Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The idea of “extension” is not strictly true, as the genesis of Civil Economy is independent of the development of the Social Market Economy.

  2. 2.

    Individual ethics focuses on the agents’ intentions that directly influence their behavior in the market. Conversely, institutional ethics considers morality at the level of the regulatory framework governing market competition, exerting influence in an indirect way (Homann and Blome-Drees 1992, pp. 118–123).

  3. 3.

    Bruni and Zamagni (2007, p. 168) borrowed this expression from Caillé (1998).

  4. 4.

    For an extensive analysis of this perspective, see Sugden (2018).

  5. 5.

    Gui and Sugden (2005, p. 15) even define ‘reciprocity’ in these terms, as “a relationship between the members of a group of individuals who share some common interest that can be pursued by collective action; each member is motivated to make a fair contribution to the collective action if the others do so too”.

  6. 6.

    Bruni and Zamagni (2007, p. 183) prefer to use the term ‘civil enterprises’ in order to differentiate them from traditional cooperatives, which are usually identified as social enterprises.

  7. 7.

    The Economy of Communion Project was created by the catholic Movement of the Focolare in Brazil in 1991, and today it involves around 860 enterprises in different countries (Bruni 2014, p. 38). These firms divide their profits in three parts, namely, one part to help the poor, the second part to re-invest in the firm in order to create new jobs, and the third part to promote what they call a ‘culture of giving’ (p. 37).

  8. 8.

    These organizations can also be identified as ‘value-based organizations,’ which are defined as organizations, “whose guiding principle (at least at the stage of their foundation) is neither profit, nor some strictly material elements, but an ideal motivation, a mission or ‘vocation,’ which is related in different ways to the intrinsic motivations of those who promote it.” (Bruni and Smerilli 2015, p. 33).

  9. 9.

    The authors use the expression ‘regulating principles’ in a different way than Eucken (2004) does. In the case of CE, those principles are associated with ‘logics,’ while Eucken refers to more concrete policies.

  10. 10.

    The authors borrow the definition of practice from MacIntyre (2007, p. 187): “By a ‘practice’ I am going to mean any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended.” In this sense, the author defines a virtue as “an acquired human quality the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods.” (p. 191, italics in original).

  11. 11.

    The translation was taken from van Suntum et al. (2011, p. 5).

  12. 12.

    The terms in English are taken from van Suntum et al. (2011, p. 7).

  13. 13.

    Grassl and Habisch (2011, p. 45) even state that Civil Economy and Economy of Communion are not just mentioned in the encyclical, but that they are strongly integrated into its theological argument.

  14. 14.

    This does not mean that the conception of human being in SME is simply the ‘homo oeconomicus’ (see Röpke 1960, p. 121); however, that aspect of human intentions forms the basis for the SME’s approach to the economic problem as a PD.

  15. 15.

    See Becchetti et al. (2017) for empirical findings according to this perspective.

  16. 16.

    Bruni and Smerilli (2012) develop a repeated dynamic Prisoner’s Dilemma game intended to show that cooperation is favored by diversity of strategies and suggest that unconditional cooperators can operate as ‘starters’ of cooperation in an environment of non-cooperators and conditional cooperators. However, even though they show cases where this is possible, they also find many non-cooperative equilibria which do not turn into cooperative ones; in this sense, they even recognize “the fragility of cooperation” (p. 155).

  17. 17.

    Recalling some aspects from Aristotle’s theory of sociality and the concepts of Hume and Smith (‘reverberating nature of sympathy’ and ‘self-reflection’), Pelligra (2005, p. 120) argues that trust responsiveness is mainly motivated by the desire for conformity to other’s expectations, which in turn is not only explained by the fear of the other’s reaction but also by a sense of self-worthiness, which is indirectly related to the other’s approval.

  18. 18.

    “Self-discipline, a sense of justice, honesty, fairness, chivalry, moderation, public spirit, respect for human dignity, firm ethical norms—all of these are things which people must possess before they go to market and compete with each other. These are the indispensable supports which preserve both market and competition from degeneration.” (Röpke 1960, p. 125).

  19. 19.

    “Diese kann nur erwachsen, wo eine rechte Individualethik das soziale und wirtschaftliche Leben erfüllt” (Freiburger Bonhoeffer-Kreis 1979, p. 140).

  20. 20.

    Vanberg refers to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), but his arguments regarding the responsibilities assumed by enterprises should be similar concerning civil enterprises, which are, however, not strictly identified with CSR (see Bruni 2012, 25 ff.).

  21. 21.

    Luetge (2005) considers that acting ethically would be an investment for firms (p. 114) that is, a form of self-interested behavior. However, he shows that the economy needs such ethical behavior, and this need could legitimate the action of civil enterprises even though they also have other incentives.

  22. 22.

    Zamagni (2004) uses similar arguments referring to SME.

References

  1. Anheier, H. K. (2014). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London: Routledge.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

  60. Vanberg, V. J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and the ‘game of catallaxy’: The perspective of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy, 18, 199–222.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Guadalupe Martino.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martino, M.G. Civil Economy: An Alternative to the Social Market Economy? Analysis in the Framework of Individual versus Institutional Ethics. J Bus Ethics 165, 15–28 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4069-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Civil economy
  • Social market economy
  • Constitutional economics