Economy vs. the Gift?
In Peter Leithart’s post “Gift and Economy,” after clarifying that in reality, the gift and economy are not actually opposed, he concludes with the following question: “If I am right about classical economic theory (and I might stand corrected), the question arises of why it should have developed this way. Why would gift/gratitude/relationship be left out of economic consideration? And, how would economic theory be different if it’s included?”
I am no economist, but my first inclination is to say that the reason that gift/gratitude/relationship is left out of economic consideration is because modern economics itself it predicated upon an economy of lack. The gift is one of surplus, one that in divine terms as D.B. Hart puts it in regards to Anselm, one that “exceeds every debt.” In the gift, there is always a ‘more’ that exceeds the violence of exchange, which is also why Milbank is right to argue for the gift before the contract in our society (see his essay “Liberality versus Liberalism”). Economic theory, if it assumed an economy of abundance (jubilee economics), would be very much more distributive, I think!
I am not an economist either, but I think that historically classical economics emerged as a theory of transactions in a stranger society. Gift-exchange economies are for stable places where relationships are long-term — I give you something now, this makes you feel obliged to me, so next time I’m in need you give me something, etc. In stranger transactions, you need to settle the value of things right away, because you might never have another shot at it.
Peter is right that gift-exchange economies have never left, but when Adam Smith first wrote he was describing what was new — the dawning industrial age — and not the old system that needed no new theory. Modern economists seem to be developing more sophisticated theories that take into account the complexities of human nature, but I don’t pretend to really be up on the latest theories.
Camassia said this on December 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Thanks, Camassia. That raises a very good point about the stranger and therefore how one welcomes the stranger, I would think. Perhaps there is more thought to be done concerning the dawning of the new industrial age and what that has entailed with the stranger, the alien, et. al.
ericaustinlee said this on December 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I think Leithart is right: “pure” economic exchange is an abstract limiting case and models based on it often fail to take into account the social, cultural, etc. context in which exchange takes place and by which it’s conditioned. We never get strictly “what we bargained for.”
That said, I’m often confused when theologians talk about “an economy of abundance.” This seems to imply that production is somehow not a problem: that goods are just “there” waiting to be distributed. Now, granted, the “earth and all its fullness” is a gift, and one that we mistreat badly. But it still requires work to take bits and pieces of the natural world and turn them into goods usable by human beings. And the resources required to do that (labor, time, etc.) are themselves scarce in the sense that if they are allocated to one task they are prevented from being deployed on another. So scarcity and trade-offs seem inevitable. (Well, maybe not if we lived at the level of hunter-gatherers, which seems to me the only truly “git-based” economy that human beings have really known. But even that required some kind of toil! And, come to think of it, didn’t Adam and Eve have to toil in the garden?)
Lee said this on December 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Working for things (i.e. toiling) does not necessarily entail some sort of scarcity. That seems like a fallacy, does it not? Toiling in the garden was a result of the fall, not some original state of things.
The idea of an abundance is not just some “theologians talking,” either. It’s based upon the jubilee economics found in the Old Testament! I don’t think it implies any kind of myopic thing that you’re saying, by the way, concerning production. I think it begins in the confession that we have too much stuff and the realization that to properly participate in the kingdom of God entails gift giving, sharing, distribution, i.e. real justice. To call this mere ‘work’ and suggest that such a thing will always be scarce seems to be exactly the wrong-headed way to look at things. I am not going to agree that this is just “how things are,” but rather, how we have made them.
ericaustinlee said this on December 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Well, I dunno. “Man” is put in the garden to “work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15) which is pre-fall, though maybe it doesn’t have the same burdensome connotations as “toil”?
I don’t at all disagree with the pressing need for us (the rich parts of the world) to share with the rest, but, I mean, all that stuff had to be produced, right? Even if it is presently mal-distributed. If that’s all that an economy of abundance means, then I’m four-square behind it.
