One theme explored by Michael Sandel in his recent Reith Lectures is the link between morality and markets. But – given current concerns about the rampant excesses of various money-makers, city traders and financial speculators – one might be forgiven for thinking that no such link exists. Capitalists have created an advanced market system that over-rides moral concerns in the interest of profit – end of story. Yet if we look closer we can see that even markets need morals.

One argument developed by the American economist William J Booth, and more recently developed by UK social scientists Russell Keat and Andrew Sayer, is that economies are intrinsically moral, in so far as they are reliant on norms, values and ethical presumptions for their effective exercise. How might we demonstrate this?

Markets are socially embedded
[image of Leadenhall Market, London © 2008 Jupiterimages Corporation]

Firstly, (as I discussed in my posting on Karl Polanyi) economies can be judged moral because they are socially embedded within non-economic institutions (for example the state, but also institutions of family, religious, voluntary, charitable or communitarian origin) that help set norms and ethical frameworks for acceptable economic conduct. Despite coming under ideological attack from market-liberals, these institutions remain important for checking capitalist tendencies for unfettered accumulation of profit.

Secondly, because people are socially embedded, moral beings (and not just ‘rational’ economic actors), moral presumptions and conventions external to economic rationality are always heavily implicated in everyday patterns of economic exchange. These moral presumptions and conventions would include such motivations as love and care for others, respect, fairness and justice). So people must continually strike a balance between ethical and economic imperatives when transacting. In practice this means that most of us wouldn’t choose to sell our own mother!

Thirdly, economic institutions themselves operate according to intrinsic moral norms and conventions (even if this often appears hard to spot); for example in capitalism there are ethical standards that affect the application of property rights, reward systems, distributions of rights and responsibilities, as well as norms and values shaping the way we treat other people in economic situations (the exercise of ‘professionalism’, ‘business ethics’ and so on) – and these are not merely contractual in origin but involve ethical judgment. For economies to function there has to be moral framework for economic action.

What should properly concern us is not the absence of morality but the particular quality of morality...

However this is not to say that because the economy is ‘moral’ that it is intrinsically ‘good’. The persistence of greed, fraud, corruption and other economic crimes and misdemeanours indicate that this is not the case. But, equally to assume that economies are devoid of ethical substance is to misunderstand their character. To paraphrase Russell Keat what we should recognise is that "all economies are moral but some are nicer than others." What should properly concern us is not the absence of morality but the particular quality of morality inherent to different kinds of economic system. Providing we accept that any kind of economy is shaped by the norms of the community of which it is a part, then the political issue becomes not whether an economy is moral per se, but whether or not the particular moral principles of an economic system are compatible with (say) our own understanding of equality and our requirements for social justice.

Why is this important? By recognizing the moral basis to economic life we retain the theoretical ammunition we need to conceive of alternative economic futures – for if economies always have some kind of moral principles (derived from being socially embedded), this means they are amenable to transformation from within the social contexts that created them. This helps counter the market-liberal myth that certain ‘self-governing’ economic processes (e.g. ‘free hand of the market’) lay beyond social determination, but also checks ‘market fatalism’ – the belief we are powerless to transform capitalist economic institutions and practices.

Find out more

• Interested in listening to Sandel's Reith Lecture on markets? Get the 'Markets & Morals' podcast
• More from Open2 on the Reith Lectures 2009
• What do you think? Join the the Reith Lectures debate

About the author

Mark Banks is Reader in Sociology at the Open University. His research interests include the cultural and creative industries, popular culture, cities and urban space.

Subscribe to Mark Banks's posts

 

Has football become a game where winning matches or even trophies does not matter?

The agreement is that all around this has been a sound economic exchange. BBC Sport’s Chief Football writer Phil McNulty makes that point. Manchester United are poised to make a handsome profit of some £68 million. Real Madrid will begin to make a commercial campaign with the likes of Kaka and Ronaldo by selling as much merchandise as possible with the club brand. One even wonders if it really matters that Real Madrid wins any trophies. We can speculate that not winning any trophies would bring more attention and thus fame to the club than winning anything.

