Economics, Ethics and Religion; Jewish, Christian and Islamic Economic Thought

Citation

Oslington, P. (2000), "Economics, Ethics and Religion; Jewish, Christian and Islamic Economic Thought", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijse.2000.27.1.86.1

This book by Professor Rodney Wilson of the University of Durham is a sign of growing interest in the relationship between economics and religion, and maturity of such study. His aims are “to provide a literature survey which will be useful for further work in this area”, so as “to make a contribution to the cross fertilisation of ideas that is occurring where these two disciplines meet” (p. 1).

In view of the skepticism within the disciplines, and especially within economics, about the value of such work, he immediately tackles the question of why it matters. The answer is first that ethics is bound up with economics and that understanding religion puts ethical issues in fuller perspective; and second that religion affects behaviour, influencing even those without religious beliefs (p. 1‐2). These are strong reasons which are elaborated upon more fully in the introductory chapter on Ethics and Economics. The following three chapters review the literature on economics and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectively. Although the surveys and bibliographies are nowhere near exhaustive they give the reader a feel for the main positions taken in the recent literature. Comments on particular writers are invariably balanced and sensible. Professor Wilson indicates that his own commitment is to Christianity, but his extensive experience in the Middle East and empathy with Islam shows through, particularly in the chapter on that topic.

The significance of the book is its attempt to deal with several religious traditions, although as Wilson points out, a study of these three closely linked Middle Eastern religions is not a comprehensive treatment of economics and religion. Such a project is described as “too daunting” (p. 2) and it is difficult to see how it would be possible for a single individual in today’s academic environment. He also draws back from a fully comparative approach, presenting each of the three religions on their own with only occasional remarks about linkages between the literatures. This is not to minimise the achievement of the book.

Would a fully comparative study be useful if it were possible – say if a lucky academic were granted about ten lives, sympathetic friends around the world and an army of research assistants? The author of such a book would have great difficulties with the diversity of religions. Even within the three religions studied by Professor Wilson difficulties appear. Setting out to present what the scriptures of the three religions say about economic matters there is the immediate problem of scriptures functioning differently in the three religions. An identical statement in each need not mean the same thing, and then there would be the problem of the scriptures having a different place in the authority structure of each of the religions. Scripture has functioned for many Christians as the source of theology from which follow principles for action. The place of theology within Christianity is taken by jurisprudence within Islam. And these generalisations neglect the vast differences between Christians, even Christians within the same denomination, over sources of authority. Ask even a sample of English Anglicans what scripture is and you will get answers ranging from an inerrant blueprint for society, to patriarchal rot, to uplifting poetry. Similar differences over authority exist within Islam, particularly between Sunni and Shi. It is not clear that the idea of religions as self‐contained and competing entities is helpful in thinking about the relationships (e.g. Cantwell‐Smith). Economics is less troublesome than religion, but it also is by no means monolithic. I doubt that a comparative study of economics and religion in general will ever be written. Perhaps God has been wise in not granting us ten lives.

The only area where I would differ with Professor Wilson is his choice of ethics as the bridge between economics and the various religions. Finding some kind of ethical commonality seems to me a cul‐de‐sac in relating economic and various religious perspectives. One of the conclusions of the book is that “although there are differences in worship and approach within and between the religions, the moral concerns in the economic sphere are not that different” (p. 213). I have doubts about the existence of such a commonality. He actually presupposes a particular view of ethics, as a set of rules, which is anything but common to the religions discussed. Within Christian theology there are alternative eschatological views of ethics, and community/meaning views of ethics. Using ethics as a bridge, though, does take advantage of the renewal of interest in ethics, and especially of business ethics as discussed by Professor Wilson. Ethics is not the only bridge between economics and religions – one could also base a study on the historical and/or epistemological/ontological aspects. I suspect greater progress is likely using these bridges than ethics.

Overall, this is a valuable work both for those seeking an overview of the literature on religious economics, and to scholars working in the field. There is much still to be done though.