Evangelists For The Invisible Hand

Evangelists for the Invisible Hand: Thinktanks and Theology

It should be of interest to all of us here that there is now a public theological debate going on in the publications, press releases and web pages of a number of free market think tanks. Perhaps the word debate is too generous - the purpose of think tanks being in part to shape opinion by statement in the public sphere of the press rather than allow internal debate within themselves. But it has become oddly apparent in the last few months of my research that several of these groups consider theology worthy enough to publish voluminous and no doubt quite expensive research on the topic. In the following paper I intend to firstly give brief account on the role and importance of specifically right wing think tanks in public policy disputes in the post-World War II period. In the second I wish to analyse two recent forays into theology by two well funded think tanks. Some reference will be given to the on going reaction of these groups to the current economic crisis. Their reaction to recent statements by religious leaders about the causes and solutions of the current financial crisis offers us an incredible experimental microcosm of their work as a whole - indeed, the reactions have been fierce, aggressive and often in a specifically theological register- or a mix of theology with a odd kind of common sense economics. Thirdly and finally I will suggest how such actions by these think tanks suggest certain aspects of religious discourse and ask: why do think tanks feel the need to do theology, and why do they feel the need to do theology now?

I

So let us begin by asking, what is a think tank? Within the literature regarding the spread of the ideas of neoliberalism since the late 1960s, the interest in think tanks as well as other, what might be called “intermediate bodies” that are not at the level of state or corporation such as University departments, certain types of education (for example, Business and Managment MAs) and international bodies, in developing, arguing for and setting the terms of the public debate regarding the proper place and use of markets in organising society. In the UK, think tank is a phrase for what has, in the view of most researchers, been a phenomena since the mid eighteenth century - nongovernmental groups of experts, generally self-appointed, who seek to influence public debate or governmental policy on certain matters, generally funded by large philanthropic donations. Such formations are generally orientated around a central set of philosophical ideas. An example of this from the early nineteenth century is the group The Philosophical Radicals, which included John Stewart Mill. Inspired by Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian ideas, this group attempted to convert the philosophical ideas into a practical programme of government policy and reform. British history was also marketed by the influence of the left-wing Fabian society, established in 1884, who attempted to agitate for socialist reforms, for example, health care and the minimum wage. Explicitly, it is the success of the Fabians that inspired the creation of what might be called the seed of all successful free market think tanks, the Mont Pelerin Society. In a sense, the establishment of this Society was a defensive action to the ‘politicization of the economy’ - the 1930s had seen the Great Depression and other systematic shocks to the capitalist system as well as increased participation in democracy by the mass of people and the 1940s had seen these same people often advocate for more social care and market

intervention on the basis that returning soldiers deserved a better economic deal. Keynesian as macro-economic policy, which also advocated intervention in markets, was seen globally as the necessary future policy. Fearing that free market ideas might be substantially weakened and that the individualistic, pro-’Freedom’ capitalism and their own interests might be diminished as well as that any form of collective decision making leads to fascism of some kind, a step on the ‘road to serfdom’, against the tide of the time, Swiss businessman Albert Hunold and Austrian philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek assembled 38 loosely affiliated liberal intellectuals from Europe and the United States in a hotel in village of Mont Pelerin close to Lake Geneva in Switzerland. In part, what was to become The Mont Pelerin Society established the blue print that was copied by free market think tanks globally. In the first instance, it was funded in part by a large set of corporate interests, in this case the Volker Fund under Harold Luhnow, who had enthusiastically read Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom and eventually introduced Hayek to the likes of Friedman at the Chicago School of Economics. Secondly, Hayek’s speech ‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ identified what was to be the two driving priorities for think tanks. Here I use the word socialist in order to remain close to Hayek’s own words, though most actual socialists might see the Keynesian at the time as far from it. 1. Because liberalism at the time lacked powerful public intellectuals, scientists and figures in the public discourse, it required them, and required that they be able to offer in all fields anti-socialist agendas and policy suggestions. These people should not merely be academics, but ‘practical men’: journalists, politicians, those with influence.

2. Because in Hayek’s view, the socialist worldwiew was present throughout the knowledge-disseminated institutions of society, that is, the Universities, the journals, the press, the foundations, the institutions of government, neoliberal ideas must counter and distribute their own ideas through these institutions, by having people involved in all of them. They must also be dynamic, always ready to counter an argument in the public debate. The task was then to build what Hayek termed ‘second hand dealers in ideas’, who would enter debates proffering neoliberal solutions and actively attempt to persuade people that, in classic Thatcherite rhetoric, ‘There Is No Alternative’. They must construct a ‘liberal programme’ that not only engages in justification from the basis of sterile economic fact, but creates a utopian vision, one that vitally ‘appeals to the imagination’, that is, at its heart, partially emotive - all tricks they had learnt from the observation of the success of the Fabians. Hence they were to construct a worldwide and pan-disciplinary network of what only can be described as ‘evangelists for the invisible hand’ even down to the distribution of ‘tracts’ - the Volker Fund gave away via its National Book Foundation libertarian books to universities. Think Tanks, nonacademic institutions that could gain influence and easily be set up, were to be a vital element of this. The power of this strategy, and it was a conscious strategy has been quite incredible - to politicians free market solutions, and values such as the ability to choose, say, a school, seem almost nonnegotiable.

