Altruistic capital, what it is? Is it a kind of new shares or commodities?. Even for Accounting and Economic Student, The term of Altruistic Capital is something new and I believe this is the case for most of us. in this article I try to explain the concept, the gap within, and possible application in the public sector.

The fundamental Gap - Good vs Bad

The first time I heard about altruistic capital was from LSE public lecture series (click here) and it catches my attention almost instantly.  It can be traced back from Professor Nava Ashraf paper on American Economic Review in 2017, but its origins are much older, rooted from a branch of behavioral economics and inspired by our well-known economist Adam Smith.  Altruistic Capital is based on an assumption that human is not necessarily self-centered and ‘good’ in nature as expressed in His Books "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" that

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

this assumption is contrary to what we learn in the class that humans are self-centered and act rationally according to their interests. so, with this new assumption lead to a new paradigm to perceive the concept of capital namely "altruistic capital". Altruistic capital is actually a character, its value is measured by how the character created a social benefit (helping others, do volunteer action, etc) and how it makes people (including him/herself) happy. This value is accumulated (or build) by action "altruistic action", the more 'good actions' done the more capital (feeling happy, building character, and social benefit ) accumulated. so at this point, we make it clear that the term of altruistic capital is a 'good character' and to increase its value is by investing in forms of 'altruistic' action.

but is it the right assumption? if we think about this concept more deeply, the two assumptions about human nature are not exactly opposite, rather complementary. at first, we think that there are two sides of human nature good vs bad. but it was incorrect, humans act basically for their own interests, humans need to feel like 'a good person' to be accepted by society because humans are a social creature and to fulfill that we do an altruistic action. although it might vary for each person about how much action needed to fulfill this 'psychological need'. my argument actually in line with what Adam Smith statement that: "though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it". it is then we embedded a 'label' for our action as good or bad based on the impact or moral value. So for me, it was improper to believe that this 'altruistic' concept is exclusive, totally new, Adam Smith has taken back his word about human nature and then it will 'correct' all of his economic foundations. altruistic is an extension of economic studies that try to create a framework to comprehend the complexity and some irrationality in human action and nature that is not captured in conventional economic concepts.

The Return on Investment

As I mentioned before, humans act for their own interest (return) and in the case of altruistic action, the return is more likely in the form of 'happiness'. Is it? The fact is 'return' that we will get from high altruistic capital also in form of monetary benefit namely higher income. To think of it the same as investment in human capital (in the form of education), investing in altruistic capital actually build our character that would be fit or beneficial for others and the environment. Nowadays, employees get promotions not only because of their hard skills (investment in human capital) but also their soft skills (character, leadership, etc) which is related to altruistic capital. Being a 'good' person is beneficial in the workplace, for example, creating a comfortable working environment that leads to higher performance and lower employee turnover, it could make you a respectable person thus gives you more chance to get a promotion and or a raise. So, once again the altruistic concept is not exclusive and could bring a non-monetary and monetary benefit (return) for oneself.

The problem is, even if the return is in the form of a monetary unit. It is hard to measure because of the variability and uncertainty that follows. Again, as I said before this concept is trying to comprehend the complexity of human action and nature thus it faces a lot of difficulties to some extent. But I agree that we should concern about altruistic capital for its possible benefit to our life.

A possible application in the Public Sector

Talking about behavior and contribution to society reminds me of taxes. if we think that paying taxes as one form of altruistic action that could bring benefit to society then one question arises “ what is the problem and how to make people realize and value this action” is it because they are bad person who doesn’t want to contribute? I don’t think so. This problem is not because of its lack of benefit (because people get it from public facilities and services) but because of its lack of impact on one personal happiness or self-fulfillment to do so. As we know that public goods bring a ‘problem’ because of its non-excludability and non-rivalry characteristics, everyone will get it whether they do an altruistic action (paying taxes) or not. So, how to make people realize and value paying taxes? The answer is the government must create a scheme that makes a greater impact on oneself despite its well-known concept of indirect benefit. The impact can be in form of the monetary or nonmonetary unit as I explained before, for example, a household that already pays their property taxes will get a sticker as a symbol of pride that shows they are a good citizen. On the other side, the government could make a national campaign about how important taxpayers to society. this could be self-fulfillment and pride for those who pay their taxes.

