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.”Here's my response. The Biblical authority would overarchingly extend over the entirety of life of the Christian economist, but the application of that authority to the field of economic analysis would be varied. The relationship between Biblical authority and economic theories has to be evaluated differently based on whether we are examining positive economics (descriptive economics) or normative economics (prescriptive).
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.”
Positive economics is concerned largely with data gathering about the way things are in the economic realm. The methods of data gathering are not directly specifically impacted by Biblical authority, beyond being subject to the ethical and moral standards that apply to life in general (don't falsify data, don't treat subjects poorly etc). A Christian in positive economics would not necessarily do his job any differently than a non-Christian. A Christian may excel at his task if he works at it diligently 'as for the Lord and not for men'. Possibly a Christian would select the areas for data gathering or research somewhat differently than a non-Christian, a Christian would hopefully be conscious of the ends for which his positive economic analysis is used, but, again, the methods themselves would not be directly specifically impacted by Biblical authority. Thus I would place the relationship between positive economics and Biblical authority in (1) disciplinary autonomy, and moderate (1) minimalism.
Normative economics, prescribing policy solutions to economic ills, does necessarily rely on value judgments that allow the economist to prioritize potential outcomes and compare impacts of various policies. Analysis and policy prescriptions in normative economics thus necessarily depend on the values held by the economist, so in this field the Biblical authority would play a central role for the Christian economist. I would place the relationship between Biblical authority and normative economics in (3) Distinctively Christian Economic analysis and (2) Principles.
Can those of you in political science and history join in the comments and offer your views on the relationship between the Biblical authority and your discipline?
I really appreciate your distinctions here. They remind me of a topic we discuss in DBU's Developing the Christian Mind course: how does faith-learning integration differ in various academic fields? For example, in mathematics one can safely say that the content of the field is mostly the same whatever one's beleifs, though various presuppositions, such where number systems come from, differ, as do questions of application. In other fields, such as my own--literature--even the very content differs and is more contested.
ReplyDeleteDo the various schools of economics make positive claims based on assumptions about the human person? For example, does the subjective theory of value with its decisions about goods, values, and desirability already make positive claims? Does its "is" assume an "ought"? (I'm sure there are better examples, btu my economics is pretty rusty!)
Yes, the schools make positive claims about the human person. Most traditional schools believe that a human being is rational (prefers more good to less, is able to order preferences consistently so that if A is preferred to B and B is preferred to C then A will be preferred to C) and they limit the scope of their examination to efficient systems of producing goods or services. They would not enter into the realm of 'positive freedom' (which seems to me to be not a freedom at all) but they would say that interpersonal comparisons of utility cannot be made, for the most part, so the best decider over his own life is the individual, not someone else (so, yes, the 'is' assumes the 'ought' for each person).
ReplyDeleteSchools of thought disagree with respect to the efficiency/equality balance, the short-run/long-run balance, and the effectiveness of certain policies to accomplish set goals.
I don't know if that answers what you were asking. Did you have any more specific question in mind?
Well, I'm mostly showing my ignorance, but it seems to me that if schools of economics make assumptions about the human person that are counter to Christianity, then we would want to examine more closely whether their descriptive (i.e. positive) science actually ignores some aspect of reality.
ReplyDeleteI chose the subjective theory of value with "opportunity cost" in mind. Opportunity cost has a specific philosophical understanding of time, work, and money that I would think conditions its findings. Would moderate minimalism be enough for a Christian economist in this area?
To add another point, does Christianity teach the inherent rationality of human persons? Does it not instead teach that we are creatures in bondage to our sin with hearts deeply deceptive and behavior destructive to others? Now, if we all are, then I'm positive I don't want to give total economic control over anything to one person or one party or government. But, at the same time, I wonder if one might be able to conduct a study of the impact of sinful addictions on the larger economic system?
ReplyDeleteHowever, when it comes to even economic activity at the family and church level, should I not submit my negative freedom to those wiser than me in order that I might actually achieve some level of positive freedom? (Of course, I have little clue as to what impact as any this might have on economic analysis or policy.)
You know, I've never thought that the traditional schools of economic thought have viewed the individual nature somehow in conflict with the biblical view. I think God addresses people as rational, not irrational beings throughout the biblical narrative (for example, by offering them punishments or rewards for their actions, by reasoning with them, by giving reasons for things that have happened or may happen). Viewing an individual as rational does not preclude the exceptional cases, neither in the Bible nor in economics, I don't think. (There is a newer subset of Behavioral Economics that challenges the assumption of the homo economicus, but I don't put enough weight in this subset to say that it offers a serious challenge to existing schools of thought).
ReplyDeleteIn what other ways (other than rationality) did you think that my description of the economic view of the individual differs from the biblical view?
The subjective theory of value is certainly the only relevant theory that is used in economics to (on a very basic level) explain why goods have non-negative trade-able value. I am not sure where the opportunity cost enters here. If merely to say that when a person purchases one thing he forgoes the chance to buy another or to give alms then I am not sure I can see the difficulty. I probably don't know enough about the philosophical understanding of opportunity cost.
With respect to surrendering my negative freedom to those who are wiser than me - I reject that though, because the reasons why I value negative freedom above almost all (other than God's authority in my life) have not satisfactorily been shown lacking.
There's a very interesting debate at the moment in Baptist circles about this very question of freedom and submission. (Another post to consider.) I have had a few wise leaders in my life I was willing to submit myself to in other areas, so I believe it to be a valuable approach. It certainly has a long-standing history in Christian tradition (e.g. the monastic movement). Moreover, we limit our negative freedom every time we place ourselves under an exper, teacher, or authority. (Another post.)
ReplyDeleteI think your stress on the individual and rationality is true to a point, but quite idealistic in practice. :D In an unfallen world, the individual would always be guided by what is rational and act with a sense of true community, as well. But in our sin-soaked world that's not how things work.
For example, I don't believe the multi-billion-dollar porn industry is based on pure rationality--but wide-spread societal addiction. Likewise, much of the advertising industry bases its work on the non-rationality of consumer purchasing.
But, then, perhaps we have differing defintiions of rationality here.