Advertisement

Civil Economy: An Alternative to the Social Market Economy? Analysis in the Framework of Individual versus Institutional Ethics

  • María Guadalupe Martino
Original Paper

Abstract

The Civil Economy (CE) approach, as developed by Italian economists Luigino Bruni and Stefano Zamagni, aims at introducing reciprocity into the economy as a humanizing factor. Despite being presented as an innovative perspective, the CE approach shares many characteristics with the German model of Social Market Economy (SME). The present paper compares both approaches, showing that they in fact share a normative basis and similar aims but address them from diverse points of view; namely, CE addresses them from a virtue ethics perspective and SME from an institutional ethics one. This leads them to stress different aspects and to focus on diverse problems. Therefore, CE would not constitute an alternative to SME but a complement. Thus, a combination of both approaches should allow each to take advantage of their respective strengths and lead to a better result in terms of the common good.

Keywords

Civil economy Social market economy Constitutional economics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Christian Müller and Prof. Dr. Marcelo Resico as well as the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, while retaining the responsibility for any errors or omissions. I am also grateful to the KAAD for the financial support.

Funding

This study was funded by Katholischer Akademischer Ausländer-Dienst (KAAD).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Informed Consent

No human participants involved.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Anheier, H. K. (2014). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becchetti, L., Corrado, L., & Conzo, P. (2017). Sociability, altruism and well-being. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(2), 441–486.Google Scholar
  3. Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical-letter ‘Caritas in veritate’. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va.
  4. Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bruni, L. (2006). Civil happiness: Economics and human flourishing in historical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bruni, L. (2012). The wound and the blessing: Economics, relationships, and happiness. Hyde Park: New City Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruni, L. (2014). The Economy of Communion. A project for a sustainable and happy economic future. Journal of Dialogue & Culture, 3(2), 32–41.Google Scholar
  8. Bruni, L., & Smerilli, A. (2012). Cooperation and diversity: An evolutionary approach. Homo Oeconomicus, 29(2), 141–161.Google Scholar
  9. Bruni, L., & Smerilli, A. (2015). The economics of values-based organizations. An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2008). Fraternity: Why the market need not be a morally free zone. Economics and Philosophy, 24, 35–64.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267108001661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2013). Reclaiming virtue ethics for economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27, 141–164.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.4.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2007). Civil economy: Efficiency, equity, public happiness. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  13. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2013). Zivilökonomie: Effizienz, Gerechtigkeit, Gemeinwohl. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
  14. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2016). Civil economy: Another idea of the market. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caillé, A. (1998). Il terzo paradigma: Antropologia filosofica del dono. Torino: Bollati Borlinghieri.Google Scholar
  16. Cheffers, M., & Pakaluk, M. (2007). Understanding accounting ethics. Sutton: Allen David Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coraggio, J. L. (2006). Sobre el paradigma de la gratuidad. Un comentario desde la periferia. In J. C. Scannone et al. (Eds.), Comunión ¿un nuevo paradigma?: Congreso Internacional de Teología, Filosofía y Ciencias Sociales (1a). Buenos Aires: San Benito.Google Scholar
  18. Defourny, J. (2014). From third sector to social enterprise: A European research trajectory. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgard & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective (pp. 17–41). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eucken, W. (1999). Über die Gesamtrichtung der Wirtschaftspolitik. In W. Oswalt (Ed.), Ordnungspolitik (Vol. 1, pp. 1–24). Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  20. Eucken, W. (2004). Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik: Mit einem Gespräch zwischen Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker und Walter Oswalt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  21. Evers, A., & Laville, J.-L. (2004). Defining the third sector in Europe. In A. Evers & J.-L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, E. R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  23. Freiburger Bonhoeffer-Kreis. (1979). In der Stunde Null: Die Denkschrift der Freiburger “Bonhoeffer-Kreises” Politische Gemeinschaftsordnung. Ein Versuch zur Selbstbesinnung des christlichen Gewissens in den politischen Nöten unserer Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  24. Gold, L. (2010). New financial horizons: The emergence of an economy of communion. Hyde Park: New City Press.Google Scholar
  25. Goldschmidt, N. (1998). Christlicher Glaube, Wirtschaftstheorie und Praxisbezug. Walter Eucken und die Anlage 4 der Denkschrift des Freiburger Bonhoeffer-Kreises. Historisch-Politische Mitteilungen, 5, 33–48.  https://doi.org/10.7788/hpm.1998.5.1.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldschmidt, N. (2014). Die Zukunft der Ordnungspolitik in der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 63, 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1515/zfwp-2014-0102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grassl, W., & Habisch, A. (2011). Ethics and economics: Towards a new humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0747-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groppa, O. (2014). ¿En qué sentido puede ser la reciprocidad una categoría económica? In O. Groppa & C. Hoevel (Eds.), Economía del don: Perspectivas para Latinoamérica (pp. 121–159). Buenos Aires: Ciudad Nueva.Google Scholar
