On Growth Two

[p. 186]

26. Joseph Pajestka

Professor Pajestka was born on March 9, 1924, in Milowa, in Poland. He is an economist and a director of the Polish Planning Council. He has been connected with various organs of the United Nations in Uganda and at UN headquarters in New York. In 1960 he was an adviser to the government of Iraq. In 1962 he published Capital Investment, Employment and Economic Development and Studies on Development Patterns of Developing Countries. In 1970 he published, under the auspices of the United Nations, Social Dimensions of Development, with a foreword by the then Swedish Prime Minister, Tage Erlander. Professor Pajestka regularly attends meetings of the Club of Rome with his Polish colleague, Adam Schaff.

You have been actively following proceedings during this Club of Rome meeting in Tokyo. What are your impressions?

I came here with a rather superficial knowledge of the club. I was aware of the study, Limits to Growth, and I knew the kind of work that was being done at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Poland, we have rather critical views toward the general position taken so far by the Club of Rome. Nevertheless, the book by Dennis L. Meadows and his collaborators was published in Warsaw and received wide attention. There were quite a few articles published in the Polish press commenting on the MIT report, as it is called.

Perhaps because I have been associated with problems of developing countries for quite some time, and with questions concerning resources, the environment, and so forth, I decided in an early stage to disagree with the MIT approach. If one argues from the point of view of the developing world, it would be accepted that the dominating ideology or the general ideologies in relation to economic and social progress maintain that these aspirations could be very well fulfilled. However, as the developing world stresses continuously, these are not solely problems of material welfare, but problems of human dignity.

[p. 187]

Being guided by basic respect for one other.

That is right, basic human respect. One can draw the conclusion from Limits to Growth that there would be no chance for the developing nations to fulfill those aspirations or to achieve their aims by way of economic development. According to MIT, the natural limitations of the earth would not allow them to have the progress they need so badly. Our understanding in Poland of the situation, and I myself am fully associated with this position, is that this way of reasoning is totally wrong. In our view, societal relations and the institutional setup are responsible for the present deplorable world situation; it is by no means the natural elements that are causing this tragedy of division into rich and poor nations. It is not nature which is shortchanging us; it is people themselves who behave irrationally.

It is human behavior that will cause a catastrophe.

That is right.

This sounds like Skinner.

Some people might ask why we, Professor Adam Schaff and myself, from Poland, are attending this meeting and actively participate in it. We feel there is one valuable aspect of the work the Club of Rome is doing: they are seriously thinking of the future and are taking the long view. In the meantime, we think that the approach and argumentation of the club can be changed, and will then lead toward promoting greater rationality in human behavior. We feel we might have some influence here, and are pushing these arguments strongly during this conference. You know, I myself brought forward that the argumentation of Limits to Growth, as it stands, will cripple Japan or other highly industrialized nations if high rates of growth are not accompanied by setting firm goals for the growth of social purpose.

Historical experience proves that the drive for equality is one of the most powerful social stimuli. Man cannot become reconciled to growing inequalities in socioeconomic conditions which are the consequence of established structures, whether in respect to social groups, nations, or what have you, and which do not correspond to man's inner feelings of his own value and self-esteem. Consequently, it is clear that pressures for speedier progress, not only in the economic field, but toward a more rational behavior of man, will intensify.

The gap between rich and poor is, after all, primarily the result of historical circumstances.

Indeed, the dichotomy between the conditions of life and work of a man in

[p. 188]

the leading industrialized countries and one in countries lagging behind in development is difficult to measure. The differences are not restricted to well-being - affluence on the one hand and poverty and hunger on the other. They also fundamentally affect the development of man's creative abilities, resulting in further increases in the disparity of living standards. Through education, radio, television, and other mass media, people are brought closer together and their appreciation of what is feasible and desirable is becoming more akin. This has consequences in man's behavior, and thus will be reflected in social and political relations. Individuals, as well as nations, are rediscovering contemporary civilization, merely to find soon afterward that they are its pariahs. At the same time, I should make clear that economic efficiency is an integral part and a dynamic feature of societies. It has nothing to do with the genetic feature of races or nations.

Now you are treading on the special territory of Christopher Jencks of Harvard.

