Journal of Cultural Economy
ISSN: 1753-0350 (Print) 1753-0369 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjce20
The
Moral Economists: R.H. Tawney, Karl Polanyi, E.P. Thompson, and the Critique of Capitalism, by Tim Rogan
David A. Zalewski
To cite this article: David A. Zalewski (2018): The Moral Economists: R.H. Tawney, Karl Polanyi, E.P. Thompson, and the Critique of Capitalism, by Tim Rogan, Journal of Cultural Economy, DOI: 10.1080/17530350.2018.1503611
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2018.1503611
Published online: 26 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 24
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjce20
JOURNALOFCULTURALECONOMY
BOOKREVIEW
TheMoralEconomists:R.H.Tawney,KarlPolanyi,E.P.Thompson,andtheCritiqueof Capitalism,byTimRogan,Princeton,NJ,PrincetonUniversityPress,280pp.,$39.95 (hardback),ISBN978-0-691-17300-9
Bytheendofthenineteenthcentury,leadersofmanyindustrializingcountriesbecameincreasingly concernedaboutsocialstabilityasradicalinsurgenciesarosetoreplace laissez-faire institutionswith someformofsocialism.Dissatisfiedwithachoicebetweenunbridledindividualismorrepressivecollectivism,somereformerssoughttodevelopa ‘thirdway’ betweenthesetwoextremes.Forexample, PopeLeoXIIIinhisencyclical Rerum Novarum(1891)attemptedtoamelioratetheconflictbetween laborandcapitalbycondemningtheexcessesofunregulatedcapitalism,butrejectingsocialismasan alternativesinceitviolatesanindividual’srighttoownproperty.Leo’sdistinctivecontributionwas hiscontentionthatcollectiveactionmotivatedbyjusticeandcharitycouldimprovethewellbeingof allcommunitymembers,obviatingtheneedforrevolutionarychange.Someprominenteconomists atthistimealsoprofessedsimilarviews,mostnotablyRichardEly(1886),oneofthefoundersofthe AmericanEconomicAssociation,whoarguedthatdecisionsaboutproductionanddistribution shouldbebasedonethicalstandardssuchaswhethereconomicactivityenableseveryonetoreach theirpotential.
BecauseEnglandwasatthecenteroftheindustrialrevolutionandalsowasthehomeofthephilosopherswhodevelopedtheutilitariantheorythatunderlieseconomicliberalism,itisunsurprising thatacountermovementagainstunfetteredcapitalismbeganthere.NotabledissidentslikeJohn A.HobsonandmembersofthesocialistFabianSocietythatincludedGeorgeBernardShawandSidneyandBeatriceWebbpublishedextensivelyonhowgovernmentscouldimprovethelivesofpeople whosewelfarediminishedinfreemarkets.Althoughtheseeffortscontributedtolegislationthatmay beviewedasthe firststepsinthecreationofthemodernwelfarestate,historianTimRoganin The Moral Economists(p.21)concludesthatby1910, ‘Britishsocietywasdisintegratinginaclashof groupsandinterests,’ and ‘Newconceptionsof “unity” wereneeded.’ R.H.Tawney,aninfluential historianandthe firstofwhomRoganlabels ‘moraleconomists,’ soughttoprovideanalternative tothe ‘ruggedindividualism’ promotedbyutilitarianismbyreflectingonhownormsandmores maintainedsocialcohesioninearliertimes.TawneywasthenfollowedbyKarlPolanyiandE.P. Thompsonwhowrotesimilarmoralcritiquesofcapitalism.AsRogan(p.7)pointsout,these ‘moraleconomists’ werenoteconomistsinatechnicalsense,but ‘Theyweretheoristsofeverything economicsleftout.’ Whatwasitthatdifferentiatedtheircritiqueofcapitalismfromneoclassical economicsthatdominatestheprofession?
