The construction of buildings in Kathmandu is increasing, many of which are big and imposing. Large departmental stores, shopping centres, and malls are some examples. Last Saturday, Anu, my wife, handed me a long list of household goods to buy. I love Saturdays, but only to stay home and read books. I detest going out to shop on holidays. But Anu’s affable smile always overwhelms my will. We stepped into a big departmental store containing a range of items, instead of visiting several shops. We chose a large shop instead of small shops. Why do we emphasize large structure? Why do we see a substantial number of people in malls? Is large beautiful?
The debate on small vs. large is not a new one. It reminds me of a famous book Small is Beautiful, written by renowned economist E. F. Schumacher back in 1973. He argued that machines are invented to provide assistance to humans (man in his language), but they are not an alternative to humans. Machines should leave ample room for human creativity. But what did he mean by stating that ‘Small is Beautiful’?
Let us take an example. Farmer ‘A’ has a large automatic paddy harvesting equipment that runs on electricity. It takes him half a day to collect the yield from a hectare of land. Farmer ‘B’ has a small manual equipment for the same purpose. Farmer ‘B’ needs a day to collect his grains from same piece of land. Farmer ‘A’ appears to be more efficient than farmer ‘B’. But farmer ‘A’ cannot repair his automatic machine if it breaks down, whereas farmer ‘B’ can repair his equipment by himself. It takes a substantial amount of time for farmer ‘A’ to work with his large and sophisticated equipment again. Farmer ‘B’ repairs his equipment and brings it back to work in a significantly lesser time. In this case, which one is more effective? Yes, small is beautiful.
static5.businessinsider.com
In his research paper regarding water resources development and sustainability, Demetris Koutsoyiannis claims that ‘small is beautiful, large is great’. He gave the example of hydropower development in Greece. He asserted that constructing a large hydropower of 437 megawatts is better than installing 250 small hydropower plants with a total capacity of 437 megawatts.
The operation cost incurred in running 250 small hydropower plants is certainly higher than running a single unit with greater capacity. Similarly, operating one big airplane is more cost effective than having five airplanes with the same total capacity. Is large beautiful then?
Maybe the real debate is not about small or large, but between simple and complex. Schumacher writes in his book that bigger organisations are growing; but small units within the organisations are also growing, because managing small units is simpler. So, when Schumacher stated that ‘small is beautiful’, I think he implied not the size, but the simplicity within the smallness.
I ran a quick survey of my colleagues. I jotted down 10 names, and randomly divided them into two groups (say groups P and Q) with five members in each group. I asked group ‘P’ which organisation they would prefer: a large organisation with complex procedures, rules and regulations, or a small organisation with simple procedures, rules and regulation where the working environment is comfortable. 80 percent of the respondents happily selected Option 2.
Likewise, I asked group ‘Q’ the same question, but interchanged the working environments. Option 1 was a large organisation with simple procedures, and Option 2 was a small organisation with complex procedures. The response was quite astonishing. 60 percent of the respondents said they would go with Option 1.
Yes, this is a tiny experiment. But If I could conclude from this survey, I would say that people valued simplicity, not size.
Recently I accomplished a disaster risk reduction project in Bardiya with the intention of reducing the impacts of flood. In a meeting with community, we were discussing what to do when the river swells. Many options emerged. One of them was contacting security forces for rescue operation. For this, the community was asked to keep the telephone numbers of security forces.
Then one gentleman–to whom I owe this exquisite question–asked what would happen if security forces reach late or if telephone does not work. At first, this question sounded complex. Then we decided to train local youth in light search and rescue operations, which was simple and effective. Schumacher writes, “A fool can make things complicated, but it requires a genius to make things simple”.
In their book Superfreakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner underscored how the simple act of washing hands significantly reduced maternal mortality. Between 1841 and 1846, doctors in Allgemeine Krankenhaus in Vienna delivered more than 20,000 babies, out of which 2,000 (10 percent) mothers died from puerperal fever. The reason for the exorbitant death rate was the transmission of cadaverous particles from dead bodies in autopsy room to maternity ward. Doctors went from autopsy room to maternity ward without cleaning their hands. Simply having the doctors make a habit of washing their hands had brought the death rate down to 1 percent.
I conclude with the thoughts of J. Johnson “smile is one of the most beautiful things that people from different cultures have. Enjoy simple things in life, such as pleasant conversation with a loved one, or take time to enjoy a nice, peaceful nature walk, because although something extravagant is nice, it is the simple things in life that are the most beautiful.”
uanumalakar@gmail.com
Related story
No limitation to beauty
