Evangelists for the Invisible Hand

8/14/2019 Evangelists for the Invisible Hand

1/11

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 publishvoluminous 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


2/11

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 - non-

governmental 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 Benthams 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


3/11

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 Hayeks The Road To

Serfdom and eventually introduced Hayek to the likes of Friedman at the

Chicago School of Economics. Secondly, Hayeks 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 Hayeks 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.


4/11

2. Because in Hayeks 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, non-

academic 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 non-

negotiable.

II


5/11

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 middle-

brow 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 isnt happening and if it

is, it will benefit the free market anyway. Both folk theology and academic

theology are features of the Insitutes work. It publishes the Journal of Markets


6/11

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 worlds

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


7/11


8/11

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 Hayeks 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


9/11

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 XVIs 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 peoples 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


10/11

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,


11/11

sourced directly from Milton Friedmans 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 non-

intervention 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.

Documents

Evangelists for the Invisible Hand