July 2008-0707 Communitarianism and the market : a paradox

2009

Abstract Communitarian philosophers understand morality as emerging in communities through the interaction between agents in practices. At first sight, communitarianism seems to provide a suitable perspective for conceptualizing morality in economics, since the economy might be regarded as a sequence of such practices in communities of business, households, and trading.

Market skeptics have persuasively argued that the market is a social arena that is not simply amoral but that has negative moral consequences. Market apologists have offered two basic responses to this kind of charge: that the market is amoral and that it transforms private vice into public virtue. This chapter, however, directly discusses the moral teachings of the market i.e. the moral sentiments individuals are likely to acquire and develop as they engage in the market. Rather than celebrating selfishness and greed, I argue that the market tends to punish both vices. The market is a moral teacher. Keywords: Adam Smith, market morality, impartial spectator, man in the breast * I would like to thank David Schmidtz, Dan Russell, Dan Klein, the participants of the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom colloquium for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. The authors would also like to thank The University of Arizona Center for the Philosophy of Freedom for generous financial support. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2262324 2 I. Introduction The market is an area where buyers and sellers exchange goods and services. It could refer to a particular geographic location (e.g. the local bizarre). It could also refer to a sphere where buyers and sellers exchange a particular good (e.g. the market for oranges) or set of goods (e.g. the market for foodstuffs) or all the goods that are exchanged in a particular community. Conceived of in this way, markets are ubiquitous. It is difficult to imagine a modern society without a quite extensive market and almost impossible to imagine any society without at least a nascent market. Moreover, the scope of the market appears to be continually and unrelentingly expanding, including an increasing number of people in its nexus and touching more and more aspects our daily lives. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that there has been a great deal of concern about not only the economic features of the market but also its social and moral aspects. What are the institutional prerequisites for well functioning markets? How does engaging in market activity affect our social relationships? And, the question I attempt to answer here, does engaging in the market have moral consequences and if so what are they likely to be? Market skeptics have persuasively argued that the market is a social arena that is not simply amoral but that has negative moral consequences. We cannot, they insist, interact in the market and come away unchanged. Instead, they argue, the market brings out the worse in us and, might, if we'ʹre not careful, even make us morally worse people. Our worst selves, they suggest, are not only given free reign in the market but are rewarded and, so, encouraged in the market. Market apologists have offered two basic responses to this kind of charge: (a) that the market is amoral and (b) that the market transforms private vice into public virtue. The market, most market advocates will insist, is an amoral social arena. Markets, they argue, are neither good nor bad. People bring and live their values out in the market, which can easily and happily accommodate both sinners and saints. To accuse the market of promoting vice or to credit it with promoting virtue are, thus, both seen as out of bounds. Although most market apologists tend to stress the amoral character of the market, many will also point out that the market has the potential to transform private vices into public virtues. The greedy businessman, they explain, acting with regard to his self-­‐‑ interest is compelled (as if by an invisible hand) to satisfy the needs and desires of others since that is the only way in the market that he can improve his condition. His selfish desire to better his own condition pushes him to serve others by offering more and better goods and services. Stated another way, in the market our passions are held in check by our interests. Unfortunately, neither response actually addresses the critics' concerns. Neither response actually discusses whether or not the market promotes virtue or vice. The first response, i.e. the argument that markets are amoral, denies the charge by pointing out that it is possible to remain virtuous while engaging in market activity. It does not address the market critics assertion that there are likely to be much more sinners in the market than saints. Instead, it suggests that if there are more sinners than saints in the market then we must ascribe blame elsewhere. The market is not and, in fact, cannot be at fault. The second response, i.e. the argument that the market transforms private vice into public virtue, does not avoid the market critics' assertion that

2016

Many communitarians deplore the expansion of the market beyond its traditional confines, turning our market economy into a market society. We should go beyond the narrow view of pure economic rationality, as market expansion may cause repugnance and crowd out morality and intrinsic motivation. This paper extends the traditional economic analysis to incorporate such wider effects. This does not provide a general case for or against the market expansion. However, in combination with the first welfare theorem in economics and the principle of treating a dollar as a dollar in specific issues, it provides a framework to estimate the relevant social costs and benefits in a more adequate way, providing a better guide for welfare maximization in public policy. Applying to specific issues, the paper finds that legalizing kidney sale is likely to be welfare improving in most cases, while possible inadequate blood supply in retaining voluntary and nonmonetary donation could be solved by educat...

The Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995

ABSZ'RAfX The kind of problems addressed by a given science and the set of techniques for analyzing them rest upon what philosophy of science defines as a "scientific paradigm," or a "disciplinary matrix." This paper aims to analyze the disciplinary matrix embodied in socioeconomic thought. First, I appraise the disciplinary matrix underlying neoclassical economics as the "orthodox" branch of modem economic analysis. Methodological individualism and utilitarianism are the two cornerstones of contemporary economic thinking. Then, I challenge the core assumption of the prevailing neoclassical paradigm that utility-maximizing individuals are the prime decisionmaking units in society. From this analysis, it appears that the Homo economicus is a radical abstraction from social reality. Building on this criticism, a more encompassing paradigm of economic analysis is developed, introducing "communitarianism" as a new disciplinary matrix of socioeconomic thought.

Soundings, 2016

This article surveys recent trends in scholarship on capitalism within the fields of history, cultural sociology, and religious studies, highlighting the ways that scholars working in each of these disciplines have shifted their methodological and substantive approaches so as to foreground the cultural and moral, rather than technical, aspects of economic life. In light of our current moment of cultural reflection upon the character and future of capitalism, this article suggests that this scholarship contains valuable resources for enriching both public and academic conversations about the relationship between capitalism and the moral life. This article concludes by identifying two promising areas for further, and interdisciplinary, scholarly attention.

Catholic Social Science Review, 2000

Modem economic theory is fundamentally a behavioural interpretation of market events, however, its common evaluation is in moral terms. The tension between these two aspects of economics is explored along with the underlying moral threads that haunt the positive science. The causal foundations of the market are reviewed. Supply and demand are both positively evident in the marketplace, however their theoretical explanations are unsatisfying. By taking the analysis no further than the positive behaviours, this problem disappears. The advantages of this strategy are assessed in terms of popular tendency to assert that economics and morals are totally separate sciences. Against this, it is shown that moral thought remains the central foundation to positive economics The paper concludes that there are two possibilities for economic science. One accepts that there is no moral basis for the market, but studies common practice within it. This is generally what is commonly understood as economics today. The other is an exploration of the moral content of economic action within a free commercial environment. The latter accepts the market as amoral and seeks to explore the moral content of various economic strategies. Despite the practical usefuhiess of the former, only the latter direction can be shown to be fully consistent. Small 283

2006

ABSTRACT. The complaints against the marketization of our society may suggest that nowadays everything is a market. Even though we live in market society, the market is not everywhere nor do we lack alternatives to markets. Four distinct forms of social interaction have been recognized: Communal Sharing, Equality Matching, Authoritarian Ranking, and Market Pricing (Fiske 1991, 2004). Each of them is at play in our daily lives.

European Journal of Social Theory, 2010

At a time when the formerly strictly separated roles of citizen and consumer are arguably blurry, and when once powerful social institutions increasingly must yield to new social forces based on heightened knowledgeability and historically unprecedented wealth, it is likely that the economy of modern society is also subject to implicit changes. In this article, we argue that traditional theories of the market are increasingly losing their basis for analysing economic relationships as purely rational acts of exchange and utility maximization. Instead, what can be witnessed is an increase in the influence of values and norms on markets, guiding our attention to how deeply embedded economic action is in modern culture. We put forward the idea of a moralization of markets, which has begun to change our conceptions and theories regarding what is at stake in a modern economy fundamentally. We conclude that in the future, production processes and standards, codes of conduct and consumer reasoning will become all the more important for doing business in Western knowledge societies.

2019

Highlighting the sources, processes and outcomes of moral struggles in and around markets, this volume advances our current understanding of markets and their contested moralities.

review of austrian economics, 2018

A marginalistic interpretation of Adam Smith is suggested in line wim Jim Otteson's work.