It’s always strange to read or re-read a work of great influence many years after it has passed into legend, because ideas which might have struck contemporary readers as startling and original are now part of everyday consciousness. I have just re-read Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” after a couple of decades. What struck me first, given the book’s status as a seminal work of the green movement, is how little it is about ecology, profound as Schumacher’s concern for the environment is. For those who haven’t read it lately, there are tirades against the misuse of forecasting; a great deal about what nationalised enterprises should have been about (although I don’t think anyone took much notice before they were all privatised again); and some convincing ideas (convincing at least to me who knows little of the subject) about development in the third world needing to be on a human scale aimed at providing low cost, low technology production for local consumption rather than grandiose mega-projects.

But the unifying theme and overriding message is the one in the subtitle of the book: economics as if people mattered. Yes, indefinite growth as an economic goal is unsustainable and self defeating but more important, the book is clear, is the effect on us as people if we enshrine such a goal as the aim of our lives. Production is for people, not the other way around. People may be considered as consumers or workers for some limited purpose but they are first and always people. We need material goods, we need economic activity and work, but we need it for a purpose and economic activity itself is not and cannot be that purpose. What is? The Schumacher of this book clearly found part of the answer in religion but also in a deep respect for people and their potential to answer the question for themselves.

We attended the "Happiness and its causes" conference at the weekend and previewed the book there - sold out of the copies we brought, in fact, but we didn't bring many! Met lots of very kind, lovely people. The conference was organised by a foundation which aims to help people to be wise and kind - how cool is that?

There was great emphasis on the need for happiness skills to be presented in a form which young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can accept and absorb. I remember one contribution from the floor which showed from first hand experience how materialistic and at the same time unrealistic the aspirations of many young people are. But how can that be a surprise when, as was pointed out, children are bombarded from their earliest years with the constant media and advertising message that only materialism/consumption matters? If children are offered no other values they cannot be blamed for adopting the ones the adult world is clearly living by.

It made me wonder whether there is a case for publicly funded adverts (from a levy on advertising?) to counter the torrent of "gimme" messages which form the background to childrens' lives. Would this have any effect? I don't know - the record of anti drug, anti smoking messages is not encouraging. But something is needed.