Memasuki tahun politik berbagai isu mulai dilontarkan ke publik. Satu isu yang masih seksi adalah meningkatnya utang pemerintah yang dikatakan semakin ‘berbahaya’. Tentunya isu ini menjadi komoditas gorengan yang paling mudah digunakan oleh oposisi karena kebanyakan orang ‘anti’ untuk berutang. Saya pun tumbuh di keluarga yang percaya utang akan membawa keburukan dan ‘utang’ adalah momok yang harus dihindari. Mungkin hal ini juga terjadi di banyak keluarga lainnya. tapi sadarkah anda dibalik paranoia utang ini ada hal yang menjadi permasalahan mendasar dan berbahaya bagi ekonomi kita kedepannya.

Salah satu ‘pelajaran’ yang diberikan pada saya sejak kecil adalah bagaimana utang dapat mengakibatkan pengusaha bangkrut dan hidupnya menjadi sengsara, bagaimana bekerja di swasta atau wirausaha adalah hal yang ‘berbahaya’ dan tidak menjamin hidup karena kebanyakan pengusaha berutang, sehingga akhirnya setiap orang dipandang sukses ketika mereka mendapat titel sebagai “PNS” karena memiliki kepastian pendapatan setiap bulannya. Tidakkah anda menyadari bahwa ‘pelajaran’ ini mendidik generasi penerus sebagai pribadi yang risk averse dan tidak berani melakukan inovasi. Kita diajari untuk menjadi pekerja kantoran and that’s it.

Permasalahan mendasar dalam ‘pelajaran’ ini adalah bagaimana bibit-bibit enterprenur mati. Generasi penerus menjadi takut untuk berwirausaha, takut untuk mengambil risiko, dan menjadikan ‘pegawai kantoran’ sebagai tujuan hidup sampai akhirnya mereka merasa nyaman dan tidak akan pernah melakukan terobosan apa-apa. “kita harus bersyukur, sudah bisa hidup terjamin dan aman tidak usahlah inovasi-inovasi, masih banyak yang susah makan”, itulah respon umum yang akan didapatkan dan akan terus didengungkan sebagai pembenaran akan dampak yang tadi sudah saya jelaskan. Syukur adalah alasan yang benar dan kita semua patut bersyukur untuk apa yang telah Tuhan berikan kepada kita. Namun saat ini zaman sudah berubah, kita dipenuhi dengan persaingan dalam kebaikan, seluruh sektor memerlukan inovasi agar mampu memberikan yang terbaik dan sebuah pola pikir yang menutup inovasi tersebut bukanlah jawaban yang tepat.

Kenapa pemerintah berutang? Secara umum adalah karena kita menerapkan kebijakan anggaran defisit yang disebabkan oleh perekonomian yang belum mampu mencapai output optimal sehingga diperlukan dorongan berupa belanja pemerintah yang lebih besar dan kebijakan ekspansif lainnya untuk meningkatkan gairah aktivitas perekonomian terutama di sektor swasta. Namun, gairah tersebut tidak akan pernah bergelora jika setiap orang dididik untuk menjadi seorang yang mencari aman.

Sebagaimana kita ketahui bahwa pendorong PDB kita adalah konsumsi, hal ini tergambar secara sederhana dari fenomena sehari-hari dimana kita berusaha mencari pekerjaan yang ‘aman’ dan kemudian menjalani gaya hidup konsumtif seperti belanja, jajan di mall dll karena sudah merasa ‘aman’. Kalau sudah merasa aman, maukah anda untuk mengambil risiko dan keluar dari rasa aman? Saya yakin kebanyakan orang menjawab “tidak” dan akhirnya secara agregat jika mayoritas orang berpikiran hal yang sama berakibat pada rendahnya produksi dalam negeri atau lemahnya ‘gairah’ ekonomi swasta dan akhirnya kebijakan defisit akan terus berjalan.

Jadi kenapa pemerintah berutang? Jawabannya adalah karena pola pikir kita yang hidup dalam dokterinisasi untuk membenci utang dan mencari jalan hidup aman sehingga akhirnya jika dilakukan secara bersama-sama berakibat pada matinya inovasi dan produktivitas nasional. Pola pikir kita yang risk averse mengakibatkan pemerintah berutang karena perekonomian menjadi belum optimal. JADI JANGAN SALAHKAN SIAPA-SIAPA,SALAHKAN DIRI KITA SENDIRI. Janganlah jadikan isu ini untuk semakin menakuti masyakarat dan mengakibatkan masalah ini terus terulang. Mau sampai kapan politisi-politisi kita mau memakai isu ini dan semakin menjebak bangsa kita dalam permasalahan yang sama?. Dewasalah!!! dan semoga kedepan akan bermunculan entrepreneur-entrepreneur muda yang mampu merubah struktur perekonomian kita.