The shared genetic heritage of the human race is the predominant element, and differences between individuals of the same race or nation are incomparably bigger than those between races or nations. Social experience available up to now offers ample proof of this. Statements to the contrary result either from prejudice or they are devoid of any empirical bases. Economic efficiency is a social feature. Practically speaking, a high degree of efficiency can be achieved by any society. This is not to say, however, that is can be done easily and rapidly.

Economic efficiency depends primarily on human qualities such as the capacity for rational action, energy, and innovative ability. Not only is the contribution of each individual of concern, but the way it expresses itself in the social structure, where it acquires a new dimension and different values, is also important. This is the starting point for the multitude of undertakings related to a development strategy. We then reach conclusions which help to understand the range and type of development undertakings and to formulate the objectives of a development policy.

There is a distinction between the economic and social objectives of development policy. Economic objectives are generally meant to include increases in growth rates through a rise in the production potential, for instance, by way of capital investment, the expansion of exports, and so on. Social aims include improved living standards for the masses, education, health care, and the like; increased employment opportunities, and a more equitable distribution of income and of social opportunities. It is often argued that these objectives compete with one another and that they are

[p. 189]

mutually contradictory. Theory and practice are often based on the thesis that the implementation of social aims interferes with the achievement of a high rate of economic development.

Six years ago I attended a similar conference in Tokyo, dealing with futurology. Most experts, then, were projecting a ten percent growth rate until the end of the century. They were even calculating that the yearly income per head of the Japanese population would amount to thirty thousand dollars. But no one at the time was asking the question for what purpose such an increase in annual income was needed or desirable. The Club of Rome and Limits to Growth, on the contrary, are helping people today to ask these vital questions. They seem to realize that an ideology postulating annual increases of income is perhaps natural or correct in advanced nations, but at the same time they are looking for new ways of life, new horizons, new cultural and economic orientations that would be needed in the very rich countries, particularly in Japan.

One of the main reasons that I came to attend this conference was to study what the reactions of the Japanese, now, six years later, would be to these questions. What pertinent conclusions are the Japanese drawing from Limits to Growth? Are they going to curb the growth rate or will they continue to expand without setting any limits? Will they make efforts to control natural resources in much wider regions than Japan proper?

A revival of Japanese imperialism?

Well, not in the old sense, but perhaps economically speaking.

Like exporting pollution or sending fishing fleets to empty Indonesian waters?

What we are stressing during these discussions sponsored by the Club of Rome here in Tokyo is that the technical and practical instruments which have been developed with the help of the club and of MIT, the dynamic systems analysis and its projections as designed by Jay W. Forrester, should be intensively used in studying Third World problems. This indeed is a powerful technique. And perhaps it is not only a powerful instrument of study, it simultaneously has some genuine merits in demonstrating the consequences of the research. It can present analysts with different options. Frankly, my intention was to urge that this powerful scientific technique be reasonably used for the purpose of serving the urgent problems of the developing nations.

Even though we speak specifically of the problems of the Third World, it is my personal conviction that these are really the problems of all humanity.

[p. 190]

We realize more than ever that the existing inequalities and injustices that ravage the Third World are in effect a threat to peace for all the world. Inequality and injustice are the root of the political friction now prevailing everywhere in these areas. To actively tackle these problems is therefore a matter of interest for everyone. It seems to me that the utilization of the new scientific tools that systems analysis is offering us is very promising and therefore it is worthwhile to cooperate with the Club of Rome, which is sponsoring and promoting these techniques in order to help increase its impact and influence. I think that most of the scientists and laymen who are taking part in our discussions here accept this point of view.

Aurelio Peccei and his collaborators seem to be sincere in their efforts to study the problems of future generations.

First of all, if there were no Peccei, there would be someone else. For, as the planet becomes smaller and smaller, man realizes more and more that our problems need to be tackled and solved on a planetary basis. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the Club of Rome is, psychologically speaking, absolutely sincere. I have had many discussions with Aurelio and other members. However, it is also true that the position of an individual, even when he is sincere, is largely determined by his social milieu, by his social position. Through this environment he gathers his ideology. I am not saying this to propose changing the structure of the membership of the Club of Rome. Peccei does allow people of all orientations to enter the inner circle. But perhaps the club should be open to an even wider range of opinions if it is to have an impact on an even wider scale. If not, it could disappear from sight in a very short time. If it seeks a wider platform and becomes more efficient, the club will not die.