How do our beginning assumptions about the nature of markets and labor influence our particular theorization of it? Henry Krabbendam has a very interesting and challenging definition of economics that calls into question some of the classical views of mercantilism and capitalism:
“Economics is stipulated . . . from a biblical perspective as a science that assesses and prioritizes the various human needs and aims at a disciplined, focused mode of administering a potential abundance of resources to meet them. Admittedly, this definition runs counter to the usual one that calls for economics to concern itself with satisfying unlimited wants by means of limited resources.”
According to Ian Smith, the three main views regarding the relationship between the Bible and descriptive economics include:
1) Disciplinary Autonomy: “[The Bible has] nothing to contribute directly to the understanding of modern economies. There is a gulf between specialized theory and the biblical witness.[. . .] The implication for the Christian economist in his or her professional capacity is that Christian witness does not manifest itself in the economic analysis but rather in the excellence of personal conduct and moral character.”
2) Disciplinary Interdependence: “[I]f it can be demonstrated that ethical considerations pervade economic analysis, then there is clearly scope for biblical values to shape economic descriptions.”
3) Distinctively Christian Economic Analysis: “Biblically derived institutional norms not only show us how we are meant to live--how institutions such as the state, the family, the corporation, and the financial system should be shaped--but also provide a way of understanding pathological economic outcomes.”
This suggests, then, three broadly differing approaches:
(1) Minimalism: “The extreme version argues that the biblical revelation is of little (even indirect) relevance for economic life, beyond personal responsibility not to steal from the taxman and to respect private property.[. . .] The more moderate and less privatized position would accept the importance of biblical injunctions in their application to economic life but construe them in rather general terms.”
(2) Principles: “For those who desire to pay closer attention to the guidelines of the biblical material, an approach based on a systematic formulation of derivative social principles (or middle axioms) commends itself.”
(3) Law: “The critique of the thematic method forms a starting point for the theonomic approach that turns to the Old Testament law, at least those aspects that deal with social institutions, as a normative socio-political model for contemporary society.”
What do you think about Krabbendam's claim? Is he on to something? Should we begin by assuming an abundance of resources rather than a limited pool of them? Why or why not? Likewise, how does our view of the relation between biblical authority and modern economic theory shape our willingness to draw on biblical ideas? How might a broad biblical pattern of creation-fall-redemption help us to think about capitalism and economic development and justice? Would it suggest one approach more than the other two?
Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteKraddenbam's words about the usual (traditional) essence of economics is spot on - economics concerns itself with how limited resources can be used to satisfy unlimited wants.
I would criticize Krabbendam in these areas:
-resource abundance. This runs counter to the post-fall creation. At any point in time the resources are limited and the wants are not.
-needs based system. Economics, if it is based on the modern understanding of human rights, cannot be based on rights generated by the presence of need. Having a need does not generate a right, and it is not biblical to say that it does. Having a need generates sympathy, reliance on God as opposed to self, voluntary charity perhaps, but by no means a right or a claim on someone else's property.
-prioritizing other people's wants or needs. Individually people prioritize their own wants and needs, so Krabbendam's unique insight must be that his economics would help some prioritize the wants and needs of others(!). I do not think that such prioritization is consistent with Biblical norms.
Smith three views I think are interesting; I don't know if my view on Bible and normative categories fits into one of them; I'll have to ponder that over my round of golf today!
What are your thoughts on Krabbendman's view and Smith's categories? Do you think Smith's categories apply to other sciences also?
I'll have to go back and reread the Krabbendum piece to see if he even considers the language of rights. What interest me most is that needs can be prioritized and that God has provided a potential abundance within which to function. I've mostly heard this line of thinking on those who defend entrepeneurship's ability to produce new wealth--to expand the supposedly limited field.
ReplyDeleteDoes economics always consider a question of rights? My one course in macroeconomics is very rusty here!
As to the question of whether a "need" thereby entails a "right," here again is where I think we need to start defining our terms better. I suspect that this is where we most differ: is it ever appropriate for a government to require charity out of its citizens?
I do think a biblical case can be made for this, though I want to moderate it with considerations of voluntary and local action. I will try at a later date to post something more developed on this.
I do not think that all or even most taxation is robbery, neither by the way, does the Apostle Paul if I understand Romans 13. If a government is authorized by God and its citizens to use its authority in a certain way than certainly it is a force, Paul calls it bearing the sword, but not all force is illegitimate.
If we hold that the language of rights, a post-biblical language, is nonetheless one that has its roots in scripture, then I would suggest that the need does not generate a right; it rather makes us aware that a right is being unjustly violated--though that still leaves open whether a government should be involved in trying to right that violation. I really need to learn Witte's list and start keeping it in front of me!
Also, I would love to see you post to the main page on your view and how it compares with Smith's categories.
ReplyDeleteThe abundance of resources view is held by the classic economic school of thought in the long(!) run only. That view holds that the only thing limiting the potential production of goods and services is the human ingenuity, which historically has had no limit. Thus in the long(!) run, we cannot ever place a limit on how much can be produced, or, in your language, the seemingly limited field can be indefinitely expanded by an entrepreneur.
ReplyDeleteIf Krabbendam's definition of 'biblical economics' uses 'resource abundance' in the long run only, then there is a complete agreement between his conception and the traditional economics and his criticism on that point is mute.
