Sufficiency is a state of being wherein one has a sense or awareness of completeness.  Integral to this sense of completeness is an awareness of the power of choice.   This awareness is a knowing that you have the power to choose how to react in any circumstance.  This power is really the only power we have in existence and it is at the same time the most powerful tool in the world.

We really have no power over others unless they choose to give it to us.  We only have the power to direct our own lives through our own choices.  Modest as this sounds, this is an extremely powerful tool, since choice drives action and action drives achievement.

In terms of a development approach, we have said in the past that if you want to build sufficiency, you need to invest in people’s talents and abilities.  This is still the case because it gets us to choice.  Investing in people’s talents and abilities helps people realize their ability to help themselves and at the same time makes people aware that they have a multitude of choices to choose from.  So sufficiency economics is ultimately about investing in the capacity of people to choose for themselves what their destiny will be.  What could be a more appropriate goal for development?

What do we mean by self-reliance in practical terms when we talk about sufficiency ?  Does it mean complete self-reliance; in terms of producing all of the things we consume?  Does it mean, economic self-reliance, producing only what we can do so in a competitive fashion?  Or does it mean the capacity to buy or produce whatever we choose?

The answer is that it depends….(spoken like a true economist).

Sufficiency implies a sense of completeness and inasmuch implies a sense that we have all the talents and abilities to meet any challenge or need that comes our way but it does not necessarily mean that we therefore need to literally produce everything we want.  Rather it depends on the desires we have, the talents and abilities we have and the choices we have at hand.

For example, if we desire food, we enjoy and are talented at gardening and we have access to soil and seeds, then growing at least some of our own food makes sense..even if it is cheaper to buy it.  If we do not enjoy gardening, have a brown thumb or have no soil or seeds, we might be better off buying or trading for our food.  And if we don’t have any tradables or money, soil or seeds, we can ask others for food, soil or seeds or move to another location where we have more options to get food.

The same reasoning can be applied on community or regional basis: namely, produce what we enjoy producing, what we have a talent for and according to the resources we have at our disposal and trade for the rest.

This sounds a lot like the theory of comparative advantage but it is a bit more broad than a simple efficiency equation, since there are other variables such as enjoyment, self-expression, and the availability of choices.

“As I perceive the world, so it is”. This is a simple but very profound truth, which underlies where we are at as a society today.

Today most of our heads are filled with fearful thoughts and self-judgments and we see our world as a very judgmental and scary place. This is of course re-inforced by the media, whose news content is filled with stories of misery and misfortune and whose advertisements tell us that we are not complete until we have this product or that service. It is also re-inforced by our politicians, who regularly play upon our fears to mobilize votes. The result is a world of scarcity, fear, violence, over-consumption, poverty and environmental destruction.

If our perception is the cause of our experience, how do we change our perception? The answer is ridiculously and frustratingly simple: Choose to see the world differently. Just as when you are presented with a cup that is filled partially with water, you can choose to see the cup as half full or half empty. Or when you look at yourself, you can choose to see yourself as sufficient or as lacking. Choose to see the world as abundant and it will be.

One might argue that this solution is over-simplistic and that no amount of changing perspectives will end poverty and the environmental destruction we are witnessing today. I would counter that ideas motivate actions and ideas (perceptions) originate with the mind of the individual. Changing your own ideas, will change your actions. If one person does this, it will make a ripple and if many do this, it will make a wave of change.

The term sustainable development has been around now for almost thirty years and the concept of conservation has been around much much longer than that. Inherent in both these concepts is the idea that the health of the planet and our health is dependent on living in harmony with nature. One would think that this idea of harmony would be a foundational principle for our society but it is not. Rather society is governed by the illusion that we are somehow separate from our environment as well from our fellow human beings. We seem to believe that we can do whatever we want with no consequence for the planet, for our neighbours or even for ourselves. Of course the opposite is the case, as we are coming to find out, but we do not seem to be able to change our behaviour in any significant or lasting way, despite this knowledge.

I would argue that the path to a sustainable society starts with a change in perspective of how we see ourselves and our world and I would argue that that perspective relates to our sense of sufficiency or our sense of completeness. At present most of us see ourselves as largely insufficient; meaning we perceive ourselves as incomplete or lacking something and we long for something to complete us. At present, most of us immerse ourselves in material consumption to fill the perceived void but, as we are beginning to realize this is not doing the trick. If anything it is leaving us feeling depressed, frustrated and fearful for our future, all the while wreaking havoc on the planet’s ecosystems.

