Global Safety and Economy: The Credit Crisis

In this chapter, Global Safety and Economy: The Credit Crisis, we continue reflecting on research question d: can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support the problem handling process of different complex societal problems (expectation d)? Here the application of the Compram methodology on a complex societal policy problem of global safety in the field of economy is discussed as a hypothetical example. The role of the actors in the discussion of the experts in step one of the Compram methodology is emphasized. The way the financial system is organized worldwide with its dependency on stock exchange markets is rather vulnerable. Two major credit crises in the last 100 years show that the system is vulnerable to changes. The consequences of the financial crises for the people are huge: large amounts of unemployment and poverty. The financial crisis of 1929 could even be indicated as one of the causes of the Second World War (1939–1945). Who is responsible for creating and maintaining this vulnerable financial system? Is it controlled by the states and thus under the rule of law of the states or is it ruled by the huge financial markets, banks, and insurance companies, where people work who only have their own benefit in mind? In this chapter the credit crisis is discussed by focussing on the sub-system economy, time scope 1929–2010, and geographical scope of Western Europe and USA/Canada (See Chap. 4 , Sect. 4.3.9 ). This means we focus on the economy from the point of view of Western Europe and USA/Canada in the period of 1929–2010. As far as human history goes, wealth and power are in the hands of a small selected group. This is the way the world is ruled. The idea of dividing the goods more or less equally among all people is a rather new concept. If one wonders if it is possible to distribute the world’s assets and work more equally among all people, based for instance on the idea of a world based on socialist capitalism including human rights and sustainable development, then many questions have to be answered. Do people want a more equal distribution of assets? Which kind of society can support this? Does this lead to a more equal distribution? Can the small number of people who now have the money and power be persuaded to accept this idea? Can this be done without riots, revolution, wars, and bloodshed? In order to get some answers to these questions, a careful analysis of the problem should be made. What is going on in the world? Who is in power? Who is suffering? Who gets the benefits? What do the people want? What are their desired goals and how can these be reached? Reflecting on the world economy from the point of view of human rights and sustainable development, we can ask ourselves: “Are the goods and assets in the world equally divided?” Answering this negatively the questions becomes: “What can be done to change the world with its unequal division of goods and work into a world which is divided more along the lines of human rights and sustainable development? What kind of political situation will this require? Is this a social democracy based on capitalism?” Dividing the world along the lines of human rights may seem to be an idealistic view; however, human rights and sustainable development are taken seriously by many people. So it is worthwhile to undertake effort to see whether this goal can be reached. In order to do this, many questions have to be answered: “Which people share this idea and who does not? What has to be changed?” (see also Chap. 9 for this discussion). Changing an economy, changing the distribution of goods and assets, is a complex societal problem. To find answers to these questions one needs the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and the Compram methodology (DeTombe 1994). Looking at complex societal issues in this way there is a possibility to arrive at more sustainable interventions. A multidisciplinary approach like the Compram methodology is necessary to find better and more sustainable answers to problems by applying interventions directed to causes and by including the main actors in the negotiation. The methodology is based on the idea that the whole is more than the sum of the individual parts (Wertheimer 1925).