If, however, he suggests that the resource abundance holds in the short run, then his criticism simply does not measure up to economic reality or theological reality. That resources at any given point in time are limited in a fallen world is the most basic theological assumption. (A prime example of resource non-abundance is the time required for us to carry on this discussion, which I enjoy. Since the time is limited, then this conversation is not cost-less, and as much as I would like to have both of us follow each of the potential trails of this discussion, I have to prioritize the issues upon which I want to focus. I guess that's why I keep coming back to rights - the tie between people's actions and moral justification for those actions.)
--
I agree with you that where we most seem to differ is in our conception on what gives a human a right to lay claim on another person. In my view a 'clear need' is NEVER sufficient to lay claim on another person. Evidence of need is sufficient for asking for that person's compassion, for arguing for other people's charity, but NOT for coercively laying claim to that person's property. Do you disagree?
Now, I could see how someone could construct a biblical argument to the contrary. The Bible teaches us throughout to be sensitive to other people's needs. However, such an argument in my view would always be incomplete if it ignored the most basic biblical principle that the Creator gave life to individuals (not groups) and values those individuals infinitely, mostly(*) instructing those individuals that the use of force against one another is not acceptable. Doesn't that rule out forceful coercion as a means of accomplishing one's goals?
(*) I suppose one could draw some opposite conclusions from passages related to the destruction of a certain people in the Old Testament, where self-defense was not at play.
I will get back to you on Krabbendam, but for now, here's two basic questions, both of which I mean as clarifications for me not challenges to what you're saying:
ReplyDelete1. Why do you argue that an individual's life extends to private ownership if property?
2. Must all government action/taxation be considered coercive, and if so, does that make it necessarily bad and/or unauthorized?
1. I don't see how it could be argued any other way, other than to say that my right to life extends to my right to the use of my time and my energy, which is transformed into property.
ReplyDeleteAssuming we believe in a right that individuals have to self-determine their own lives and to carry on to the best of their ability their struggle for existence in this fallen world, we have to ask 'how do individuals do this?' They do this by seeking to satisfy their needs and wants, from clothing, to food, to shelter etc, and they have the aforementioned right to do so. God originally provides Adam and Eve with clothing, but from then on, they grow their food and make their clothing etc. If we remove that right from them, can they be said to possess the right to life? Clothing and food are the fruits of time and energy they spend in seeking to continue their existence, clothing and food become their property, to be used how and when they choose to do so. What is the alternative? Who, if not the one who brought property into existence, is to own it? Is the economic meaning of "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's ..." not this: individuals have a right to their OWN property only? (Of course, the meaning is also to condemn greed, but to condemn greed we MUST first reject the right to take something from someone by force)
Finally, since each individual can be said to possess this right to his own life (and his own life only) use of force becomes justified in self-defense only. i.e. if A tries to take food from B by force, then B's use of force to protect his property may be justified (unless B chooses(!) to voluntarily respond to the original application of force by donating his property to A, which is what Christ calls people to do in Matt 5:38-42 - 'the other cheek passage')
Can you lay out the opposite side of this argument? Can you argue that the right to life does not extend to private ownership of property? I would be very interested in seeing the lines of reasoning.
2. I don't know if all government action/taxation should be considered coercive. I could see this being argued both ways. If the residents of the taxing authority have the freedom to move out from the taxing authority, then the answer to your question would be no - all taxation is not necessarily coercive.
My personal argument is not that all taxation is bad/unauthorized. My personal argument in is that the proper role of government should be formulated and justified on moral-philosophical grounds, and then taxation/government action should be based solely on those grounds.
Let me comment on #2 and save #1 for later when I have the time. I grew up in the U.S., and part of our basic mythos is "no taxation without representation," which, of course, is not the same as no taxation unless I consent to it beforehand. So my view is that elected representatives can vote in a tax provided they work within the system of government checks and balances, etc. Having been raised with this, I nonetheless find myself flinching when Paul commands us in Romans 12 to pay out taxes seemingly without this provisio. "But," I ask, "what if the tax is unjust?" My response is that sometimes the choice to refuse to pay has all to do with the nature of the tax. I would hold the same as to whether to refuse to answer the summons to a draft. I think there are biblical grounds for civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteIn a fallen world, I suspect that every government action is going to be considered coercsive by someone. I happen to think sex with a child is and should be a punishable offense. The law forces those who disagree to comply with fines, jail times, and so on. Nonetheless, I don't believe that this is simply my belief group prefering its mores to theirs. There is something in the created order (call it natural law if you like) that let's us no this is wrong, so the government in that case is authorized by nature and God to bear the sword against evil. To let even an adult and a "consenting" child engage in intercourse is to weaken and degrade our communities, society, and so on. Of course, it also destroys over time the adult and child in question.
I am eager to see your views on question #1 you raised earlier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely that 'There is something in the created order (call it natural law if you like) that let's us know this is wrong, so the government in that case is authorized by nature and God to bear the sword against evil'. I think I am willing to go a bit further and specify that evil and to set forth a biblical rule for identifying that which is so wrong that it authorizes a government to bear the sword against it. That evil, in my view, is the initiation of unwanted force. Since there is no such thing as 'a consenting child' then I think the adult in your example would be initiating unwanted force against the child, authorizing a just government in using force (or threat thereof) to stop it.