II

Now one might ask at this point: what does this have to do with theology, both what I might term “folk theology”, that is, the theology of the pews and the formation of a worldview inside the minds of religious people, as well as academic theology in the academy? Well, even if we look at the Mont Pelerin Society, we can see that since Hayek and his peers required ‘socialist filters’ to be countered in all spheres of life, theology was an element of their meetings the first meeting discussed ‘Christianity and Liberalism’, liberation theology was talked about, the church on occasion discussed. In fact, there are significant attempts to ‘step on the turf’ of theology by the establishment of whole thinktanks dedicated to religious questions. A few examples. The Institute on Religion and Public Life, which publishes the theological middlebrow journal First Things under the editorship of Richard Neuhaus, and the Acton Insitute For The Study of Religion and Liberty - yet even the massive American Enterprise Institute has a resident theologian in Catholic thinker Michael Novak. Let us turn for a moment to the Acton Institute, then bring the situation closer to home and examine the theological turn of the UK Institute For Economic Affairs. The purpose of this institute is plainly to counter the bias it sees against free markets amongst clergy and religious people and show how the free market economy has a moral basis that may be . It is incredibly well funded - assets of 4.5 million dollars in 2004, with an expenditure of 3.7 million, grants over the last ten years being over 5.7 million dollars from a variety of sources, including, for example the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, whose mission

is

to

promote

democractic

capitalism,

freedom

and

personal

responsibility, as well as telling people global warming isn’t happening and if it is, it will benefit the free market anyway. Both ‘folk theology’ and academic theology are features of the Insitute’s work. It publishes the Journal of Markets

and Morality at an academic level, as well as books and reports such as Economic Thinking For The Theologicallly Minded, and the coffee-table level glossy magazine called Religion & Liberty and a near constantly updated blog called Powerblog. Let me give you an example of the kind of work it does. In 2003, its director Father Robert Sirico spoke to a conference of the world’s largest oil company ExxonMobil, a company accused of serious human rights abuses in Indonesia. At the time, a group called the Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility were bringing unsuccessful shareholder motions calling for ExxonMobil to follow suit with its major rivals and invest some money in renewable energy, acknowledging that carbon emission do cause global warming as it has consistently denied (of course, the Acton Insititute does not believe in anthropoic global warming either). Sirico stated that shareholders should disregard religious activists concerns because they were based on bad economic arguments and that the primary duty of the company was to its shareholders. On the website of the Acton Insitute that we can observe the immediate reaction to the financial crisis - naturally it is the fault of economic actors and government intervention - and more vitally, religious leader commentating upon it. One weblog post is quite striking. Entitled ‘Why Not Learn Some Economics First?’, it is a response to Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, who stated that in the face of the financial crisis, the logic of the market must change from one of “maximum gain” where investments are directed towards goals of purely obtaining “maximum benefit” something he believes to be against Catholic Social Teaching, “All of us should collaborate in the good of All”. The response, anonymously given, is acerbic - “the economics in his statement would be more appropriate for a kid, rather than a cardinal”, “churchmen who have no

real economic training” should stop “making remarks which might mislead the faithful” - the market is self generating, natural and fair, and provides quite easily “all for the good of all”.

And it it is in Catholic Social Teaching that provides the link with the actions of the UK based Institute of Economic Affairs, and the pet project, seemingly, of its director of research Philip Booth - to show how Catholic Social Teaching advocates the free market economy. In line with Hayek’s evangelism, the argument is to be made popularly and in the academy in lengthy treatises. For example, on the publishing of the book he edited Catholic Social Teaching and The Market Economy (which is among 3 or 4 other book length publications on religion and the market), Philip Booth wrote articles in large circulation Catholic publications. Articles regarding, say, the pro market philosophy of Benedict XVI are published in their journal of economics and public policy Economic Affairs. With regard to the public voice, a very pertinant article was published in the Catholic Times by Booth on the 4th of November entitled ‘Bishops should tread carefully in their response to the financial crash’. Booth begins by chastising The Archbishops of York and Canterbury for their analysis. Rowan Williams is said to have made an “imprudent observation” in stating that the era of “unregulated markets” is over - it took many years, says Booth, to analyse the causes of the Great Depression, and the Bishop should refrain from being so bold, and then proceed to offer his own, quite quite watertight interpretation of events - that, of course, it was complex regulation that was a partial cause.