Rogansetsouttodescribetheevolutionofthemoralcritiqueofcapitalismintwentiethcentury Britainbycomparingandsynthesizingtheworkofthesethreeintellectuals,andalsoarguesthatthe currentdebateoverhowtoaddressincomeandwealthinequalitycouldbeenrichedbyrefocusingon theethicalandspiritualconsequencesofcapitalism. TheMoralEconomists isorganizedaroundthe majorworkofeach:Tawney’ s ReligionandtheRiseofCapitalism (1926),Polanyi’ s TheGreatTransformation (1944),andThompson’ s TheMakingoftheEnglishWorkingClass (1963).Rogandevotesa chaptertoeachofthesebooks,emphasizinghowthepersonalexperiencesofeachwritershapedhis thinking.Rogan’ssignificantcontributionishisuncoveringoftheconnectionsandsynergiesthat bindtogethertheseworks,whichwillbedetailedbelow.Takentogether,Roganconcludes (p. 198): ‘Themoraleconomists’ critiqueofcapitalismwasfundamentallyoptimistic:itsstarting pointwasthatcertain “solidarities” loomedunarticulatedundercapitalism,anticipatingasocial lifecloserthanindividualismadmittedbutfreerthancollectivismallowed.’ Whatconstitutesthis vision?
Unlikeutilitarianism,whichisatypeofethicalconsequentialisminwhichthedesirabilityofeconomicpoliciesandprogramsisevaluatedbychangesinthevalueofsocialwelfarefunctionscomprisedofsummedutilities,themoraleconomistswereconcernedabouttheeffectsofunbridled capitalismoncommunitystability.Thus,toappropriatelygaugethewelfareimpactoftheseoutcomes,itisnecessarytodevelopameaningfulconceptofpersonhood.Forthisreason,Roganplaces significantemphasisontheprocessundertakenbyeachauthortodevelopatheoryofpersonality.All ofthemsettleonaformofpersonalismthatcentersontheuniquenessanddignityofeachperson. ChristiantheologyshapedTawney’santhropologicalconceptionofhumanity;specifically,theIncarnationofJesusChristthatimpliesthatallpeoplearecreatedintheimageandlikenessofGod.Polanyi,sensingagrowingsecularizationinEurope,soughtanalternativeexplanationforthevalueof humankind firstinKarlMarx,and finallyinAdamSmith’sexplanationonwhatdifferentiatespeople fromanimals.Similarly,ThompsoneschewedChristianityandalsoinitiallylookedtoMarxbefore developinghisownsecularnotionofhumanity.Eachoftheaboveisamorenuancedandcomplex notionofpersonalitythanthecoldbloodedinhabitantsoftheutilitarianworld.
Next,Roganprovidesdetailedaccountsofhoweachoftheauthorsformulatedtheirnotionsof civilsocietythatstructurallyliesbetweentheindividualandanauthoritarianstate.Whatisfascinatingistheexperiencesandresearchstrategiestheyshared,andhowtheseinfluencedtheirworks. Tawney,Polanyi,andThompsonwereallaffectedbythesenseofsolidaritytheysharedwithothers intheiryoungerdaysinLancashire,RedVienna,andYorkshirerespectively.Moreover,eachofthem spentconsiderabletimeengagedinadulteducationratherthanworkingatprestigiousresearchuniversities.Finally,allofthesewritersdrewheavilyfromhistoricalaccountsindevelopingtheircritiquesofmoderncapitalism.
Overall,Rogan’sresearchis first-rate,andhisbookisa ‘mustread’ foranyonewhoisinterestedin thelivesandideasofthesemen.WhatI findmostvaluableishisaccountoftheevolutionofideas, andhowtheyareinfluencedbyadvancesinphilosophyandpoliticaltheory,socialmovementssuch asfascism,changesineconomicconditions – especiallytheGreatDepressionandthe ‘goldenageof capitalism’ duringthe1950sand60s-,andtheprocessbywhichtheymayormaynotbetranslated intoactionthroughpublicpolicy.Animportantlessonisthatscholarlyworkontheeconomyshould differfromwhatAlbertO.Hirschman(1998,p.110)calls ‘monoeconomics,’ whichisthetendencyto generalizeeconomictheorytoallplacesandtimes.AccordingtoHirschman:
Theprincipleenemyisorthodoxy:tousethesamerecipe,administerthesametherapy,toresolvethemost varioustypesofproblems;nevertoadmitcomplexityandtrytoreduceitasmuchaspossible,whileignoring thatthingsarealwaysmorecomplicatedinreality.
Sincethisdescribesneoclassicaleconomics,thevalueofnontraditionalapproachestostudyingeconomiclifeisapparent.
