« My favorite things Nevada | Main | Assorted links »
Vaticanomics
That's the clever title they gave my piece at the WSJ. It is a look at the recent papal encyclical, which is full of claims about economics. There is plenty there to object to, but I didn't think it nearly as "left-wing" as did many other market-oriented commentators. In fact I was surprised how positive or at least neutral it was about markets, once you cut through some of the rhetoric. It was pro-micro-credit, it repeatedly noted that globalization can have a positive side, and it stressed the idea that businesses are, in the right setting, capable of doing a lot of social good.
One excerpt:
We should probably not expect too much to come from the encyclical's call for more state power.
Most of the encyclical, appropriately, expresses a desire for ethical conduct. The importance of ethics for civilization is obvious, but of course good ethics, consistently applied, are hard to come by. People are very good at ethical and psychological compartmentalization, and so it is possible for them to offer the church nominal authority over the ethical realm while continuing their dubious economic behavior.
Another:
Although it was just issued, the encyclical already feels dated. Globalization is one of the main concerns in the document. Yet because of the financial crisis, international trade has been falling apart. The real worry is not how to manage the economic globalization we have but how to stop the world's rapid deglobalization, which is at a pace that matches the collapse of trade in the 1930s. For better or worse, economic rather than ethical factors will determine the outcome here.
The end of my piece covers what the Encyclical should have discussed, namely the importance of the non-Christian nature of China and India and what that means for the future of the world.
The English-language text of the encyclical is here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 10, 2009 at 07:56 AM in Religion | Permalink
Comments
Didn't some guy named Smith write a book on morals? Anyway, right on about China and India. I suspect China will always have a form of capitalism that will reflect its national character, allowing for more central control. I wont live long enough to see, but would love to see how where they compare to the rest of the world in 50 years. Pretty amazing how far they have come in the last 30 years.
Steve
Posted by: steve at Jul 10, 2009 8:56:40 AM
China's Catholic Moment The Pope is very much interested in China, but neither India nor China need to be told of the benefits of capitalism. "Spengler" referred to it as the African Encyclical.
Also, have you ever read comments on the state and economy by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone:
Bertone, by contrast, stresses more universal, “transnational” aspects and never uses the nation-state as a center of focus. Recalling Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus caritas est, Bertone even criticizes the nation-state for crowding out charity with social spending. “The State, presupposing a [strong sense of] solidarity among citizens to realize their rights, makes social spending obligatory. In this way, the State compromises the principle of gratuitousness, denying space to principles other than solidarity.”
The battle lines the Pope and his compatriots are drawing are between the libertarians/European liberals and the free-market religious conservatives. If the left finds hope in this, they are mistaken.
Posted by: 8 at Jul 10, 2009 9:03:45 AM
As far as i can tell, the encyclical largely defers to Paul VI's Populorum progressio and John Paul II's Sollicitudo rei socialis, implying that these encyclicals do endorse economic integration and secular, humanistic development. Quoting from 21:
"21. Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He understood the term to indicate ... rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from ... deprivation ... From the economic point of view, this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international economic process; from the social point of view, it meant their evolution into educated societies marked by solidarity; from the political point of view, it meant the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and peace. After so many years, as we observe with concern the ... crises that afflict the world today, we ask to what extent Paul VI's expectations have been fulfilled[.] The economic development that Paul VI hoped to see was meant to produce real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable. It is true that growth has taken place, and it continues to be a positive factor that has lifted billions of people out of misery [and] given many countries the possibility of becoming effective players in international politics. Yet ... this same economic growth has been ... weighed down by malfunctions ... highlighted ... by the current crisis. This presents us with choices that cannot be postponed ... The technical forces in play, the global interrelations, the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing, large-scale migration of peoples, ... the unregulated exploitation of the earth's resources: ... leads us ... to reflect on ... measures that would be necessary to provide a solution to problems that are [un]addressed by Pope Paul VI, [and] of decisive impact upon the ... good of humanity. The different aspects ... require ... a new humanistic synthesis. ... [W]e must adopt a realistic attitude as we take up ... the new responsibilities to which we are called by ... a world in need of profound cultural renewal[.]" (emphasis added)
It's probably best to refer to these earlier encyclicals when assessing what seems to be "missing" from Caritas in veritate.
Posted by: anon at Jul 10, 2009 9:34:17 AM
Your second excerpt gives the Pope too little credit. The Church (usually) takes the long view. This current recession too will pass, and we'll be back at the globalization game soon enough. So even though the world's concerns *right now* might be dealing with the reversal of fortune, eventually we'll be back with increasing growth, increasing trade, etc., and the Pope's words will be relevant.
Also, a rising tide can cover a lot of ethical lapses; it is precisely during a downturn that unethical behavior, both individual actors' and systemic injustices, come into sharpest relief. We can see now that American society exposes men to greater volatility and insecurity than women; was that obvious in 2007?
Posted by: Anthony at Jul 10, 2009 11:09:57 AM
Great Article. Glad it wasn't titled "wait-economics" .
Could you elaborate further how you arrived at this ?
"China and India, despite each having some number of Christians, have no realistic prospects for a comparable ideological accommodation between morals and markets."
I believe that Eastern religions and philosophies give a lot of significance to the balance between these elements in day-to-day life.
Also "ethical and psychological compartmentalization" is probably a universal trait.
Posted by: Rama at Jul 10, 2009 1:11:11 PM
last year i read that there will be more bibles printed in chinese than in english in 2009.
some refer to maslow and say that as the chinese get richer they will ask "why am i here" more often and turn to religion in much larger numbers
Posted by: oops at Jul 10, 2009 1:38:36 PM
The end of my piece covers what the Encyclical should have discussed, namely the importance of the non-Christian nature of China and India and what that means for the future of the world.
I can't figure out if you were being humorous or serious.
And that's speaking as an orthodox Roman Catholic libertarian (free will and all that...).
Posted by: anon at Jul 11, 2009 1:53:07 PM
Tyler, at the end of your piece you enunciate that there is a key difference between Christian economies and non-Christian ones. Can you please explain what you mean by this? Perhaps an example of an aspect found in one type of economy and not the other.
Posted by: Robert at Jul 11, 2009 9:49:08 PM
