Document View

Is the Market Moral? A Dialogue on Religion, Economics, and Justice, by Rebecca M. Blank and William McGurn, is reviewed.

Is the Market Moral? A Dialogue on Religion, Economics, and Justice, by Rebecca M. Blank and William McGurn. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 2004. Paper, ISBN 0762307943, $16.95. 151 pages.

Seldom does one read a book on economics so well thought out and well written that it can treat a complex subject this thoroughly and understandably in only 151 pages. Rebecca M. Blank is an economist and William McGurn a journalist. It is tempting, therefore, to give Blank greater credit for the thought and McGurn greater credit for the writing. However, this would be unfair because clearly both authors are exceptional thinkers and writers.

The authors write about morality in the market from the perspective of Christianity, Blank a mainstream Protestant drawing largely from scripture and McGurn a Roman Catholic drawing largely from papal encyclicals. Blank and McGurn make initial statements, then they rebut each other, and finally each author makes a statement in conclusion. Blank's concluding chapter is titled "Creating a Virtuous Economy," while McGurn's is titled "Creative Virtues of the Economy." Each author contends that, on balance, the market is moral. Still, they see amoral and immoral behavior here and there. They offer public policy prescriptions for these ills. One of my own preferred targets is false or deceptive advertising, which I consider among the most antisocial behaviors of the market today. I wish Blank and McGurn had dealt with action to curb such advertising more sufficiently. Other moralists or ethicists in previous generations have sought to instill in business and industry a higher code of ethics, generally without much success. Heartening signs come along sporadically, only to be followed by disappointment. Is the market in America more moral than in the past? Read what Blank and McGurn conclude.

Authors writing from the perspectives of other religions might reach different conclusions, and it would be valuable and interesting to read similar books by authors representing other religions for contrast and comparison. Perhaps Brookings would consider expanding this into a series along those lines. It is essential to know what religion teaches us about economics.

Blank and McGurn engage in a philosophical dialogue, but it is not a debate on the question whether the market mechanism should exist. They accept as given that the market does exist; they simply debate its morality and whether market failures can be further remedied. They make scant mention of Libertarianism and the possibility that the Libertarians could improve the market mechanism in any significant way. This may seem a slight omission, yet I recall the thought-provoking and promising work on private property anarchism done by economist Murray N. Rothbard in the 1960s and 1970s, which has benefited from the scholarly criticism of Laurence S. Moss. Unfortunately for the Libertarians as a whole, by the 1990s a group of Libertarians calling themselves Republicans produced the "Contract for America" (or as wags termed it, the "Contract on America"). It nearly became the law of the land, the basis for significant changes in the Federal government that would have dismantled much of the government and not necessarily improved the market mechanism. Most national leaders opposed it, and successfully.

Libertarianism is the modern version of nineteenth century philosophical anarchism in America, which was thought to consist of obscure economic thinkers and writers who should be and were largely ignored. One of the ablest was Joshua King Ingalls, at one time a clergyman, who in the 1840s became concerned about inequities in the land market and spent the rest of his life mainly working toward land reform. Far better known is philosophical anarchist Henry David Thoreau. I regard Ingalls, Thoreau, and certain other philosophical anarchists as moralists who were as concerned about market morality as are Blank and McGurn. Devoting some space to selected philosophical anarchists might have strengthened Blank's and McGurn's book. Alternatively, Brookings might want to include a book written from the perspective of philosophical anarchism in the series suggested above. One may not find a vein of gold ore warranting operation of a gold mine, but there are many nuggets and grains of gold in the writings of the nineteenth century philosophical anarchists that would add real content and luster to our current dialogue on market morality. Personally, I feel the Libertarians of today should re-examine the works of their intellectual progenitors.

Summarizing Blank's and McGurn's concise and informative book is a daunting task to this reviewer. The book's brevity means that I could discuss the key points and leave the reader feeling little need or desire to delve into the book itself. To avoid this, I shall be more comfortable if I highly commend and encourage readers to study the book themselves.

Blank and McGurn do an excellent job as far as they go in a short book. The next step for them and/or other thinkers and writers on this subject is to go beyond dialogue and come up with better standards or criteria, objective or even subjective, for assessing or measuring morality in the market. Until better standards or criteria come along, something that University of Michigan business administration professor Edward D. Jones wrote in 1912 remains my favorite way of judging market morality: "The moral conception of the merchant as one who selects his stock of goods in the spirit of a friend selecting a present for a friend; who preserves the merchandise as one who feels that it already belongs to another, and is held in trust; who awaits trade with the spirit of accommodation in his heart; who charges for his service with that justice tempered with humanity which characterizes the best class of physicians; and who advises with that fidelity which makes the best attorneys, is the only conception which will attract the highest talent into this profession and will leave the pathway open for growth in functions and in efficiency" (Jones 1994, 81).

[Author Affiliation]

Gerald F. Vaughn

Retired, University of Delaware