Roganappearssympathetictothispositionsinceheurgeseconomiststobroadenthescopeofthe currentdebateoverincomeandwealthinequalitybyreconsideringtheeffectstheseconditionsmay haveonsocialcohesiveness.As NewYorkTimes columnistDavidBrookswroterecently: ‘ConservativesacrosstheWesternworldbecamesobesottedwiththepowerofthemarketthattheyforgot whatcapitalismislikewhenit’snotbalancedbystrongcommunities.’ (2018,p.A23).Rogan notesthatmoraleconomicsfelloutoffavorduringthe1950sand60sbecauseofimprovedeconomic outcomesandthetransformationofeconomicsintoamathematical ‘science.’ Despitethismoveto formalism,Rogandescribesseveralscholarswhoseworkonsocialchoicebridgesneoclassicaltheory andmoraleconomics:E.F.Schumacher,KennethArrow,andAmartyaSen.AlthoughIbelieveSen belongsonthislist,andpossiblyArrowaswell,theinclusionofSchumacherispuzzlingsincefew wouldassociatehimwithmainstreameconomics.Infact,thisraisesthequestionofwhyRogan didnotdiscusstworelated,longstandingheterodoxschoolsofthought – socialandoriginalinstitutionaleconomics(OIE) – thatbothemphasizethemoraldimensionsofeconomiclifeintheirtheoriesofvalueandchoice.Althoughsocialeconomicsisinterdisciplinaryandlackstheunifying theorythatcharacterizesneoclassicaleconomics,mostofitsadherentsstressthesocial
2 BOOKREVIEW
embeddednessofeconomicactivity,especiallyhowculturally-determinedmoralvalueshelpshape theinstitutionsthatinfluenceeconomicbehavior.Thus,itsvisionisnotofsocialordergenerated bymarketsthatreconcilethedesiresofindividualsseekingtomaximizeutility,butacommunitarian oneinwhicheachpersonplaysacriticalroleinadvancingthewelfareofothers.Infact,Sen’sworkis oftenthesubjectofpaperspublishedinsocialeconomics.Moreover,becauseofitsfocusonculture andvalues,manysocialeconomistsalsoworkwithintheOIEframework.Giventhecloserelationshipbetweentheseschoolsofthoughtandtheideasofthemoraleconomists,itisunsurprisingthat Polanyihasbeenconsideredamajorinfluenceonmanyinstitutionalandsocialeconomists,and DavidA.Martin(1982, 1985)hasarguedthatTawney’sworkiscloselyalignedwithbothofthese traditions.Thus,IconcludethatRogan’sobservationthatmoraleconomicshasfallenoutoffavor andshouldberevivedtoaddresssomeoftoday’seconomicissuesandproblemsisbasedonalimited perceptionofwhatconstitutesmoraleconomics.Moreover,healsofailstorecognizerecentgrowth inthepopularityofheterodoxeconomics,especiallyintheaftermathofthesubprimemortgagecrisis,assomeoftherecentdevelopmentsinthis fieldhavebeenadoptedbypoliticiansacrosstheglobe. Hopefully,continueddevelopmentsinpluralistictheorywillhelpusbetterunderstandtoday’ seconomicproblems,andthepersistenceofthescholarswhoformulatethemwillhelptranslatetheseideas intopolicies.
Notesoncontributor
DavidA.Zalewski isaneconomistandaProfessorintheSchoolofBusinessatProvidenceCollege.Hehaspublished extensivelyinjournalssuchasTheJournalofEconomicIssues,TheJournalofEconomicHistory,andEssaysinEconomicandBusinessHistory.HeisalsoPresident-ElectoftheAssociationforEvolutionaryEconomics.
References
Brooks,D., 2018.DonaldTrumpisnotplayingbyyourrules. TheNewYorkTimes,12June,p.A23. Ely,R.T., 1886.Ethicsandeconomics. Science,7(175),529–533.
Hirschman,A.O., 1998 Crossingboundaries:selectedwritings.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Martin,D.A., 1982.R.H.Tawneyaspoliticaleconomist. JournalofEconomicIssues,16(2),535–543. Martin,D.A., 1985.R.H.Tawney’snormativeeconomichistoryofcapitalism. ReviewofSocialEconomy,43(1), 84–102.
DavidA.Zalewski SchoolofBusiness,ProvidenceCollege,Providence,RI,USA zalewski@providence.edu
©2018DavidA.Zalewski https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2018.1503611
JOURNALOFCULTURALECONOMY 3