From reading a number of these articles (by no means enough!) there appear to be three major elements of these arguments made, which I will analyse in a moment. The theological arguments often proffered are quite thin to say the least, partly because the IEA believes it has won the economic arguments so entirely that theological arguments are an irritating after thought, clergymen an irritating fly in their market ointment for all problems. Most often they operate via analogy between an free market economic theory on one hand and a theological principle on the other. For example, in a short piece ‘Christianity, The Market Economy and the Limits to Human Knowledge’, Philip Booth states that Hayek’s epistemological doctrine concerning the limited perspectives of human knowledge that led Hayek to believe the market is the perfect spontaneous organisation are compared strongly to notions of the limits to humanity imposed by the Fall and the need therefore for Grace. After making this very basic comparison with a conclusive flourish, Booth states that “The market economy or the free spontaneous order should be the starting point for the social teaching of Christian Churches”, a statement that is odd considering he has just attempted to check sinful human hubris in making grandeous statements about the human capacity to do good spontaneously or otherwise,

as

well

as

assuming

a

deal

of

questionable

assumptions

philosophical and otherwise that the free spontaneous order exists or is desirable. The classic argument is that in being capitalists, with share in the power of God as creator. Let us briefly analyse the common logic to many of these arguments: 1. An overcoding of commonly made free market arguments into a theological register. Theology speaks entirely the voice of a free market advocate, with almost precisely the same accent, yet with subtly religious words. First a

common free market argument - that the welfare state should be dissolved, and only entirely voluntary charity should provide any welfare. Then its theological re-rendering - Pope Benedict XVI’s reflections on Charity in his Cur Deus Est are rigourously anti-state and nod towards and advocacy of free markets. Theology is hardly a starting point - the richness of Catholic Personalism is reduced to thoughts on personal economic responsibility that reduce the welfare state. 2. An appeal to authority on behalf of the free market think tank over against the member of the clergy making the anti-market statement. The free market advocates are economists and simply know better about the economy. An example of this is a review of a book on Catholic Social Teaching, where one priest is said to be like the BBC, who presents the objective facts, but cannot help adding his own opinions and views, but in doing so he strays beyond his level of understanding. In a sense then, Catholic Social Teaching establishes very vague principles, and the free market economist fills in all the gaps. The epistemological warrant of the religious is denied, and in a microcosm, the science/religion debate is replaying - theologians, and indeed, moralists of all kinds, should give heed to certain objective facts about the economic order that one cannot ignore to do so would be like ignoring gravity in a discussion of hanging. 3. Despite these efforts, there is a sheering of people’s religious identities from their economic ones at points: it is often pointed out that in their opinion, most economic matters are subject to the prudential judgement on behalf of individual believers. A double argument seems to be in effect. One says it is up to the opinion of the believer, then spins the believer towards their point

of view through appealing arguments such as appeal to tradition and papal authority - on one hand the

teaching authority of the magisterium is not

binding on economic matters, but on the other if they were, they would advocate this. Occasionally, the IEA claims that, in for example, The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of The Church, often quotes from Vatican statements of different levels of authority, therefore the orthodox believer is not bound to it. So a loosening where a statement does not agree with a free market principle, and a binding where it does. 4. A general attempt to avoid specific historically grounded examples of markets, and rather talk of markets in the abstract. Despite the fact Catholic Social Teaching is generally acknowledged as changed with new events and circumstances, ever time events are mentioned in the literature, the IEA objects on the grounds it should merely outline general principles. Principles that end up being so general any argument can be made. However, the IEA roam freely making historical examples of the effectiveness of markets consistently. III

Now given all this, we might enquire precisely why organisations like the IEA and Acton feel the need to make theological arguments, and why at this point more than ever? Here I wish to make just a few suggestions, that might lead to further debate. 1. In general neoliberalism has always been, and continues to be, a crisis form of economics, an idea popularised by Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine, but widely noted by the likes of Critical Geographer Jamie Peck,

sourced directly from Milton Friedman’s work. In a crisis, it offers its solutions and pushes for change. But since it realises this, it also understands that at points where free markets seem to be to blame for a problem, as in the case of the financial crisis now, or in the anti-globalisation movement that gained popularity in previous years, one must redouble ones efforts to convince the skeptical public that you are right. Religious leaders making statements must therefore be countered. Catholic Social Teaching seems here to be highly useful to someone making an argument to convince someone. It is a set of principles that one can easily find and quote from, and the believer is bound to assent to some degree. 2. . As someone told me to end of a radical statement, I will conclude on one. What concerns the free market advocates is that religious people are intrinsically inclined place limits on markets. At a very crass base, religion is about what has value, what is exchangable in a market transaction, what may not be - what forms of objects and relations, and classes of things are “invaluable”, incapable of being priced. In a sense, religion represents the final frontier of preventing the marketisation of all reality. Advocates find a stopping point with the religious that they must either assimilate or dissolve through economic pressure, or as in the case of the IEA, through argument. This combined with a whole constellation of beliefs regarding the nonintervention into markets and theology as a neccesary battleground in the war of ideas. This is combined with the fact that often in their evangelism, sometimes despite themselves, they present a counter theology. In engaging with theology directly, these freemarket think tanks only serve to reveal just how theological there own, in their beliefs are.