The notion of a public good within an Islamic Framework

In the rather scant literature review I have done, I have not been able to find works that speak specifically about a public good in the sense of the evolution of the concept in western economic literature. Nonetheless, it is clear based on Quranic verses and hadith that certain resources were regarded as public goods, viz: water, land and fire. Fire for contemporary purposes may well be equated with the idea of energy. Although, in Islam private property is accepted as a legitimate form of ownership, the general ethos though is geared towards using property ownership as a way of achieving largely social ends by using an individual's entrepreneurial capacity and ingenuity. (For instance in the three categories of land, mawat land, land which is dead belongs to anybody who is able to bring the land to productivity once again. This is in recognition of their investment and risk they have taken to bring it back to life again). Property rights come with the responsibility of custodianship. It has to be used to achieve the ends of social justice. As the Shia Scholar, Seyyed Mahmood Taleqani writes in his tract Islam and Ownership:

"…from the Quranic text, man is neither the absolute owner not the total possessor of the earth and its resources. He does not have the right to possess as much as he desires or to obtain material wealth in any way he may choose. Indeed, the earth's wealth belongs to God and man his vicegerent and servant. Indeed, because vicegerency belongs to all people, each individual is a guardian of the public trust. And, this ownership should be limited for the public welfare." (1983)

In general, there are many indications that the notion of a public good, and public good practices are central to an Islamic ethos. This principle is also extended to owners of private goods in circumstances where a good, like food, which is essential for the survival of humans, cannot be sold at monopolistic or exploitative prices, but a fair price so that it is made accessible, and the private owner fairly compensated. (Ibn Taymiya, 1983) In the case of need the State has a right to intervene for the sake of public interest and welfare. Another example is when the State-and this was the practice at the time of the Prophet Muhammed and his Caliphs-land (called hima land) can be set aside for the purposes of public utility where the need arises. (Dutton, 1992) The use of the hima system is still prevalent in some Muslim countries today, especially in rural areas where himas are created to support animal grazing on a more communal basis. The potential exist to apply this concept to other areas of use such as the rehabilitation of degraded land, protection of biodiversity, wetlands etc.

In Islam poverty is recognised as breeding both indignities amongst the rich, and amongst the poor the cause of the feeling of the lost dignity. Both breed contempt, and conflict in society and erode the ability to create meaningful social contracts. It is for this reason that Islamic precepts and institutions have a strong social and distributive justice to them. A good example of this is prohibition on riba (interest) in the Quran in an uncompromising way. Riba is seen as the most pernicious form of exploitation and if encouraged leads to the erosion of social welfare by creating a set of dependencies in the economy. For the practices of distributive justice and its institutions to function there is a need for a State that is strong and willing to make interventions where there are clear distortions in the economy that undermines social welfare.

It is for this reason that the system of sharing and giving in Islam -which is the main rationale for its system of taxation and moral admonitions-is aimed not only at institutionalising the distribution of wealth, but also restoring dignity amongst the poor, and inculcating generosity and empathy amongst the rich. The essence of the Islamic social welfare system is pivoted around the need to protect human dignity. Human dignity itself creates the sense of belonging, community and well-being the effects of which are translated into positive actions in other realms of human activity. Through the mechanism of taxation and moral admonitions Islamic traditions are aimed at holding the integrity of community (ummah) intact. It sees the protection of the whole as a sacred obligation that is not to be compromised under any circumstances.

An Islamic economic system can only be understood in terms of the social objectives it sets out for every Muslim individual that chooses to live in this society. Ironically, this is not only limited to Islamic philosophy. In fact, the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, espouses this as his central theme in his ethical thesis: "The theory of moral sentiments" (1759). Smith saw the importance of social justice and the effect private property can have in breeding a rapacious form of economic enterprise. While he encourage the idea of free trade, he also saw the importance of moral empathy, and the need for social justice. As Adam Smith writes:

"This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages".

The ethical system that governs socio-economic policies in Islam is hinged around four main tenets. They are:

1. Unity (Tawhid) in which individual actions must conform to an integrated whole.

2. Equilibrium (Al'adl wal ihsan) in which individuals have the freedom to act, but must do so with bearing the general well-being of the present and future generations.

3. Free will (Ikhtiyar) individual freedom is guided by a broader framework of duty to community or society.

4. Responsibility (Fardh) individuals and society have the responsibility to use and dispose of possessions and wealth in a responsible way. It is not to be wasted but conserved. (Sirageldin, 2000)

Wealth creation for instance is not abhorred in Islam, and encouraged, but regulated in terms of its future distribution and system of taxation through various precepts we find through the institution of practises such as zakat, sadaqa, and the inheritance system. While sadaqa (the giving of alms) is seen as voluntary, its universal practice has acquired the status of 'urf' (custom) in Muslim societies all over the world. The system of taxation was also extended to agricultural goods, certain kinds of commerce such as mining, and taxation of goods of foreigners. The Baitul-mal (treasury), as a State institution would then redistribute the collection of zakat to two categories of poor, the fuqara (poor from Muslim communities) and masakin (poor from non-Muslim societies). Funds from treasury were used to build roads, maintain security, and support allies of the Islamic State.

