Market Capitalism and Moral Values.

• Author: Wolfson, Murray

"Men and women do not live by self-interest alone," Samuel Brittain announces in convening a panel of distinguished British economists (plus the great Amartya Sen) to discuss the relation between morality and economics. "They are constrained," the editor of the Financial Times goes on to say, "by rules, conventions and beliefs, even if they are far from saints. Hence the saying that there is honour among thieves" [p. xi]. The resulting papers are careful, serious, honest and informative.

For the most part the authors respect Hume's admonition that one "cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' statement" [p. 2]. Nevertheless, despite the wide diversity of opinion the contributors do find ways to bridge the gap between positive and normative statements. Positive science illuminates the consequences of a previously accepted ethical code and as such serves to expose it to further normative evaluation.

The authors ring the changes on this thesis in considering the market economy. Self-interest in a competitive environment turns "private vice" into "public virtue" in the market, so that attempts to constrain business corporations by public spirited ethics are bound to be counter-productive, says Barry. Not so, claims Sen, when cooperation is a requisite for production. Maximizing individual utility in health care may not maximize the "good" claims Broome. Prisoners' dilemmas, externalities, interpersonal utility comparisons, imperfect competition, asymmetric information, reputation, positive and negative consequences of altruism all appear in due course. Inevitably, there are differences in style, but by and large the conflicting views are expounded by their advocates with skill and sincerity. They are able to dispense with mathematical formalism and still express the nub of their argument with clarity and precision. A preliminary road map chapter to the schools of thought would have been useful at the outset, rather than Hamlin's tidying up exercise at the end. Never mind, this book is worth reading.

The panelists are almost unanimously prepared to accept the idea that a society cannot function without the "ought" that transcends "self-interest." They draw, as a corollary, the conclusion that utility maximization alone is not an appropriate instrument in the design of public policy. I shall argue that there is an important element of truth to that viewpoint, but they have not made the proper case for it.

Several of the authors contend that utility...