--- Poor in wealth, rich in sun ---
Why are some countries rich and others poor? Everyone who is thinking about global matters is bound to come up with some kind of answer, but most likely no answer will be final. Strolling under the Bulgarian sun, I can not help but thinking about Montesqieu's classical answer - the climate makes some countries rich, and other poor.
The theory is 300 years old, and in a way quite easy to discard. In Montesqieu's texts there is so much of the joy of system-building, that it is easy to imagine that the writer bends reality to fit into the system, where necessary.
It is also easy to see that Montesqieu wrote in a certain historical moment when northern Europe was richer than southern - and eastern Europe, and Europe as a whole was richer than the rest of the world. The fact that the world looks similar today doesn't change the basic fact - it has not always been like this. And the only conclusion we can draw from history is that it will not always be like this. Aren't the chinese taking over now, by the way?
The people in Bulgaria now live considerably poorer than their Swedish counterparts, especially if you compare lower income Bulgarians with lower income Swedes. But in the 13th century they did not, and they probably were not worse of in the 16th century either, depending on who you ask.
When Montesqieu wrote his texts Sweden was enjoying an export boom - this corner of northern Europe was the world's biggest exporter of iron at the time. Bulgaria then suffered hard from the corruption and anarchy in the decaying Ottoman empire. The scars from that hard period has not yet healed completely in the Balkans.
--- Montesqieu is dead. Long live Montesqieu! ---
And still... the idea that the climate decides what countries are rich and poor is outdated. But still there is something appealing about it. Bulgaria has had a lot of bad luck with its governments, but when it is 30 degrees outside and your garden blossoms, you might care more about the good luck to have direct access to tasty tomatoes.
Bulgarian life is filled with what the Danish call "Hygge". Swedes are very jealous of the Danish hygge, so my description is not at all objective. Moreover, there is no Swedish word for the concept, so there is a possibility that we don't know what we are talking about, but anyway.
Hygge is something like a relaxed way of doing nothing with friends. The classical form involves beer but I guess that is not necessary. There are no achievements involved, no demands, and there has to be something improvised about it. You could maybe agree with someone to meet later this week for a "hygge" situation, but you couldn't plan 2 hours of "hygge" every friday for example.
When you walk between the panel houses somewhere in Bulgaria, this is exactly what you see - neighbours sitting outside, cracking jokes, not doing very much at all. I am not implying that they are happier than other people, but they do seem to have a good time.
A harsher climate kills the opportunities to "hygge". It might be less confortable outside, and in a harsher environment good planning might make the difference between survival and death. WSwedish summers, improvising must have been dangerous in pre-industrial times.
The struggle to stay alive also gives an incentive to demand a just government, as bad politics could easily be lethal. And there is not much of a garden to retreat to when times get rough. Could this be the reason that people seem to lose very much of their political sense when their lives become comfortable.
--- So what do we want? ---
It is obvious that people without "hygge" and whose toil in the fielsd give meager results have more to win from industrialization, and maybe we can establish some sort of historical relation between climate and development. But the world has changed a lot since Montesqieu's days, and other forces are probably in play now.
Still, some question about priorities linger. We might need development, but isn't hygge what we really want?
No comments:
Post a Comment