In other cases mosques, universities, schools, libraries and scholarship was promoted to ensure general societal benefits because it was identified as an essential public good. It is also interesting to note that in the works of the classical Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taymiya, he also sees the necessity of the state to establish collective industries where certain essential goods have to be imported at great expense or where there is a shortage of such goods in the market. (Ibn Taymiya, 1983) These goods could be clothing or food. From Ibn Taymiya's tract we also learn that with the creation of the Hisba, while the right of ownership was honoured, the Hisba ensured that it was not allowed to be abused. For instance the establishment of a flour mill or tanning factory in a residential area that led to pollution was disallowed. Places of public amenity could not become the exclusive privilege of an individual or a group. The benefits of these amenities were for both rich and poor alike.

As the Islamic empire expanded during the period of the Umayyads and Abbasids, the sponsorhip of centers of knowledge and accumulation of knowledge around the world was not only of benefit to Muslim states and as historical research shows, such investments have been critical to the revival of lost traditions of science, mathematics and philosophy from amongst the Greeks, Indians, Persians and other ancient civilizations. In fact, this investment in knowledge as a public good by Muslim rulers has been of great benefit to modern civilization and the advancement of key sciences in the West. This investment in knowledge which was not confined to any discipline and crossed the bounds of culture and religion was an indispensable investment that is often underplayed by western scholars.

The central role of the State was also extended onto issues of insurance. Unlike, our society where insurance cover has been left to the private sector, in Islam this was seen as a State responsibility. There is also evidence that during the period of the Caliphs, regional security, and forming of friendly relations, was seen as an important way of ensuring security for Muslim societies. State taxes were also expended to support good neighbourliness and cross-border security, even if the benefit did not exclusively accrue to the Muslim state. The Islamic system of economy has also been characterised by the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss, as having the characteristic of being a kind of 'gift economy'. As Mauss demonstrates, in his anthropological study: 'The Gift", that the characteristic of a gift economy, seem to have been an essential feature of most if not all pre-capitalistic societies.

The giving of alms in these societies-which amounts to the sacrifice by the rich of a proportion of their wealth-was a way of creating a system of distributive justice through religious moral persuasion and in some cases like in Islam was also enforced by the State and certain religious rites. Given that the act of giving is seen as a supreme virtue, the idea of a gift becomes an essential ethos of both the Muslim social fabric and economic system. It is intrinsic to a Muslim's way of being. One of the virtues of giving is that the giver also prospers as a result of his/her giving. So what occupies the Muslim mindset is that wealth that is created, is also given away soon after its creation. Wealth creation, while meeting individual needs, therefore also has a pure social objective, and not a private atavistic goal. This virtue is exulted by Allah in Surah Tagabun, verses 14-18. The verses state:

Verse 15: Your riches and your children may be a trial. Whereas God, with Him is the highest reward.
Verse 16: So fear God as much as ye can. Listen and obey; and spend in charity for the benefit of your own souls. And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls-they are the ones that achieve prosperity.
Verse 17: If ye loan God a beautiful loan, He will double it to your credit, and He will grant your forgiveness.

The act of giving-that which is incumbent as a result of duty and voluntary volition-and where one gives more than what is obligatory-will result in a barakah. A reward in the hereafter, for all believers who commit in the way of God. Perhaps Mauss, in his study of pre-capitalistic societies captures the essence of this act of giving traversing many cultures, when he concludes on the moral lessons to be drawn. He writes:

"Therefore let us adopt as the principle of our life what has always been a principle of action and will always be so: to emerge from self, to give, freely and obligatorily. We run no risk of disappointment. A fine Maori proverb runs: 'Give as much as you take, all shall be very well".

Given what I have described above, the maintenance of public goods that are not open to private exploitation is consistent and an intrinsic component of an Islamic ethos. Critical to this is the role of the State in ensuring that how these public goods are created and maintained always promote the ends of social justice. Their main aim therefore would be to create a distributive system that leads to greater opportunity by individuals in that society wanting to maximise their own welfare. It is also clear from an Islamic ethos that any human activity, that erodes a public good which is both natural or human will be viewed as inconsistent with the ends of social justice. It is for this reason that the institution of the Hisba has been an important institution in Islamic societies to monitor and regulate public life as far as it concerns economic activity. One of the crucial roles of the institution of Hisba was to regulate supply of goods, so that no hoarding or monopolistic prices manifested, especially as it concerns essential goods. Therefore the institution of Hisba represents a concerted attempt on the part of Islam to maintain a balance between private interests and the public good.

Looking into the future

The only way in which national public good objectives can be secured and implemented is if the issue of the role of global public goods is addressed internationally. More fundamental, the global system of trade and finance needs to have rules that accommodate public good objectives. The system of trade and finance needs to be more poor friendly, and should work towards promoting greater human welfare across the globe. Presently, this system is chipping away of what is left of both national and global public goods. The consequence of this is that without collective action on critical areas of concern for the global community there will be greater human insecurity and conflict. The spread of benefits arising from global public goods will also go a long way in spreading a global culture of empathy. While globalization which is often promoted as a solution to global poverty by proponents of the free market as maximising welfare, lacks a human face, and so far; has shown no empathy towards the weak. Unregulated globalization has increased global poverty levels rather than diminish it. The reform of trade, and the financial architecture are seen as being critical to ensuring that globalization adorns more humane attributes. However, the commitment to moving in this direction does not seem to be there.

For sustainable development to succeed it has to also have a strong public goods dimension. Institutions such as the United Nations, which is a multilateral institution can play a positive role in creating the climate to establish very clear public goods objectives through their special programmes, such as the examples of the World Food Programme, the Global Fund for AIDS etc. Ever since the UN negotiated the first global environmental treaty on whales in 1946, it has overseen 240 other similar treaties to protect the global commons, and strategic resources and forms of biological life for present and future benefit.

The strengthening of the State is critical to ensure that strong States can secure national interest first, but also act collectively to ensure that at the transnational level collective actions are also supported to the mutual benefit of all participating countries. This tilt towards supporting more public good objectives internationally needs to be secured first if there is to be any seriousness to the claim that nations who form part of the multilateral institutions are serious in tackling global poverty. Securing, a strong State national is a pre-requisite to negotiating international outcomes not only the interests of the State at stake, but also other like minded states who are our allies.

However, the role of multi-lateral institutions is being undermined in the wake and rise of unilateralism led by the USA. It is also being undermined by the fact that over the last ten years the US has financially weakened the UN system. It is the largest debtor to the UN, owing about $1.35 billion in back dues, which precipitated a financial crises in the UN in the 1990s. The US's share of the UN core budget is 22% less than the 37% the EU contributes. Some commentators are of the view that the US's unilateralist stance, and its weakening of the UN, threaten to undermine international law, and further exacerbate the divide between rich and poor nations. (Simmons, 2002) Ironically, the US has been a party to numerous international agreements that have a public good dimension to them, only to have abandoned them later. Examples of these include it spending 6 years at the negotiating table, negotiating the Biological Weapons Convention Protocol, only to force other nations to abandon the idea, when it blocked a monitoring and verification system. It spent 40 years carving a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which it signed in 1996, but was rejected by the US senate in 1999. The list goes on.

A second important indicator that we are up for a steep challenge is the relative decline in overall development assistance to developing countries through global programmes that have a public good objective behind them. At Rio, in 1992, developed countries have set the target of 0.7% ODA as the target to be achieved if sustainable development initiatives are to be financed. Only few countries have met this or surpassed this target. The World Bank President, Jim Wolfensohn, called for development assistance to be doubled, but this was met with deaf ears. ODA is certainly not a panacea, but will go a long way in ensuring existing programmes continue, but also new and innovative programmes are also created. One of the main issues for the WSSD is the need to replenish existing funds with additional or new funds to implement the various programmes of Agenda 21. There is a strong body of opinion amongst experts that if for instance the fund for water and sanitation were to be double, a considerable number of people lacking access to decent water and sanitation facilities can be halved by 2015. One of the key areas for which actions are being suggested as outcomes for the WSSD are the areas of water, health, agriculture, education and biodiversity.

What are Muslims to do?

• As they say, charity first starts at home. Muslims as individuals should understand and be conscious of poverty issues in their own countries. The majority of Muslims in the world still live under conditions of abject poverty, which has not been adequately addressed, given that some of our Muslim countries have vast natural resources which can be put to good use.

• Muslim countries through various regional blocs, and organizations such as the Organization for Islamic Unity, will have to play a more strident diplomatic role that promotes a form of internationalism that is based on consensus and the general well-being of all nations. Because their own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other countries it is also in their interest to promote the creation of global public goods. Some Muslim countries even have the resources to contribute funds towards their creation.

• Finally, for Muslims, that are to be regarded as the Diaspora, there is a special responsibility to promote good courses in their own country. Muslim charitable organizations have an obligation to find innovative ways to deal with the poverty challenges in their own country. Many Muslims occupy influential positions and can influence the direction of their government's policies.