c



 


ed. Ian R Harper and Samuel Gregg, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham UK, 2008) hb.
Review in Zadok Perspectives 106, Autumn 2010

This book is a significant contribution to Christian discussion of economics. It is

authored by two Australians, Fair Pay Commissioner and Access Economics
consultant Prof. Ian Harper and former Centre for Independent Studies Director
of Religious Liberty, now Director of Research, Acton Institute (based on Lord
Actonƞs principle of liberty in politics and economics), Samuel Gregg. I confess
some conflict of interest as I have co-written a book with Gregg and am writing
one with Harper now. Harper is an Anglican as are fellow Australians well-known
to many at Zadok through our Christian Economists groups, Prof Geoffrey
Brennan of ANU, Gordon Menzies of UTS Sydney, and Paul Oslington of ACU.
Gregg is one of the new breed of free market Catholics. Other contributors are
also from the Acton Centre and business schools and universities in Britain,
Canada and Argentina. They represent a multi-disciplinary group with several
having formal theological training thus facilitating a hoped-for two-way
conversation.

The bookƞs first part majors on the historical interaction of theology and
economics. Ricardo Crespo kicks it off with ƝAristotleƞs Science of economicsƞ. For
Aristotle oikonomike (economics) is about the use of material means to the moral
or virtuous life. Economics is a practical not an exact science, despite the Ɲphysics
envyƞ (Brian Toohey) of much contemporary economics and other social
sciences. Aristotle knew that practical sciences involve human choice and
decision and therefore predictions are generalisations based on institutional
constancy through education and law that establish hopefully virtuous habits and
reasonable predictability.

Chapter 2 by Actonƞs Stephen Grabill, the author of a major work on Protestant

views of natural law, continues his rehabilitation of that tradition through a study
of scholasticism and its long-neglected but considerable contributions to the
economics of price, money, value and usury. The neglect owes much to
Protestant prejudice (though not Protestant scholasticism in the 17th to 18th
centuries) but even more to the Enlightenmentƞs arrogant assumption that all
was dark or medi-evil before it turned on the light of reason. Grabill argues that
the Spanish late scholastics or ƝSchool of Salamancaƞ of the 16th to 17th centuries
a have best claim to the title of founders of economics as a science, preparing
the way for Malthus, Ricardo and Adam Smith. He fills in the gaps in the received
wisdom or ignorance well.

Sam Greggƞs chapter 3 picks up at the Enlightenment, especially its Scottish

version, when Edinburgh was known as the ƝAthens of the Northƞ. This provides
the context for Adam Smithƞs monumental The Wealth of Nations published in
1776, only 12 years before the founding of white Australia. Even the title, a
quote from Isaiah 60, shows that the stark contrast between medieval Christian
faith and Enlightenment reason is overdrawn. Greggƞs focus on two significant
founders of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smithƞs teacher Francis Hutcheson whom
Iƞd heard of from Alisdair MacIntyreƞs work, and his teacher Gershom Carmichael
whom I hadnƞt heard a skerrick of, fills in further gaps in conventional economic
history, showing that Smith and coƞs views of the law of the market and division
of labour were in continuity with Christian perspectives on natural law and
despite some of David Humeƞs anti-Christian influences upon Smith, were well
received by key commercial Christians of the time. Gregg and Grabill counter the
myth of Christianity at war with science for economics much as others have done
for the physical sciences in the area of creation vs. evolution.

Examining economics and theology in the modern world from the 18th century on
is the prolific Paul Oslingtonƞs task. He sees that most interest in connecting the
two comes from public theologians but he is quite caustic about their level of
economic knowledge. Much of this is deserved, but Oslington is not quite as
caustic concerning economists, including Christian ones, whose knowledge is
little more than Sunday School level. Zadok is mentioned as one organisation
seeking to bridge the gap between both disciplines, Oslington being a product of
its Christian Economists group. Oslington draws on the contemporary thought of
Jacob Viner and Anthony Waterman in helping understand the context of this
historical relationship. Clergymen Paley of the watchmaker argument from design
fame and TR Malthus of genetics fame featured prominently.

This was until the professionalisation (or laicization) and specialisation of British
universities which in Oslingtonƞs view caused the separation of theology and the
sciences. RH Tawney traces the distinction between technical and moral
economics back further to Lockeƞs time in the mid 17th century. Keynes locates
the 1860s as the time when Christianity and philosophy parted in the UK.
Secularization led to separation of the previous cosy relationship of economics
and theology in the US in the late 19th century where Adam Smith and our
Adamite nature were previously seen by clergy economists as compatible. The
rise of the Social Gospel movement then may have also contributed to
sometimes strained relationships. But churches in the UK and US still took
economics seriously. In Australia however, this secularization was embodied
educationally in the banishing of theological faculties from universities leading to
a permanently estranged relationship.

Oslingtonƞs attention to institutional factors is helpful. He provides an economic

analysis of the lack of professional incentives for economists and theologians,
unless they want to be published in marginal journals or not at all. Mutual
ignorance reigns, although a small number of scholars are heroically seeking to
bridge the gap.
Part II concerns Christianity and Economic Theory. Again Australian scholars
feature prominently. The philosophically fluent economist Brennan and
theologically trained economic historian Waterman combine to examine this in
chapter 5. They provide a helpful fourfold typology of the relationship:
independence (a relationship of mutual indifference); dependence (one
emanating from the other); convergence (the two disciplines intersecting); and
clash (disciplinary conflict). There are also different styles and sources of
authority; Scripture in particular occupies heights for theology that no single
economic source occupies. Nonetheless, there is a tendency to assume in
universities that theology cannot allow full academic freedom from an
authoritative community or text, yet Francis Watson argues convincingly, to me,
that economics faculties have their own communal authorities. The role of the
source of economic authority in human rational self-interest is rightly highlighted
as something theologians find hard to swallow.

