ZAs Trump smacks the climate, world must do better to save planet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171812/original/file-20170601-25689-1s4c1c4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Donald Trump’s America drops out of the <a href="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php">Paris Agreement</a>, it’s high time to ask whether conventional approaches to sustainable development are enough to deal with the multiple crises facing the world. </p>
<p>A shift to a “green economy” is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But more is needed to build truly sustainable economies, which not only curb emissions, but also drastically reduce all the negative impacts on nature and society. </p>
<p>In my new book, <a href="http://panmacmillan.co.za/catalogue/wellbeing-economy/">Wellbeing Economy: Success in a World Without Growth</a>, I argue that the climate crisis should be seen as an opportunity to redirect our development trajectory away from increasing consumerism. We need to shift towards a much more intelligent economy rather than continuous exploitation of humans and nature. </p>
<p>Achieving such a “wellbeing economy” would be the best way to demonstrate how backward and self-defeating Trump’s strategy is. </p>
<h2>Beyond consumerist growth</h2>
<p>Since the 1950s development has been closely associated with continuous economic growth. While this has generated unprecedented consumption in the West and some emerging economies, it has also caused serious concerns among the scientific community and society at large. </p>
<p>In what has been termed <a href="http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greatacceleration.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html">“The Great Acceleration”</a>, skyrocketing consumption has caused a massive increase in polluting emissions. But there is more: water use has multiplied and marine fish capture has grown exponentially, along with ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, depletion of natural resources and soil erosion. </p>
<p>Coupled with climate change, all these processes threaten not only further economic development, but our very existence on this planet. Besides all sorts of environmental problems, such consumption has also caused inequalities, stress, waste and a growing number of social tensions. </p>
<p>The concept of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-decoupling-delusion-rethinking-growth-and-sustainability-71996">“decoupling”</a> aims to address some of these problems. It suggests that the connection between growth and environmental degradation can be delinked by introducing clean technologies and renewable energy sources. </p>
<p>The decoupling promise has been the cornerstone of America’s climate change policy in the past few years. So much so that former US president Barack Obama has presented it as the silver bullet. He published an <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284.full">article</a> in the journal Science arguing that the</p>
<blockquote>
<p>decoupling of energy sector emissions and economic growth should put to rest the argument that combating climate change requires accepting lower growth or a lower standard of living. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Obama is right: fighting climate change need not imply a lower standard of living. There are good reasons to believe that a truly “green” economy, which puts people and planet at the core of development can massively improve our lives. It can deliver better jobs, reduce unnecessary expenses, help small businesses thrive and connect producers and consumers with a view to minimising waste. </p>
<p>But to do this, the world needs more than green technology. It needs to reassess what economic growth really means. </p>
<h2>When growth outpaces efficiency</h2>
<p>It is true that many production processes have become more efficient worldwide. Yet this hasn’t resulted in less overall pollution. This is because growth has outpaced efficiency by orders of magnitude. Most things we produce are now less polluting than before, but we produce many more things overall. </p>
<p>A massive conversion to renewable energies may result in “cleaner” growth. But there is a limit to the use of renewable energy sources too. Indeed, there is a finite surface to capture solar radiation, wind and tidal currents as well as geothermal forces. </p>
<p>There is also a limited amount of rare earths and other minerals, which are indispensable to build the PV panels and wind turbines that produce renewable energy. Moreover, the exploitation of such materials causes additional environmental damage. There is therefore an ultimate ceiling on “green” growth.</p>
<p>The other critical factor is that energy consumption is just one sub-section of the economy’s overall material consumption. The world consumes natural resources for many other things too, like buildings, roads, cars, computers and so on. Besides energy, the list of natural inputs to production is very long – from water to land, timber, iron, phosphates and so on. Once again, these are finite. </p>
<p>Without dismissing the importance of greening technologies, it must be recognised that many industrialised countries have been able to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6271.abstract">reduce their material consumption</a> mostly because production processes have been outsourced to companies operating off-shore. In what looks more like a convenient facelift, the West appears to have shifted the responsibility for its pollution to the so-called developing world, mostly in East Asia, where the bulk of global goods are presently produced. </p>
<p>If such material impacts were charged to the countries where the final consumption takes place, many green economies wouldn’t look so green anymore. </p>
<h2>The need for a different development model</h2>
<p>But let’s imagine that it was possible to achieve a perfect separation between growth and all environmental consequences. This would still leave unaddressed a number of negative social effects that the current model of economic growth causes, from inequality to social stress and overworked people. </p>
<p>Unless the world develops social innovations and new governance models to radically alter how the economy operates, it may end up with traffic jams of electric cars, overworked assembly lines of PV panels and global conflicts to control the uranium fuelling the ever-increasing number of carbon-neutral nuclear plants. </p>
<p>Against this backdrop, the real focus of policy debate should be on the following question: Is the current approach to growth, which we are trying to ‘clean up’ through new technologies, really desirable in the first place? </p>
<p>The Sustainable Development Goals indeed demand change not only on climate policy but on a wide range of ecological and social issues, from inequality to social cohesion, from education to health care, from water to land, from fisheries to food. These are all issues that require a holistic approach. They can’t be fixed one at a time, as they are closely entangled and affect each other. </p>
<h2>The good news</h2>
<p>The good news is that, just as society has made technological advancements on clean energy, it has also developed new tools to build economies that increase human and ecosystem wellbeing while lowering material consumption.<br>
As I show in my book, the world is replete with alternative business practices and socio-political innovations, which can help redesign our economies. They include cooperative banks, crowd-funding schemes and social benefit corporations. </p>
<p>The world is also seeing the emergence of community currencies, that is, forms of money that are controlled by the users themselves, either through local associations or through digital systems like the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/cnbc-explains-what-is-blockchain.html">blockchain</a>. And there is the continued rise of distributed renewable energy networks, open-source software and hardware as well as additive technologies (like 3D printing), which are revolutionising manufacturing. </p>
<p>All these processes are redefining the economy from the ground up, strengthening local economic production and supporting local businesses. They are not only creating good jobs, but they are reducing waste and other negative collateral effects by avoiding economies of scale and over production. </p>
<p>A truly green economy is a crucial step forward. But we can do better. Rather than holding on to a model of growth that wants us to maximise consumption at all costs, we need an economy that rewards optimisation. A balanced economy, centred on people and the planet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78567/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorenzo Fioramonti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The climate crisis demands not only green technologies, but a completely different approach to economic development.Lorenzo Fioramonti, Full Professor of Political Economy, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/776392017-05-18T14:09:21Z2017-05-18T14:09:21ZSouth African protesters echo a global cry: democracy isn’t making people’s lives better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169516/original/file-20170516-11966-ti6qia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Kim Ludbrook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/69574d004112cc428595f510d2cccae0/ServiceundefineddeliveryundefinedprotestsundefinedspreadundefinedacrossundefinedJoburg-20170905">Recent violent protests in South Africa</a> have refocused attention on the growing number of demonstrations over government failure to provide basic services, such as water and electricity. The country is known as the <a href="http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/b9ad4d8042b5df199f1a9f3d86b55090/South-Africa:-">“protest capital of the world”</a>. </p>
<p>Research by the Centre for Social Change, University of Johannesburg seems to bear this out. Based on estimates from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304076282_Counting_Police-Recorded_Protests_Based_on_South_African_Police_Service_Data?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=5KxFFchge3DcotG82x6t7YVe&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A304076282&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle">South African Police Service data</a>, we found that between 1997 and 2013 there were an average of 900 community protests a year. In recent years the number has climbed to as high as 2,000 protests a year.</p>
<p>The situation in South Africa is not unique. <a href="http://www.cadtm.org/IMG/pdf/World_Protests_2006-2013-Final-2.pdf">Protests have been increasing</a> globally, particularly since the <a href="https://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-world-economic-crisis.html">2008 global economic crisis</a>. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Southern-Resistance-in-Critical-Perspective-The-Politics-of-Protest-in/Paret-Runciman-Sinwell/p/book/9781472473462">new book</a>, my colleagues from the Centre for Social Change and I attempt to understand South Africa as part of the global protest wave.</p>
<p>On the face of it, protests in South Africa look quite different. They tend to be fragmented and happen mostly in black townships and informal settlements. The occupation of central public spaces in towns and cities, as we are seeing in <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/venezuelan-opposition-renews-protests-maduro-170420173517381.html">Venezuela</a>, happens seldom. </p>
<p>While there are important differences there are also commonalities. Whether protests focus around the “1%” as they did during the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043318">Occupy movement</a> or around the lack of service provision in townships, protesters around the world are critiquing the failure of a representative democracy to provide socio-economic equality.</p>
<h2>Broken promises</h2>
<p>South Africa’s governing ANC came into power in 1994 on the promise of a <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/content/better-life-all">“better life for all”</a>. There have been important gains, such as increasing access to electricity from 51% of the population in 1994 to <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-25-africa-check-does-the-anc-have-a-good-story-to-tell/#.WRwOQJKGOpp">85% in 2012</a>, but inequality remains endemic. Recent data from the World Bank confirms that South Africa remains one of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries">the most unequal countries in the world</a>. </p>
<p>As part of research by the Centre for Social Change we spoke to protesters all over the country. A new book from the centre highlights the extent to which protesters are raising not just concerns about the quality of service delivery but also about the quality of post-apartheid democracy. As Shirley Zwane, from <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/place/khayelitsha-township">Khayelitsha</a>, near Cape Town, explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We don’t have democracy!… We [are] still struggling… you see if we are in democracy there’s no more shacks here… No more bucket system… we supposed to have roads, everything! A better education… There is a democracy?…. No, this is not a democracy! They have, these people in Constantia, Tableview, Parklands, they have a democracy, not for us!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Shirley the quality of post-apartheid democracy is linked to the provision of basic services. She is not alone in this view. </p>
<p><a href="http://afrobarometer.org/publications/wp8-views-democracy-south-africa-and-region-trends-and-comparisons">Research by Afrobarometer</a> has found that compared to other countries in the region South Africans are much more likely to emphasise the realisation of socio-economic outcomes as crucial to democracy. That South Africans should view housing and services as central to post-apartheid democracy is unsurprising given that apartheid systemically denied the majority of people these rights. </p>
<h2>Crisis of affordability</h2>
<p>Community protests are fundamentally about the exclusion from democracy experienced by many black working class citizens since the <a href="http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/unit.php?id=65-24E-6">end of apartheid in 1994</a>.</p>
<p>Although the provision of services to the previously marginalised black majority has increased substantially, black working class households face an increasing crisis of affordability.</p>
<p>In sectors covered by a minimum wage, the real median wage <a href="https://www.academia.edu/31349234/Is_South_Africa_at_a_Turning_Point">increased by 7.5%</a> between 2011 and 2015. But last year inflation on an <a href="http://www.pacsa.org.za/images/food_barometer/2016/2016_PACSA_Food_Price_Barometer_REDUCED.pdf">average working class food basket was 15%</a> and certain staple foods, such as maize meal, increased by as much as 32%. This has put a real squeeze on working class households especially when, due to high levels unemployment, each black South African wage earner <a href="http://www.pacsa.org.za/images/food_barometer/2016/2016_PACSA_Food_Price_Barometer_REDUCED.pdf">supports four people</a>. </p>
<h2>Structural challenges</h2>
<p>The crisis of affordability facing black working class households also compounds the structural crisis within local government.</p>
<p>In South Africa local governments are responsible for delivering services. Over the past 15 years local municipalities have increasingly had to find ways to fund these services through their own tax base. Many have resorted to cost recovery measures, for example by introducing prepaid meters. Their introduction <a href="http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/pimville-residents-protest-against-eskoms-prepaid-meters-20170327">has been behind many protests.</a></p>
<p>The financial difficulties for local and provincial governments looks set to get worse. In the country’s <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2016/speech/speech.pdf">latest budget</a> the National Treasury cut their funding as part of R25 billion budget cuts. In the case of Gauteng, the scene of the most recent protests, this amounted to a R2.9 billion rand cut <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/tight-budget-for-gauteng-1995372">over three years</a>. </p>
<p>To fill the gap, municipalities and provinces are going to have to look increasingly to their own tax base to fund service provision. A difficult prospect when slightly more than half the population survives on <a href="http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-10-11/Report-03-10-11.pdf">R779 or less a person a month</a>.</p>
<h2>A global crisis</h2>
<p>As Professor Michael Burawoy argues in our new book, the nature of the crisis varies from country to country. In South Africa the crisis represents the <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=gCmEDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Michael+Burawoy+forcible+exclusion&source=bl&ots=YPlKuMoX0L&sig=Aagamv6XQL7XWlwXy52qBjgaBmM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD0u_61PbTAhUkDsAKHXPhA7AQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Burawoy%20forcible%20exclusion&f=false">forcible exclusion</a> of many black working class households from democratic institutions, largely because of their inability to afford socio-economic goods. For instance, while access to electricity has increased, access is increasingly mediated by prepaid meters, therefore the ability to access service is inextricably linked to the ability to afford them. </p>
<p>It’s this exclusion that leads many to say that <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=gCmEDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Michael+Burawoy+forcible+exclusion&source=bl&ots=YPlKuMoX0L&sig=Aagamv6XQL7XWlwXy52qBjgaBmM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD0u_61PbTAhUkDsAKHXPhA7AQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=democracy%20only%20for%20the%20rich&f=false">democracy is only for the rich</a>. Globally, people are beginning to search for new solutions to these problems with many being drawn to left-wing movements and political parties, such as <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/cristina-flesher-fominaya/%E2%80%9Cspain-is-different%E2%80%9D-podemos-and-15m">Podemos</a> in Spain. Whether such a comparable movement can emerge in South Africa remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carin Runciman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Protests in South Africa are about more than just service delivery of basic services such as water and electricity. They reflect a wider crisis about the failure to build a more equitable society.Carin Runciman, Senior Reseacher, Centre for Social Change, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/770442017-05-13T10:22:19Z2017-05-13T10:22:19ZThe path towards a ‘human economy’ needs no help from elitist agendas<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168886/original/file-20170511-32588-h28pca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The 2017 World Economic Forum on Africa held recently in Durban saw <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/">Oxfam</a> release a paper titled “<a href="http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/attachments/68772_bp-inclusive-growth-africa-020517-en.pdf">A human economy approach to inclusive growth in Africa</a>”. Essentially the paper calls for accountable governments and responsible corporations. It’s styled to fit into the global fight against inequality.</p>
<p>It begins with an abstract which declares that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>High levels of inequality across Africa have prevented much of the benefits of recent growth from reaching the continent’s poorest people. To combat inequality in Africa, political and business leaders have to shape a profoundly different type of economy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The paper comes across as a follow up to a series of Oxfam reports that deal with inequality. The latest of these reports was released at the World Economic Forum in Davos in February 2017. Noting that inequality levels are getting worse across the globe, that report offered some useful options about how to move away from these inequalities. These include more effective tax systems, more accountable governments, and some sort of benevolent corporations – or what Oxfam calls a “human economy”.</p>
<p>For Oxfam then, hope for an egalitarian society lies in persuading elites to be more generous. </p>
<p>Oxfam’s efforts to find solutions to the world’s gross inequalities are welcome. The organisation does well to sound and sustain the alarm bell on a rather frightening global future if inequality continues at its current trajectory.</p>
<p>However, it must be noted that the human economy approach is not new. Civil society <a href="https://fsm2016.org/en/sinformer/a-propos-du-forum-social-mondial/">has called for</a> a human economy approach for roughly two decades. It’s a call for ordinary people to take control, as opposed to being on the receiving end, of economics. The grassroots tone and texture of this call must be protected from elitist distortion. </p>
<p>Oxfam seems to have usurped a grass rooted concept to serve it to the economic elites for them to deliberate on what to do with it. In doing so it’s reinforcing power asymmetries that already exist.</p>
<h2>It’s about the people</h2>
<p>The idea of a human economy, along with its objectives, method and principles, were laid out in <a href="https://fsm2016.org/en/sinformer/a-propos-du-forum-social-mondial/">the 2001 World Social Forum</a> (a conference of civil society organisations from around the world), in Porto Alegre, Brazil.</p>
<p>The World Social Forum was established as an alternative to the World Economic Forum and sought to imagine alternatives to corporate globalisation. This was initially conceptualised as solidarity economy, people’s economy, democratised economy, and other related notions. </p>
<p>The World Social Forum’s initial (2001) theme was “another world is possible”. In the same spirit, the <a href="https://fsm2016.org/en/">2016 World Social Forum</a> in Montreal, Canada, was themed as “Another world is needed: Together it is possible”. </p>
