It's taken me a little while, but at the end of November I was challenged by a set of talks given by Richard Brewster on our church weekend away about the parable of the lost son. Particularly, it was suggested that there were actually two lost sons, as the elder son who gets upset when the younger son returns and is welcomed, is also lost to his father.
The parable points thus to two sinful sons. The younger is foolish, impatient, aberrant and blows his wealth enjoying the world and all it offers. The elder though is self-righteous and also has a substandard relationship with his father because of this, throwing a strop because the younger son is forgiven, and revealing in doing so that he also doesn't have a good relationship with his father either.
What struck me during these talks was the parallel with the welfare state. The elder son essentially rails on about the deserving poor, wondering why generosity is afforded to those who do not deserve it. It sounds quite familier - a lot like what many are saying about benefits recipients at the moment. The elder son is in the same boat as the folk that complain about the level of benefits: They are forced to live in a system that takes from them and redistributes to others who they see as undeserving of that.
But does the parable really mean that we should thus submit to a government that redistributes? Is the role of the father in the parable, and hence the Father that the parable points to, really to be taken up by governments, or should it just be the role of individuals giving voluntarily? After all, God loves a cheerful givers. I'm not a theologian, so I don't want to push the theological links any further and appeal to those who know much more than I.
My only concern with the privatised situation is that charitable giving, by definition, has positive externalities. This means that the free market outcome will yield a level of giving that is socially sub-optimal, even though it is privately optimal, because private individuals don't realise the full benefit of their giving. Of course though, the solution is not necessarily that we totally nationalise the redistribution system - the optimal solution would be some kind of subsidy to the process, in theory. I haven't really thought fully through whether that would work, nor even bothered to look into what people have written on this in the academic literature. But it intrigues me.
Are those that moan about the excessive levels of benefits simply elder sons, and just as estranged from their Father as those who frivolously waste the Father's good gifts?
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, December 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
More About This Blog
It's already been a few hours since my first post, and many things are still on my mind from discussions with various folk in recent weeks, on Facebook and elsewhere.
I should emphasise, if I haven't already, this blog is an attempt to collect my thoughts somewhere where they can be challenged or encouraged, and generally refined as they need to be.
It's not an attempt to raise economics above the Bible, or above other issues when people decide their political affiliation. It most certainly is not an attempt to paint one particular party as the Christian party; all parties are composed of fallen, sinful people and everyone knows that collective organisations of sinful people can make rather large pigs ears of things.
However, how broadly should economics be defined is an important question? A friend suggests social justice should come above economics in the grand scheme of things when we consider where our Christian vote or political affiliation goes. According to Wikipedia, "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being".
There's little doubt that social justice is a philosophical concept but also clearly it is an economics concept, and I suspect I'll be coming back to this again and again. Notably because in order to create a society that satisfies what Christians would decide to be the appropriate level of human right recognition and dignity, one has to have a deep understanding of the economic mechanisms at work that produce particular outcomes in society.
Often a free market can provide exactly this: Dignity and freedom for all participants. But economic theory is fairly clear that this happens when a market is competitive and all participants are price takers. Once we move away from this paradigm then we start to enter the realm where dignity is not afforded to all by the market and the question is what do we do then?
If we intervene we have to humbly recognise that government failure can be just as bad if not worse than the market failure that prompted it. We also have to give due consideration to the structures we will set in place; what incentives will they provide for market participants?
As I say, I'll come back to this plenty in the weeks and months to come I expect. But hopefully I've made it fairly clear that economics has to play a huge role in the matters important to a Bible-adhering Christian, and a good understanding of economics is very important when that Christian comes to think about politics and policies.
I should emphasise, if I haven't already, this blog is an attempt to collect my thoughts somewhere where they can be challenged or encouraged, and generally refined as they need to be.
It's not an attempt to raise economics above the Bible, or above other issues when people decide their political affiliation. It most certainly is not an attempt to paint one particular party as the Christian party; all parties are composed of fallen, sinful people and everyone knows that collective organisations of sinful people can make rather large pigs ears of things.
However, how broadly should economics be defined is an important question? A friend suggests social justice should come above economics in the grand scheme of things when we consider where our Christian vote or political affiliation goes. According to Wikipedia, "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being".
There's little doubt that social justice is a philosophical concept but also clearly it is an economics concept, and I suspect I'll be coming back to this again and again. Notably because in order to create a society that satisfies what Christians would decide to be the appropriate level of human right recognition and dignity, one has to have a deep understanding of the economic mechanisms at work that produce particular outcomes in society.
Often a free market can provide exactly this: Dignity and freedom for all participants. But economic theory is fairly clear that this happens when a market is competitive and all participants are price takers. Once we move away from this paradigm then we start to enter the realm where dignity is not afforded to all by the market and the question is what do we do then?
If we intervene we have to humbly recognise that government failure can be just as bad if not worse than the market failure that prompted it. We also have to give due consideration to the structures we will set in place; what incentives will they provide for market participants?
As I say, I'll come back to this plenty in the weeks and months to come I expect. But hopefully I've made it fairly clear that economics has to play a huge role in the matters important to a Bible-adhering Christian, and a good understanding of economics is very important when that Christian comes to think about politics and policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)