Our unsustainable society is rooted in our over-consumption but the fix is not simply to tinker with our consumptive habits through taxes, interest rates, laws or technology, since this will just prolong the inevitable consumption crunch and will not address the “need” or the “hunger” to over-consume. If we want to address the “need” to over-consume, we need to deal with our insufficiency perspective, which means building people’s sense of sufficiency.

And what is the best way to build sufficiency? It is not through psychotherapy or social engineering. Nor is it through contemplation or religion. Quite simply the best way to build sufficiency is by encouraging people to fully explore and use their talents and abilities. This may sound simplistic and trite to many but it isn’t. Our drive to over-consume is rooted in our lack of self-expression and fear of the unknown. We consume more than we need, because we don’t feel self-actualized or because we fear we may not have enough for tomorrow. Fully exploring and using our talents and abilities allows us to express ourselves, to feel creative and productive and to develop a sense of capability and worthiness that builds our trust in ourselves and the universe. This self-expression and trust in our own capacity is what we need to feel whole or sufficient.

This feeling or awareness of sufficiency will not only reduce our need to consume but it will induce us to be more creative, productive and generous citizens, which is the basis for a truly sustainable society.

Sufficiency and self-reliance are two sides of the same coin. Practicing self-reliance builds our sense of sufficiency and becoming aware of our sufficiency leads to greater self-reliance.

As we begin taking command of our circumstances and begin making choices to consciously direct our lives, we realize that we are the real masters of our lives, that we are powerful and complete. At the same time, as we become aware of our own sufficiency, we grow in confidence that we have the capacity to resolve our own problems, that we don’t have to give our power away to another person or an organization, that we can choose the lives we wish to lead without need of approval or fear of judgment.

Sufficiency leads to self-reliance and self-reliance leads to sufficiency.

Sufficiency and abundance are often mentioned together and used interchangably. However, these concepts are actually distinct and achieved in different ways.

Sufficiency is a state of being or awareness, relating to the perception of the self. It might be likened to a sense of completeness or wholeness.

Abundance, on the other hand, is a state of mind relating to the perception of universal forces. When universal forces are perceived to be plentiful and moving towards you, they are deemed to be abundant. When they are perceived to be lacking or moving away from you, they are deemed to be scarce.

Abundance tends to be a condition of one’s sense of sufficiency. If I feel sufficient, I tend to see the world as abundant and therefore attact abundance. If I feel insufficient, I tend to see the world as lacking and therefore push abundance away.

As an analogy, you might liken the sufficiency and abundance relationship to that of a magnet and magnetism. The magnet itself is the sense of sufficiency. The magnetism or pull of universal forces eminating from the magnet is abundance.

Hence, if one of my objectives in life is to attract abundance, the way to do this by developing or uncovering my sense of sufficiency. Realizing this state of being will create a perspective of abundance and choosing from this perspective will in turn attract more abundance.

If the sufficiency is the goal of society what does that mean for capitalism?  Are the concepts of a sufficiency economy and capitalism compatible ?  Lets start the discussion by first clarifying what we mean by sufficiency economy and by capitalism.  By a sufficiency economy we mean an economic system whose goal is first foremost the fostering of sufficiency and by sufficiency we mean a sense of completeness.  By capitalism, we generally mean an economic system wherein the means of production are largely privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions and competitive market forces rather than through a planned economy; and profits are distributed to owners of capital invested in a given enterprise. The goal of capitalism is generally thought to be the accumulation of capital (e.g. objects of value – money and things).

First off, the two systems appear to have very different goals.  The goal of capitalism is to accumulate money or stuff  and the goal of a sufficiency economy is to expand sufficiency.  So if the goals of each system are any judge of compatibility, capitalism and a sufficiency economy are not a match.

However, if we take a broader view of capitalism and suggest that “capital” could include human capital, of which perhaps the most important aspect is sufficiency, then we could say that capitalism as defined could be consistent with a sufficiency economy.  Instead of maximizing money and things,  the capitalist system in this case would maximize sufficiency.

