Search results

Addresses the question: “Are Christian values reflected in contemporary American economic ethics?” Compares the ethics dictated by neoclassical production theory with the Christian production values found in Pope John Paul II′s encyclical, Laborem Exercens . The encyclical rejects the notion that output is the primary goal of production. The implication is that neoclassical production theory is necessary, but not sufficient. Public policy in the United States has long been based on neoclassical production theory. In the last decade, the downsizing and restructuring of production has heightened emphasis on neoclassical production efficiencies. During this period, prevailing economic ethics were largely in conflict with Christian values. The fledgling policy initiatives of the Clinton administration suggest a commitment to reshape policy in ways which more positively incorporate a number of the reforms suggested by Laborem Exercens. If a new economic (production) ethic evolves out of these commitments, the compatibility between economic ethics and Christian values will be greater a decade from now.

In 1978, Lewis Hill, in an instructive article in the Review of Social Economy, persuasively demonstrated that “the goals and objectives of social economies are completely compatible with the philosophy and methodology of institutionalism”. Consequently, he concludes, “both schools of economic thought could be strengthened by a synthesis which would merge the goals and objectives of social economics with the pragmatic philosophy and methodology of institutional economics”. Hill arrived at this conclusion by first summarising the goals and objectives of social economics and by distilling the work of Thorstein B. Veblen, John R. Commons, Wesley Clair Mitchell and Clarence E. Ayres, thereby setting forth the philosophy and methodology of institutional economics. Noting that the “four founding fathers of institutionalism constitute an extremely diverse group of scholars”, he observed that “the only feature which ties them together…was their common acceptance of pragmatism as the philosophical basis of their economic thought”. He then identified seven aspects of the effects of pragmatism on the philosophical foundation of institutionalism. He also described five characteristics that set social economists apart.

This essay uses three of Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals, Laborem Exercens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, and Centesimus Annus to articulate principles that may be useful in evaluating public oversight of multinational enterprises (MNE). These encyclicals are challenges to the prevailing socio‐economic order by an institution that cannot be dismissed as “knee‐jerk liberal” carping. On the contrary, the fact that a conservative institution asserts these principles repeatedly and over time may mean that they should be included in our public consideration of the global resonance of MNEs. Insofar as MNE expansion can mean pervasive improvements in the standard of living of the earth’s population, the writings of Pope John Paul II lead to the conclusion that MNE expansion should be encouraged as long as all of the participants, especially the citizens of developing countries, participate in the benefits. MNE expansion and the expected socio‐economic dislocations accompanying the expansion will require institutional arrangements to minimize conflict, promote cooperation, and encourage solidarity. An organization for multinational enterprises (an OMNE) could fill this need by reducing MNEs’ fears about adverse host country policy changes and simultaneously providing assurances that the citizens of the MNE‐host country will share in the rents generated by the MNE’s expansion.

This paper builds a system‐dynamics model of the Mexican economy and tests several propositions regarding policy and income inequality. It concludes, among other things, that one of the most significant developments over the past twenty years has been the declining wage paid to those in the manufacturing export sector. As a consequence, policies aimed at increasing developing states participation in the internationalization of production have been less helpful than supposed.

John Paul II's views on economic systems have been construed differently by some commentators who have been seeking approval for their own views rather than searching for the meaning that he himself intends to convey. John Paul is labeled by many as favoring capitalism, and by others as supporting socialism. A few have been scrutinizing his statements in hopes of finding support for a “third‐way.” In this paper, John Paul is quoted at length to represent his views more accurately.

This paper originated in a collection of essays on the theme of John Paul II's vision of the social economy that was published by the International Journal of Social Economics in fall 1998. This author is indebted to the contributors to that collection for many insights into John Paul's vision. Eight topics are covered: consumption, distribution, capital investment, work as such, leisure, labor, development, and market economy versus command economy. This paper uses many more direct quotes than is customary in scholarly work, but there is no other way to proceed and remain faithful to John Paul's vision of the social economy.

John Paul's writings on economic affairs are significant for what they teach about the premises employed in economics. His own philosophy of the human person reinforces the four premises of personalist economics more so than the premises of the mainstream and challenges the mainstream at its foundations in the philosophy of individualism.

John Paul speaks to a wide range of issues and questions central to economics and economic affairs. It would be presumptuous to represent this paper as a thorough examination of everything that John Paul has said, written, and means in this regard.

This paper attempts to highlight some of the key arguments that John Paul II has set forth on eight centrally important economic topics, comparing and contrasting his pronouncements with the views of mainstream economists on the same topics.

This paper draws on the insights of 20 professional colleagues specialized in range of subdisciplines in economics, holding faculty positions at major universities in the USA, Italy, and Canada, and with a strong interest in understanding the social economy. The concluding section states John Paul's vision of the social economy in terms of 13 most important arguments.