<p>From the 2001 and subsequent debates on the meaning of an alternative world, <a href="http://www.up.ac.za/human-economy-programme">the human economy programme</a> was established at South Africa’s University of Pretoria in 2011. The programme was designed to create a more focused inquiry on bringing back “human” concerns in economic reasoning. </p>
<p>Human economy, as we <a href="http://thememorybank.co.uk/2013/01/20/object-methods-and-principles-of-human-economy/">conceptualise</a> at the University of Pretoria is not something to be achieved. It’s already with us. People everywhere go about their daily lives to sustain their livelihoods. All that’s needed is first to acknowledge and understand what people are doing, and secondly, to elevate it as policy. </p>
<h2>Not a space for elitist interventions</h2>
<p>What people do daily is undermined by elitist ideologies, often represented by bureaucratic organisations. Economic inequalities are likely to be solved by understanding what people do, and responding favourably through removing the constraints which undermine what they do.</p>
<p>Take, for example, debates around the informal economy. Neo-liberals (who mainly believe that markets are self-regulating, and that nation states distort markets by trying to regulate them) have called for formalisation of the informal economy. This means establishing <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/901671468314722679/pdf/WPS04235.pdf">regulatory</a> requirements to cover informal economic activity. </p>
<p>Neo-Marxists offer an <a href="http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc90/pdf/rep-vi.pdf">alternative position</a>. They argue that rather than formalising the informal economy, nation states should create better conditions (including the delivery of basic services) for the informal economy to thrive. This is based on the thinking that informal economy actors were not necessarily interested in formalising no matter how large their businesses grew.</p>
<p>Activities within the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271176292_South_Africa's_New_Middle_Class_and_its_Entanglement_with_Big_'P'_and_Little_'P'_Poverty">emerging black middle classes</a> in South Africa provide a good example of how a human economy works. The black middle classes are heavily involved in sharing of their wealth at household level (what is disparagingly called <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2015-10-29-how-black-tax-cripples-our-youths-aspirations">“black tax”</a>), and by doing so they are involved in poverty reduction. This seems to be occurring regardless of whether the state intervenes or not. </p>
<p>Most black middle class South Africans spend their incomes on meeting their extended families’ basic needs while at the same time trying to provide decent lifestyles for their children. This redistribution flux flows backwards to the past generation and forwards to the next generation. </p>
<p>Another good illustration of how the informal economy works comes from Kenya. Several slums in Kenya now use <a href="http://grassrootseconomics.org/community-currencies">community currencies</a> which protect them from volatility of the national currency. A community currency is a voucher system established by community members (and small businesses), to facilitate barter based transactions among members. The amount of currency on the voucher is based on the value of goods a registered member has.</p>
<p>In addition to encouraging transactions among members for mutual benefit, community currencies enable community members to use what they have in excess as a medium of exchange, and in this way their survival is not tied to brutal markets, which are controlled by national currencies, controlled by large corporations. </p>
<h2>The people, not the elites, have the solution</h2>
<p>Contrary to Oxfam’s argument human economy is not and should not be played out in the same way that boardroom economists have perceived the poor: as desperate citizens who need to be rescued by the elite for the elite. Boardroom elitism should try to understand what people are doing to improve their human conditions rather than hastily proposing templates that serve the interests of elites. </p>
<p>Institutions such as Oxfam should perhaps realise that following large corporates (whether in Davos or Durban) to persuade them to share their wealth hasn’t worked in the past. It’s unlikely to start working now. Oxfam would do well to discover that these corporates are the problem, not the solution, and don’t have it in them to produce solutions. The bottom 99% are not looking for a representative voice in elitist boardrooms because in this representation they will still remain powerless. </p>
<p>As the international coordinator of the Human Economy Programme Professor Keith Hart <a href="http://wiser.wits.ac.za/system/files/seminar/Hart2013.pdf">points out</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the struggle with the corporations, we need to be very sure that we are human and they are not. The drive for economic democracy will not be won until that confusion has been cleared up.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>_This article has been enriched through discussions with Professor John Sharp, the national coordinator of the Human Economy Programme
_</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Musyoka does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oxfam’s efforts to find solutions to the world’s inequalities are welcome but its wrongful use of “human economy” and repackaging it as a concept from high up might do more harm than good.Jason Musyoka, Post Doctoral Fellow (Development Economist), Human Economy Programme, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.