But what about the essential tools of the capitalist economy (money, prices, property, private enterprise, and trading).  These tools are extremely effective at managing complex human decisions but are they consistent with a sufficiency economy?  My response would be, yes, as long as the tools themselves do not become the goal.   There is nothing inherent in the tools themselves that makes them inconsistent with sufficiency;  they are simply objects or processes. It is the value that we give to them today that is the problem.  We are attached to money, we are attached to property and we are attached to certain ways of doing things.  Today, money is not simply a measure of wealth, it has become wealth itself and at the same time it has become a symbol of our scarcity mentality (see writing on money).  The same may be said of property or market processes.  Possessing these things or adhering to these processes doesn’t bring about sufficiency but they are useful tools for efficiently exchanging goods and services and for investing in activities that build sufficiency.  If we can manage to use money, property and market mechanisms without becoming attached to them, they become useful tools for survival, self-expression, education, generosity and self-reliance; all of which can contribute to  sufficiency.

To many it may be an anathema to substitute human capital (sufficiency) for financial capital/physical capital and still call it capitalism.  And to others it may be completely counter to human nature to base an economic system on sufficiency rather than greed.  In response, I would argue that greed is highly over-rated and is essentially leading us to ruin, so to base an economic system on it is unwise.  Moreover, a focus on greed as a main motivator for human activity simply ignores the variety of values that drive human society and human nature.  Lastly, it doesn’t matter how you get to a sufficiency economy, whether it is a capitalist, planned, or a mixed economy, it is the goal that is the key.  The good thing about a free market system is that it allows for a higher degree of free choice than a planned economy and free choice is an important foundation for sufficiency.  Sufficiency is about self-reliance and self-expression, which entails the freedom to choose.

So what does a sufficiency economy look like?  Well, it would still use money and people would still buy things for survival and pleasure but the accumulation of money and things would be secondary to the the pursuit of sufficiency, which we have said is best done through the creative application of our talents and abilities (see writings on brilliance).  We would still have to pay for things and balance the books.  We would still compete to sell or buy things, although there would likely be a gradual evolution to a more cooperative approach to production and a shift from competition with others to competition with the self.  HOWEVER the realization of sufficiency would be the ultimate goal of economic activity not the accumulation of money or stuff.  This doesn’t mean that a sufficiency economy wouldn’t have rich people.  There would still be rich people but the riches would be a side effect of using one’s talents and abilities and not of greed and hoarding.  And riches would be secondary to new social markers of success like happiness, generosity or creativity.

Sound a little pollyanna?  What do you think?  Could sufficiency replace consumption or hoarding as social goal?  Could sufficiency replace greed as the main motivator for human activity?  What about the compatibility of free market mechanisms and sufficiency?  Can they co-exist or is there something inherently incompatible between the tools of the market place and the goal of sufficiency?

Hi and welcome to sufficiency economics.  This site is dedicated to the exploration of sufficiency and how it relates to economics.  Although there are various pages to review regarding my thoughts about the concept of sufficiency economics, the site is relatively new and the concept is relatively untested.

The term sufficiency describes a state of being, in which there is an awareness of completeness.  It is an awareness of self as fully whole, conscious that nothing or nobody can add or take away from that self.  It is the foundation for happiness and indeed all states of mind and it is also the foundation for free choice.  As such, it is an important concept that has implications for all that we do but it is rarely talked about by metaphysicians, philosophers, psychologists, environmentalists let alone economists.

The reason I became interested in the concept is that I believe the exploration and development sufficiency may be integral to human happiness, to a new human development paradigm and perhaps even our survival.

If sufficiency is indeed a fundamental type of awareness, the development of which is important to our well-being, it is worth exploring.  And if it is worth exploring, why not look at the economic implications of the concept, since the economy is such an integral part of our daily lives.

If sufficiency was to be the goal of economics, what would economics and the economy look like?  How would we measure our progress?  What would it mean for capitalism?  What would it mean for money?  What approach would we take to economic development?  What approach would we take to trade, banking, the stock market or taxation for that matter.  These and other questions are the goal of this site and I welcome you to share your insights and your questions, so that we can explore the concept of sufficiency economics thoroughly together.

Please feel free to browse the various pages of the site for background reading but also raise your own questions or comments.  My thoughts on sufficiency economics are by no means complete or perhaps even coherent but your thoughts may be, so join in and submit your input and  I will respond as best I can.

I would like to start off the discussion of this first post with my own question:  How would you define sufficiency?