  29. Gui, B., & Sugden, R. (2005). Why interpersonal relations matter for economics. In B. Gui & R. Sugden (Eds.), Economics and social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Habisch, A. (2001). Die Zukunft der sozialen Marktwirtschaft. In O. Schlecht & G. Stoltenberg (Eds.), Soziale Marktwirtschaft: Grundlagen, Entwicklungslinien, Perspektiven (192–228). Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.Google Scholar
  31. Herzog, B. (2010). Old wine in new skins?: Economic policy challenges for the social market economy in a globalized world. In C. L. Glossner & D. Gregosz (Eds.), 60 years of social market economy. Formation, development and perspectives of a peacemaking formula (pp. 147–169). Sankt Augustin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  32. Homann, K., & Blome-Drees, F. (1992). Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klump, R. (2001). Soziale Marktwirtschaft: Geistige Grundlagen, ethischer Anspruch, historische Wurzeln. In O. Schlecht & G. Stoltenberg (Eds.), Soziale Marktwirtschaft: Grundlagen, Entwicklungslinien, Perspektiven. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.Google Scholar
  35. Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leipold, H. (1990). Neoliberal ordnungstheorie and constitutional economics. A comparison between Eucken and Buchanan. Constitutional Political Economy, 1(1), 47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leo XIII. (1891). Encyclical-letter ‘Rerum Novarum’ on the labor and social order. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va.
  38. Lin-Hi, N. (2011), Eine Theorie der Unternehmensverantwortung: Die Verknüpfung von Gewinnerzielung und gesellschaftlichen Interessen. Berlin: E. Schmidt.Google Scholar
  39. Luetge, C. (2005). Economic ethics, business ethics and the idea of mutual advantages. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(2), 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luetge, C., Armbrüster, T., & Müller, J. (2016). Order ethics: Bridging the gap between contractarianism and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 687–697.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2977-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  42. Müller, C. (2013). Die Soziale Marktwirtschaft als wirtschaftsethische Konzeption. In A. Krylov (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility: Wirtschaftsmodelle, Moral, Erfolg, Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 41–64). Berlin: West-Ost-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Müller-Armack, A. (1949). Soziale Irenik. Münster: Selbstverl.Google Scholar
  44. Oswalt, W. (Ed.). (1999). Ordnungspolitik (Vol. 1). Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  45. Pelligra, V. (2005). Under trusting eyes: The responsive nature of trust. In B. Gui & R. Sugden (Eds.), Economics and social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pelligra, V. (2010). Trust responsiveness. On the dynamics of fiduciary interactions. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39, 653–660 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pelligra, V. (2016). Promoting trust through institutional design. In S. Bartolini, E. Bilancini, L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Policies for happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Robbins, L. (1932). An essay on the nature & significance of economic science. London: Macmillan & co. limited.Google Scholar
  50. Röpke, W. (1960). A humane economy: The social framework of the market. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.Google Scholar
  51. Röpke, W. (1961). Die Verantwortung des Unternehmers in der Marktwirtschaft, Schriftenreihe der Industrie und Handelskammer Frankfurt am Main, Genf, June, 20.Google Scholar
  52. Röpke, W. (1987). The problem of economic order. In J. Overbeek (Ed.), 2 essays by Wilhelm Röpke (pp. 1–45). Lanham Md: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  53. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  54. Schäfer, M. (2007). Weichenstellungen für die Zukunft. Die Politische Meinung, 462(5), 9–10.Google Scholar
  55. Schallenberg, P. (2014). Ordnung und Ökonomie: Zu den christlichen Quellen der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Marktwirtschaft und Ethik, 2, 22–48.Google Scholar
  56. Sugden, R. (2018). The community of advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Suntum, U., Böhm, T., Oelgemöller, J., & Ilgmann, C. (2011). Walter Eucken's Principles of Economic Policy Today. CAWM Discussion Papers, 49. Münster.Google Scholar
  58. Vanberg, V. J. (1988). “Ordnungstheorie” as constitutional economics: The German conception of a “Social Market Economy”. ORDO 39, 17–31.Google Scholar
  59. Vanberg, V. J. (2004). The Freiburg School: Walter Eucken and Ordoliberalism. Freiburg discussion papers on constitutional economics 04/11, Walter Eucken Institut e.V.Google Scholar
  60. Vanberg, V. J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and the ‘game of catallaxy’: The perspective of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy, 18, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanberg, V. J. (2014). Ordnungspolitik, the Freiburg School and the reason of rules. Freiburg Discussion papers on constitutional economics 14/01, Walter Eucken Institute e.V.Google Scholar
  62. Vogt, M. (2012). Soziale Marktwirtschaft auf dem Prüfstand: Anthropologische Grundlagen, gerechtigkeitstheoretische Systematik, europäische Weiterentwicklungen. In P. Schallenberg & P. Mazurkiewicz (Eds.), Soziale Marktwirtschaft in der Europäischen Union (pp. 77–102). Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
  63. Weise, P. (2000). Individualethik oder Institutionenethik: Die Resozialisierung des homo oeconomicus. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 1(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
  64. Wörsdörfer, M. (2013). Individual versus regulatory ethics. OEconomia, 3(4)523–557.  https://doi.org/10.4000/oeconomia.690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zamagni, S. (2000). Humanizar el mercado: Propuestas para la sociedad postindustrial. Revista Empresa y Humanismo, II(2), 439–467.Google Scholar
  66. Zamagni, S. (2004). Economía Social de Mercado. Asociación Cristiana de Dirigentes de Empresa (ACDE). Buenos Aires, August 19. Retrieved from http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/45378/cat/423/economia-social-de-mercado.html#modal.
  67. Zamagni, S. (2013). Por una economía del bien común. Buenos Aires: Ciudad Nueva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Economic EducationUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations