Advertisement

On the Origin, Content, and Relevance of the Market Failures Approach

  • Jeffrey MoriartyEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The view of business ethics that Christopher McMahon calls the “implicit morality of the market” and Joseph Heath calls the “market failures approach” has received a significant amount of recent attention. The idea of this view is that we can derive an ethics for market participants by thinking about the “point” of market activity, and asking what the world would have to be like for this point to be realized. While this view has been much-discussed, it is still not well-understood. This paper seeks to remedy this problem. I begin by showing, against some recent commentators, that McMahon’s view and Heath’s view are fundamentally the same. Second, I clarify the sense of “efficiency” at work in the market failures approach. Finally, I argue that, in its current form, this view has little relevance to the real world of business. I conclude by sketching two ways of modifying it to fit our world.

Keywords

Efficiency Heath Ideal theory Market failures McMahon 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Versions of this paper were presented at Northeastern University, Queen’s University, TU Dortmund University, and the University of Pennsylvania. I thank those audiences for instructive feedback. Thanks also to Julian Jonker, Santiago Mejia, Christopher McMahon, Alan Strudler, and an anonymous reviewer for this journal for perceptive comments on a draft of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

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. Heath, J. (2006). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 533–557.Google Scholar
  2. Heath, J. (2014). Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Holley, D. M. (1986). A moral evaluation of sales practices. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 5(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  4. Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal code, real world: A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Jaworski, P. (2014). An absurd tax on our fellow citizens: The ethics of rent seeking in the market failures (or self-regulation) approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 467–476.Google Scholar
  6. Lipsey, R. G., & Lancaster, K. (1956). The general theory of second best. The Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 11–32.Google Scholar
  7. Martin, D. (2013). The contained-rivalry requirement and a ‘triple feature’ program for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 167–182.Google Scholar
  8. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. McMahon, C. (1981). Morality and the invisible hand. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3), 247–277.Google Scholar
  10. McMahon, C. (2013). Public capitalism: The political authority of corporate executives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  11. Moriarty, J. (2018). Against pay secrecy. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(4), 689–704.Google Scholar
  12. Néron, P.-Y. (2016). Rethinking the ethics of corporate political activities in a post-Citizens United era: Political equality, corporate citizenship, and market failures. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 715–728.Google Scholar
  13. Norman, W. (2011). Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 43–57.Google Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sen, A. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238.Google Scholar
  17. Silver, D. (2016). Competition, value creation, and the self-understanding of business. Business Ethics Journal Review, 4(10), 59–65.Google Scholar
  18. Simmons, A. J. (2010). Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(1), 5–36.Google Scholar
  19. Singer, A. (2018). Justice failure: Efficiency and equality in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 97–115.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, J. (2018). Efficiency and ethically responsible management. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 603–618.Google Scholar
  21. Steinberg, E. (2017). The inapplicability of the market-failures approach in a non-ideal world. Business Ethics Journal Review, 5(5), 28–34.Google Scholar
  22. Stemplowska, Z., & Swift, A. (2012). Ideal and nonideal theory. In D. Estlund (Ed.), Oxford handbook of political philosophy (pp. 373–389). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. von Kriegstein, H. (2016). Professionalism, agency, and market failures. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4), 445–464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBentley UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations