The
Effects of Religion on Economic and Human Development
There exists an old, but timeless,
anti-religion adage, “Two hands working can do more than a thousand
clasped in prayer.” It is a simple message, yet one that is heatedly debated
and scrutinized. Would a society with
more atheists and nonreligious people be better for human, societal and economic
growth? The argument prevails over whether or not religion has a positive effect on economic and human development. Some
scholars believe that religion is essential to a society because it dictates,
outlines, and promotes ethical and moral beliefs and behavior along with social
controls (even systems of justice). Others contend that organized religion can
be the source of a multitude of negative intra and inter societal consequences.
They include: restrictions on capital accumulation and profitmaking, the
economic and social legal stratification and segregation of different ethnic
and racial populations, and an escalation in violent conflict between holy
faith groups. Today, there are only a handful of studies that attempt to gain
insight on the importance of the correlation between religion and economic
growth, and religion and human development. While these studies will be
examined further throughout this work, they leave unanswered the argument of
whether or not religion is beneficial to societal, cultural and human
development. Without having an archive of statistical data providing explicit answers
to the proposed question, I believe it is possible to construct provisional
methods to do so. Using my methods, I argue that the benefits of a non-religious
society, untethered to the restrictive tenants of fundamentalist and organized
religion, outweigh those of a religious culture, and therefore is more likely
to promote the positive evolution of a developing country.
Many scholars, who still believe in the
necessity of organized religion to develop a prosperous society, often quote
the works of economist Adam Smith and philosopher Max Weber, two scholarly voices
of the 18th and 19th centuries. Both of these theorists offered
their best arguments concerning why belief in religion was critical to success
of nation building. In 1776, Adam Smith, wrote in An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations, that one of religion’s most important influences to the
economic development process was its value as a moral enforcement mechanism (Khan
and Bashar). He argued that in societies with a widespread belief in God, “the
values of honesty and integrity are more prevalent, and fewer resources would
be devoted to determining the reliability of an individual’s or firm’s business
ethics.” Smith’s argument that “outstanding
moral principle” is crucial to economic and social success is consistent with
his other significant historical ideologies. Smith’s magnum opus was his economic
philosophy in which he argues for a free market ruled by an “invisible hand”, a
philosophy that is contingent upon good faith, as well as consumers with a
stout belief in morals. Smith asserted that religion is an expression
of the need for justice and benevolence in the material world and “enforces the
natural sense of duty.” In 1904, Max Weber argued that the work ethic inspired
by the Protestant Reformation helped to explain the rise of capitalism in
Western Europe and America while similar growth did not occur in other parts of
the world. In his book The
Sociology of Religion, Weber focused on how the fear of God and Hell
promotes individual and collectively social morality. For example, he visualized
salvation as a key idea that drives action, noting, “Concern is essentially
with the quest for salvation…insofar as it produced certain consequences for practical
behavior in the world.” Both Smith and
Weber argue that individuals will be driven to achieve higher standards due to
a divine power, and because religion strengthens moral aptitude, it demands
hard work and other virtuous qualities.
While some scholars still cite these 18th and 19th
century arguments as essential elements for the promotion of religion in
society, religion being a requirement for “doing good” has become an increasingly
outdated and irrelevant model of explanation. It seems that in the 21st
century, countries with less religious populations are actually more likely to
be successful than do countries with societies driven by the tenants of
organized religion.
Before analyzing the causation of why societies
are better off without a heavy religious influence, it is important to examine
the empirical data of religious countries and their economic strength. In 2008,
the Gallup research group examined the volume of religiosity in the worlds 196
countries (Is religion an important part of your daily life?). Egypt (100%),
Bangladesh (99%), Sri Lanka (99%), Indonesia(98%), Congo (98%), Sierra Leone
(98%), Malawi (98%), Senegal (98%), Djibouti (98%), and Morocco (98%) all
scored within Gallup’s top ten most religious countries. Meanwhile, Estonia (14%),
Sweden (17%), Denmark (18%), Norway (20%), Czech Republic (21%), Azerbaijan
(21%), Hong Kong (22%), Japan (25%), and France (25%) were recognized as the
least religious. Gallup noticed that a population's religiosity level is strongly
related to its average standard of living. “Our world poll for example,” Gallup
explained, “indicates that 8 of the 11 countries in which almost all residents
(at least 98%) say religion is important in their daily lives are poorer
nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. On the opposite end of the spectrum,
the 10 least religious countries studied include several with the
world's highest living standards, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong,
and Japan.” This correlation cannot simply be by chance, or randomness. There is a clear relationship between a
country’s religiosity and development, a relationship that indicates with a
more religious population, there will be a decrease in standard of living. In
1990, Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, developed a new statistic, the Human
Development Index (HDI). Haq explained, “People are the real wealth of a
nation.” He aggregated measurements of
life expectancy, education, and income indices to form a general conclusion of
a country’s human development. According to the official United Nations
Development Program statement, HDI “is used to distinguish whether a country
is developed, developing or undeveloped, and to measure the impact of
economic policies on quality of life”. Most
importantly, HDI offers a more sophisticated examination that extends beyond
the individual “standard of living” factor analyzed by Gallup. Again, when
comparing the HDI’s of the 10 most religious countries (identified by Gallup)
against the 9 least religious, well-defined relationships are elucidated. The 9 countries that are considered “least
religious”, average an HDI rank of 23.2, out of 187 countries examined. Within
this group, Norway, considered the 4th least religious country in
the world by Gallup, is the global HDI leader. The 9 countries (Bangladesh does
not have a score) that are considered “most religious”, average an HDI ranking of
146.8, out of 187 countries examined. This includes, the 187th
ranked country out of 187, Congo.
Breaking down
statistics in individual states within the United States can further support
the correlation between high religiosity and its effect on low social and
economic development. Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Kentucky are the “most
religious” states according to the Gallup poll. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine,
Massachusetts, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Rhode Island, Nevada, and
Connecticut are classified as the “least religious”. While there is no Human
Development Index for individual states, statistics provided by the United
States Census Bureau in 2006 provide valuable indicators such as “Persons of 25
with Bachelors Degree”, “Median Household Income”, and “Infant Mortality Rate”.
When comparing the indicators of the ten most religious states to the ten least
religious states, there are clear discrepancies, once again. Out of 50 American states, for percentage of
“Persons of 25 and older with at least a Bachelors Degree”, the group of 10
most religious states averaged 40th place. For “Median Household
Income” they averaged 42nd, and for “Infant Mortality Rank”, 45th.
The 10 least religious states fared much better. Averaging the totals from this
group revealed that the least religious states ranked 15th in
“Persons of 25 and older with at least a Bachelors Degree”, 14th in
“Median Household Income”, and 15th in “Infant Mortality Rank”.
Certain
research has defined the correlation between religion and its effects on human
and economic development; the more religious a population, the less likely it
will experience significant development, the less religious population, the
more likely it will experience significant development. On the surface, there
are seemingly several arguments to explain this phenomenon. According to Rachel
M. McClearly of Stanford University, “The
more educated a person is the more likely he is to turn to science for
explanations of natural phenomena, with religion intended to explain
supernatural phenomena and psychological phenomena for which there is no
rational explanation.” This suggests that higher levels of education translate
to less religious people. U.S politician Robert G. Ingersol once said, “As
people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers.”
Data supports the claim. Examining the research of individual states we can use
the statistic, “Persons of 25 and older with at least a Bachelors Degree”, to
be a solid indicator for education levels in a population. According to U.S
Census Bureau, the most religious states ranked near the bottom of most
educated states and the least religious states ranked near the top. On the
global scale, a third of the dimensions used to obtain the Human Development
Index are associated with education. To achieve a high HDI score, it is
essential for a high level of education. The value of having advanced education
is seemingly unparalleled. A more highly educated society produces scientists,
physicians, engineers, politicians, and artists all capable of helping improve
daily life.
Another factor
likely contributing to the negative correlation between religion and
development is individual satisfaction with the status quo. German philosopher
Karl Marx famously called religion “the opiate of the masses”. Marx argued that
religion was like opium; it only provided the temporary relief for pain, and in
doing so made suffering bearable, thus worsening the human condition by
“removing the impetus do doing whatever is necessary to overcome it." Marxist philosophy contends that a religious system inhibits human capabilities
and places a limit on what an individual could accomplish. Societies dominated
by religious beliefs seriously interfere with human advancement and growth. And,
if society believes in the religious tenants of actions being “gods will”, it
could assist those in positions of power by offering divine justification for
the status quo or brutal social and humanitarian policy. Seneca, an ancient
roman philosopher similarly argued, “Religion is regarded by the common
people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful”.
Less religiosity
in a country inhibits civil wars being fought between factions of holy groups
and thus prevents what Paul Collier, author of the Bottom Billion, defines as the “conflict trap”. There have been
multiple examples of civil wars being fought citing religious differences. In Northern Ireland, civil unrest lasted
about three decades, largely between the Roman Catholics
nationalist community and the primarily Protestant unionist community resulting
in 3,500 deaths. Current conflicts and wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Ivory
Coast, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Macedonia, Nigeria, Somalia,
Sri Lanka, Sudan. Thailand, Tibet, and Uganda have all been cited to have
religious intolerance as part of the tension. All
these countries, many of them included in Collier’s book “The Bottom Billion”
are subject to the “conflict trap”. Of all the traps that Collier defines, the “conflict
trap” is particularly devastating. Religious and ethnic tension was so
prevalent that in 1999, religious leaders met in Geneva, Switzerland and signed
“The Geneva Spiritual Appeal”. The document asked for political and religious
leaders and organizations to ensure that religious faiths were not used to
justify future violence. When the document was written, the delegates claimed,
“56 current conflicts, civil disturbances, wars, etc. have significant
religious elements.” In addition to Civil wars and internal conflicts, millions
of people have been systematically exterminated in the name of religion through
holocausts, genocides, terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansings.
One of the more
interesting aspects of the argument about religion and its effects on
development is that there seems to be no consensus answer. Many scholars continue
to argue the virtues of religion as essential to development while other
theorists contend that religion not only stunts societal growth but may be the
lead cause of irreparable social harm and damage.
Our
technological sophisticated and interconnected world provides the opportunity
to conduct more complex research capable of identifying multivariable
statistical analyses to calculate the true value of religious influence on
various societies differing in global location, environmental conditions,
government control and policy, socio-economic, racial and ethnic
stratification, health and wellness, and criminal behavior and justice. Additionally,
because the practice of religious belief is, after all a very human experience,
and essential method in the evaluation of its effectiveness is through asking
direct questions of individuals living different societies. One of the more
important questions being, “how has religion affected your life?” Through this
comprehensive examination and statistical analysis, social scientists will
better understand more precisely how religion is contributing to certain
economic and social development. Countries located in Sub-Saharan Africa, experience
religion as the most central part of their societal structure. Among the
questions to be answered would be; god fearing or principle builder, political
control and oppression or the enhancement of social wellbeing and prosperity,
poverty, disease, and starvation, or work and nutrition.
There is a
compelling argument in favor of developing countries pursuing science and
secular education rather than the promotion of religion. Current research seems
to indicate that the most developed, progressive countries are the least
religious. These countries are not religion dominant. Instead, they share the
value of promoting human prosperity through the prioritization of education, economic
development, health and disease control, and social and religious
freedoms. The countries with populations
that seem to rely less on religion and value individual and social equality
together with the pursuit of education score the highest on all statistical
indicators. It is expected that more sophisticated research and statistical
analyses will further enhance the validity and relevance of this argument.
