I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to this year’s Reith Lecturesby Professor Sandel. He asked some tough questions that face us today and one that stopped me in my tracks was one about the role of markets in achieving public good.
Have markets been disconnected from the public value and if so how do we remedy them? Is it that we have become so greedy or are markets simply responding to demand. Can greed be put to some good use or specifically public good?
Are there things that money can buy but should not buy? He cited examples such as outsourcing security in war torn areas, paying surrogate mothers, access to health care and education as well as refugees!
Should refugees fleeing war torn areas be required to pay $50,000 for an American green card for instance ? Or is a better way to market refugees? How would this work? If Japan had to take in 10, 000 refugees as an obligation but didn’t want to and instead chose to enter into negotiations with Uganda to take on these refugees for a fee. That would enable Japan to meet its obligation and provide Uganda with an income, and provide refugees with somewhere safe to live but would this be fair to the refugees. Is it ethical or morally right to sell refugees?
These are tough questions folk. There are implications for whatever choices we make. Is Equality the same as being fair?
Should UK politicians have claimed all that money simply because they were entitled to it? Were their actions ethical? Do markets have a role to play in ethics? How do you balance it all? Where do we draw the line.
You will recall my earlier blog on Vulture funds someone that read it on Twitter had this to say” GOD SAVE US ALL IF THIS IS A SIGN OF THINGSS TO COME” is she right to be concerned
I would be interested in your views on the issues raised in Reith Lectures
August 16, 2009 at 6:15 am
The idea of marketing refugees or requiring a destination country to pay for accepting them is a non starter.
You cannot turn people into commodities, and if a country gets paid for creating refugees, surely that will simply encourage it to create more?!
On the wider issue of markets, one of the biggest flaws in the capitalist system is that economics (the careful husbandry of all resources) has become synonymous with making as big a financial profit as possible.
It’s been interesting listening to Lord Myners talk about how stock market investment has become detatched from what equities really represent: ownership of and responsibility for the company in question.
He’s floated the idea that people/institutions which invest in companies over the long term should have increased voting rights at AGMs.
So the rememdy, I think, is to move away from a shareholder society (where we’re all trying to make just money out of everything) towards a stakeholder society (where a “fist do no harm” principle applies, before you look to the benefits you may accrue).
I’d love to be around at the turn of the next century to see how it turned out!
August 16, 2009 at 7:20 am
I understand that the marketing of refugees is already happening where Australia pays another country to take in its quarter of refugees and apparently
whilst the Australian government has met its obligation and the receiving country has got an income that income is not necessarily spent on the welfare of the refugees!
I would agree with you on the principle of “first do no harm” which in my mind creates more respobsility amongst us all. In a bizare twist of events I somehow have a feeling that this will be the best thing to come out of this recession!