Brennan and Waterman also see a strong clash over the sacred role of scarcity
(related to rational allocation of resources through pricing) for economics.
Theologians are wary because: 1. Scarcity exemplifies the problem of evil or at
least Darwinian survival of the fittest; 2. scarcity can rationalise inequality; 3.
Scarcity contradicts the abundance of new life offered in Christ e.g. the loaves
and fishes episode.

Chapter 6 represents a change of style as another Zadokite, Gordon Menzies

presents a dramatic Platonic dialogue about ƝEconomics as Identityƞ between
John Stuart Millƞs economic man and Paul the apostleƞs theological man. Menzies
imaginative approach belies the description of economics as the dismal science.
Theological man, named Mary, is challenged as to whether s/he can coexist with
science in modernity. John (Mill) is put under pressure to justify his position as a
social scientist if economics actually opposes competition to cooperation. Each is
forced to nuance their position through the dialogue in a process exemplifying
how theology and economics should sharpen each other.

Part III ƝChristianity and Modern Businessƞ is begun by Michael Millerƞs generally
apt apologetic for business against antagonistic theological views. He rightly sees
it as a school for virtues such as prudence and courage, and of benefit for the
whole society, bringing economic value, collaboration of skills, technological
advance and rising standards of living. Though to my mind like many Christian
scientists and economists he defends his activity through the creation mandate
or natural law but with insufficient attention to the Fall or the potential for vice
not virtue. And the Global Financial Crisis (possibly due to publication schedule)
and Ecological Crisis seem scarcely in view, when the best businesses are taking
a lead here. While rightly critiqueing the tendency of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) to confuse business and charity and see social responsibility
as only extrinsic not intrinsic to business, he has an unfairly jaundiced view of
the whole CSR movement.

Philip Boothƞs chapter 8 also defends contemporary global business but more
explicitly through Catholic Social thought. He sees it giving a Ɲqualified but clear
acceptance of the market economyƞ due to its utilitarian material benefits but
also its opportunities for wholistic flourishing of humans. Again, the temptations
of the good to become a god are not noted sufficiently. Booth draws more, like
most Catholic conservatives, on John Paul IIƞs Centessimus Annus (CA) after the
fall of Communism than his earlier Laborem Exercens (LE) which takes a more
third way perspective emphasising a Christian personalism that cannot be
identified either with Communism or Capitalism. The Catholic Left are equally
unbalanced in their appreciation of LE and ignoring of CA.

Booth does identify tensions between a Catholic social perspective and the
inequalities of contemporary economic life: the exorbitant wages of some CEOs;
the very low wages of some workers; the low prices received by some primary
producers; and the high prices charged for intellectual property. This is a helpful
discussion, though in his concern not to rely too much on the state Booth tends
to rely too strongly on individual Christian conscience. The role of the church as
an alternative polis seems strangely lacking for a Catholic.

Editor Ian Harper and Eric Jones address the affluenza issue of modern societies.
They provide a balance sheet of the positives and negatives of the rising tide of
affluence in the West. They note that affluence may undermine productivity and
the work ethic and ethics. They sound a bit like baby-boomers pontificating to
Gen Yƞs when they note that their complacency is yet to be challenged by hard
times. Not any more it isnƞt. To what extent will the Global Financial Crisis
provoke the Y me lament for a generation highly distracted by consumerism?

Affluent societies encourage people to spend more on social status. However,

some spend more on previously unobtainable non-material items. Affluent
societies, they argue, also have better records in defending human rights and
ecological standards then poorer nations. Does this mean that these are
luxuries?

Finally, Peter Heslam, head of Cambridgeƞs Capitalism Project uses two examples
of HR Niebuhrƞs famous Christ and Culture paradigm to argue for
transformational business rather than a Christ against Business Liberationist
approach, except in extreme cases. Itƞs a shame Heslam had insufficient space to
deal with the whole of Niebuhrƞs paradigm and to raise questions about it being
loaded toward transformation. Heslam has a highly positive view of business,
globalisation and technological innovation as better transformational instruments
for the worldƞs poor than aid. He and Peter Singer who advocates and practices
personal generousity or Jeffrey Sachs who advocates more aid to help poorer
nations reach the Millenium Development goals, would no doubt disagree.
Having seen a friendƞs plans for a reasonably profitable business selling solar
powered lamps in Africa which have economic, health and educational (ability to
study at night) benefits I am inclined to agree with Heslam. However, Sachs is
right to note the need for basic transport, health and educational infrastructure.
Polanyi noted long ago the role which appropriate and not disproportionate State
regulation played in providing a legal and social framework for markets. De Soto
notes the need for legal recognition of peopleƞs capital in their land and houses
to enable access to loans and development opportunities.

All in all this is a helpful and impressive volume even if you disagree with its
predominantly free market apologetic approach. It could have been improved by
the inclusion of some more radical Christian economists, also Zadok linked, such
as Bill Stent and Clive and Cara Beed, authors of the excellent Alternatives to
Economics. This would have introduced some creative tensions into the volume.
The lack of dialogue is not just between theology and economics, but within
mainstream and more radical economics.

Gordon Preece, editor of Zadok, ethicist for Christian Super

www.christiansuper.com.au, Ridley College, and Acting Vicar of Yarraville
Anglican and author with Ian Harper of a forthcoming Acorn book on the Global
Financial Crisis.