Review of “What Money Can’t Buy — The Moral Limits of Markets” by Michael Sandel
Summary of Review
Raises some interesting questions but is limited in its applicability to life by its lack structure and inherently conservative position.
Summary of Book (Key Arguments)
- Markets have become a more prevalent in modern capitalist economies in the last 35 years; expanding from the efficient allocation of commodities (e.g. furniture and steel) “into spheres of life where they don’t belong…we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society”.
- Markets are highly effective at driving economic growth, and allocating goods and services to those most willing to pay, but that should not be our only concern.
- The first problem with allocating goods and services by markets is inequality. “In a society where everything is for sale, life is harder for those of modest means”. This can lead to situations where the rich lead separate lives to the rest of society, damaging democratic values. (e.g. the rich watching baseball games from the skyboxes, rather than with the rest of the crowd, as it used to be).
- The second problem is that markets can corrupt the thing being sold. “When we decide that certain goods may be bought and sold we decide, at least implicitly, that it is appropriate to treat then as commodities, as in instrument of profit and use”. (e.g. “Paying kids to read books may get them to read more, but also teach them to regard reading as a chore rather than a source of intrinsic satisfaction”)
- Prominent economists have argued that spheres of life that aren’t governed by markets and self interest should be limited, as altruism is a limited resource that should be conserved. e.g. Lawrence Summers: “We only have so much altruism in us. Economists like me think of altruism as a valuable and rare good that needs conserving. Far better to conserve it by designing a system in which people’s wants will be satisfied by individuals being selfish, and saving that altruism for our families and friends”.
- This idea of altruism being limited is wrong; “Altruism, generosity, solidarity, and civic spirit are not like commodities that are depleted with use. They are more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise”.
Reflections
The book provides a valuable service by highlighting that there appears to be a moral question that appears upon the introduction of markets into the allocation of a good. Classic questions of should we allow people to sell their organs can be added to these problem of how the market allocation of a good can change how we view and treat that good.
However the book is very limited in a framework to approach the problems. It is simply a list of examples, with no guidance on what makes the sale of food not degrading vs paying children to read is degrading.
This lack of guidance I believe links to the underlying conservatism of the book. It wants to offer no guidance as it has opinions that may not be popular. One example is the passage against kindle advertisements. I bought a kindle with adverts several years ago to reduce the price, and did not feel as though books were made profane. It would feel to me a great imposition if a government could regulate away these innovations to serve an undefined higher good.
Another example was the Moneyball example. Again Sandel was against the innovation within the game, in a way that felt was a simple appeal to the human element. He would prefer inefficiency, as long as it made humans feel more relevant. Rutgar Bregman of “Utopia for Realists” had a similar wish, talking about a community factory where they had removed automation to give elderly people in their community the opportunity to work in the factory. If this ideology spread it would be a severe drag on innovation and change, leading to a more stagnant society.
Finally I believe the idea of altruism being limited was not explored fully by Sandel. In one way altruism is truly limited, by distance more than strength. We can practice full communism within the family but as we extend out beyond Dunbar’s number our ability to interact with others on basis of altruism is limited; especially in a multi-racial/religious/ideological societies
Other Reviews