Cristiano Ronaldo.
[image by Paolo Camera,
some rights reserved]

Has football become a game where winning matches or even trophies does not matter? A quick glance over the Deloitte Football Money League (2009) suggests so. Take a look at the league and you will find teams that won no trophies such as Fenerbahçe, a newcomer. But, from the point of view of the two clubs, apparently a sound investment has been made. So Ronaldo, we are told, will prove his worth and will make lots of money for himself and his clubs. 

About the author

Engin F Isin is professor in politics and international studies and director of the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance at the Open University.

Subscribe to Engin Isin's posts

 

As the recession deepens righteous anger grows about the systemic greed and unbridled power of the few at the top. Once again people are starting to make connections between their own vulnerability and the exploitative, unequal nature of the capitalist system. A sign of the times here is the launch of the No2EU, Yes to Democracy campaign which is fielding a platform of left candidates in the forthcoming European elections. Opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, with its charter for privatisation and subversion of workers’ rights, the campaign stands for a democratic Europe built on principles of social justice.

rather than opposing the capitalist system they saw the enemy as ‘universalism’

What is interesting about No2EU is the way it poses a challenge to the identity (and post-identity) politics which have become so significant in oppositional thinking for the last quarter century or more. For many radicals the neo-liberal impasse of Thatcherism encouraged a re-evaluation of what progressive politics should be about. Rather than opposing the capitalist system – which looked increasingly impregnable – they saw the enemy as ‘universalism’, of which there were left versions as well as right. Feminism provides the case in point. Launched in the 1960s and 70s, the ‘second wave’ of feminism demanded recognition for women as women, not as women who were adjunct members of the working class. The same was true of black power, and the gay, lesbian and bisexual movements. This new types of identity politics asserted the difference of political subjects against monolithic and exclusive definitions of what it is to be human.

Although these movements were still strongly aligned with the traditional left and the critique of capitalism in the 1970s, a decade later identity politics were becoming increasingly disconnected from socialism. By the late 1990s the new social movements, as they were now called, were strongly libertarian, pluralist and suspicious of any kind of unifying principle concerning what radical politics might be for. The anti-globalisation protests and the series of World Social Forums (WSF) which emerged from them in the 2000s show this very well. Indeed, the collapse of the WSF over the last few years suggests that the strong emphasis on identity, autonomy and plurality has been self-defeating. With no general goals, or programme for achieving them, the new social movements seem to have lost their way.

Still, the demands for recognition and autonomy which drove the new radical politics back in the 70s have not gone away. The challenge now must be to integrate them with the demands of the labour movement. That’s where No2EU, Yes to Democracy comes in. Simultaneously an attack on BNP far right nationalism and the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of the EU, the campaign calls for a Europe where workers’ rights are protected and public services are enhanced rather than cut back and privatised.

The recent strikes at the Lindsey oil refinery suggest that a crucial negotiation has to made here; between the principle of recognising others, in this context workers of other nationalities within the EU, and the need to defend pay and conditions which have been struggled for over many years. The right approach is surely not to say that one simply trumps the other, that the recognition of identity is more important than economic equality or vice versa. Rather it is to show how capitalism conveniently appeals to the recognition of difference (‘workers of whatever nationality have the right to work anywhere in Europe’) while exploiting difference as means of driving down wages across Europe in a race to the bottom. At Lindsey it was workers from impoverished southern Italy who were contracted for well below union negotiated rates.

All this suggests that reconciling difference and identity with demands for social justice is going to involve, above all, the exposure of pernicious ideology. But that’s nothing new. Perhaps two thirds of the struggle of radicals has always consisted in refuting lies and ‘telling truth to power’ as Edward Said once put it.

About the author

Jason Toynbee is Senior Lecturer in Media Studies at The Open University. His research interests are in creativity, copyright, and ethnicity - mainly through music - and his new book, Bob Marley: Herald of a Postcolonial World? is just out.

Subscribe to Jason Toynbee's posts