One doesn’t normally get the impression that many high churchmen are committed exponents of the free market.
Even when the free market is circumscribed by laws safeguarding fundamental moral values (like: You can’t buy and sell intrinsically immoral goods and services), and while John Paul II acknowledged that the market is able to do better for man than Communism, the impression is still given that many churchmen are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of the free market.
But there seems to be an evolution of thought occurring on this subject. As the economies of the world have developed, it has become more and more clear what works and what doesn’t, and the reputation of the free market seems to be improving in at least some ecclesiastical circles.
One recent sign of at least part of this is a March 9th position paper issued by the Holy See for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s conference on agrarian reform and rural developement.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate a copy of the document, but from what can be gleaned of its contents from the news, it appears that at least some folks at the Vatican appreciate the fact that protectionistic farm subsidies and trade barriers in the developed world hurt farmers in the developing world.
Thus, according to the Catholic News Service (EXERPTS):
Justice requires that wealthy nations reconsider the level of subsidies they offer their own farmers and the barriers that countries place on the import of agricultural products from developing nations, the Vatican said.
While developing countries have to take responsibility for their own agrarian policies, the Vatican said, rich countries cannot ignore the impact their internal policies, particularly farm subsidies and trade barriers, have on the poor.
"Correcting this situation means appealing for a concrete concept of justice capable of being realized in policies, rules, norms and acts of solidarity," the Vatican said.
What you’ve just heard is the sound of one shoe dropping.
The other shoe–if it is to drop–is the recognition that what’s good for the third world in this respect is good for the first.
The fact developed countries are as economically developed as they are is no accident: It’s because they developed a legal and cultural environment in which economic development could take place, and that has been helped along by refusal to engage in economic protectionism and thus have free markets.
True, Europe is presently in the grip of a wave of protectionism that has hampered its economy, and even here in America there are protectionist elements (like all the farm subsidies the government gives out), but an important part of our economic development is that our markets are free-er than they could be.
It’ll be interesting to see how thought on these matters evolves in ecclesiastical circles in the future.
So long as the economic system serves the people, and not the other way around…after listening to enough hardline the-free-market-is-the-holy-cow consumerist capitalist economic thinkers – and watching the destruction of local markets that goes with – its not surprising that anyone should be hesitant to appear to endorse it.
That said, I don’t think that this (what you blogged about) represents a real change in thinking for these churchmen – just a recognition that in this instance, a freer market would benefit those third world communities where the local economy has already become reliant on an international market.
The Vatican needs to take a hard-line on restrictions on economic trade. After all, its chief export – sacramental graces – has long been hindered by the restrictions of indifference and hostility imposed by secular governments. Ironically, in this respect, some of the most impoverished nations are sometimes those with the most economic wealth.
The Conference is a strong supporter of continued funding levels for both food stamps and the conservation program, and has long supported common-sense adjustments in the farm-subsidy program to protect America’s family farmers while creating a more just marketplace for poor farmers in developing countries. [Emphasis mine.]
USCCB – Food and Nutrition Programs, Oct 2005
Didn’t Cardinal Pell write a few essays a while back about globalization and how it could lead to reducing poverty around the world?
Uneasiness wuth the free market stems from an understanding that it can never create a perfect world, that it has inherent imperfections in a dynamic, non-static world. It reminds me of Einstein opposing quantum mechanics because it shattered his elegant view of the world.
I perceive a related uneasiness with democratic forms of government that seemingly goes hand-in-hand with a free market economy. (And some would argue that secularism is inherently a part of that partnership.)
And developed countries have engaged in protectionism. European mercantilism and colonialism was the ultimate in protectionist policy. The American Revolution was fought in part against the effects of British protectionism. And the former colonies had their development retarded by rules designed to keep the status quo of power rather than to allow the local development of a more liberal cultural and legal environment.
Ultimately, free trade works if foreign countries are treated as equal partners and not as new markets to be opened and exploited.
Whereupon I think: Zimbabwe.
Remember how Zimbabwe threw farmers off their farms because they were white — in the middle of the growing season, when they were growing crops that needed constant care, and Zimbabwe was in the middle of a famine.
But Zimbabwe was unable to export its misery; no one was dependent on its food supply.
Again, consider Great Britain in WWI. It wasn’t at war with the US, which was its major source of food. But submarines meant that serious hardship ensued. JRR Tolkien wrote to his son about the hardships his mother suffered: she was pregnant during the “submarine summer.”
When your food supply is not in your own country, you have endangered the lives of everyone in it.
Of course, better exports might improve those countries, and stabilize them. However, those who are responsible for the lives of their countrymen have to take their safety into account, too.