My pont is just that production and distribution are two components of economic life and we can’t simply take production as “given” when thinking about distribution. Sharing and gift-giving presuppose production, which requires us to allocate resources and effort. Even in the OT, the sharing presupposes that the Israelites work the land to produce. It’s not manna from heaven the whole way through. That’s all I mean by scarcity: any time and effort I put into, say, growing vegetables is time and effot I don’t have to devote to something else. This isn’t a consequence of sin, but of finitude, I would say. If we had infinite time and energy there would be no problem of scarcity, because it wouldn’t cost us anything to produce goods.
Lee said this on December 12th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
You are right to say that “work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15), but it is not “toil”, which not only has as its definition that work is ‘hard’ (in the bad sense) and ‘laborious’, but this notion of ‘toil’ explicitly comes in in Genesis 3:17-19 post-fall. There is a real difference between working and tilling on the one hand and having to struggle and deal with all the thorns and thistles on the other where the ground then becomes cursed.
“Sharing and gift-giving presuppose production, which requires us to allocate resources and effort.”
No, sharing and gift-giving presuppose the right desire. Talking about ‘production’ is such a vague concept removed from the correct notion of the will, as if our wills are just there to desire whatever we want so we therefore have to ‘produce’ that which meets whatever our desires happen to be.
It is the wrong starting place. An example:
Before I married my wife, she lived in a community house (I know you have said in the past you just could never live in such a situation because you like your space, but bear with me) that had, and still has, a community garden in the back yard. Sure, there was ‘production’ and whatnot, but it really wasn’t anything that was scarce because of our desire to till the earth and allow God to produce veggies and flowers for us. In the end, we always had far too much lettuce, carrots, yams, etc. to eat that they were always giving them away. ‘Scarcity’ becomes a non-issue in such an environment. Notice how your problematic of needing infinite time in this case also becomes a non-problem. That’s not to say that we became infinite beings by any means, but rightly seen, participation in the good in such a way is participation in the infinite which is the Good, so even time, then, becomes a gift in which we find more things to eat than we have time for! Our creaturely finitude becomes ever more present in the toiling, but the harvest is plentiful (literally!).
While my wife no longer lives in this house, it is still going and they still have a garden going strong that has expanded. All of our yams for Thanksgiving this year came from the garden, and we weren’t sure if we were going to have enough, but of course, we had leftovers for days.
These are some of my best friends working the garden at that house –they call it the Basileia house, btw–that are not just some talking theologians, although most of them have taken theology classes. Theology was happening and continues to happen in that garden. (I also grew many of the flowers from seed that we used in our wedding in the same garden. Some of the ones that didn’t grow so well still attracted some of the good bugs that benefit a garden. Again, despite such reminders of our finitude, God provided.)
Peace,
Eric
ericaustinlee said this on December 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I am an economist, but I am not sure that I will provide any more insight. I would agree with the analysis of Camassia that modern economic theory is based on ’stranger’ transactions. This is because economies were able to develop as they were to spread risk across different groups.
For example, if a municipal water source didn’t exist and the garden was the sole source of food, the drought San Diego suffered during the last year and a half would have eliminated the abundance of the Basileia-house garden. I am not trying to discount the ‘good’ in the garden, but that the abundance required the development of a drought-resistant source of water. If Iowa did not suffer from the same drought, then markets would provide a place for ’strangers’ to put a value on their basic needs.
It is noted that the developed economies have greatly exceeded the subsistence farming that is still present in many villages throughout the world and that these villages are still dependent upon the fluctuations in the weather. But it is in this context that ‘jubilee’ economics was written. Is there an appropriate counterpart for an ‘arm’s length transactions’ economy?
One interesting divide is between the Anglo model of ‘Shareholders’ — the corporations only interest is the owners of capital— and the German-Japanese model of ‘Stakeholder’–which incorporates all people affected by the corporation.
Nevertheless, I would point out that current economic models are trying to incorporate networks, religion, and culture but not in ways that I find interesting at this point.
Scott said this on December 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
It might also be worth considering possible ways the very system of production might contribute to a lack for some (and maybe eventually for most or all) if the production methods employed are nonsustainable. Interestingly enough it seems to me that the system based on an economy of lack produces a world where we in the West tend to have a social sense of unlimited-goods, or the idea that economic production can grow without regards to the physical limitations of the earth - the vision of “free trade” causing a rising tide to “lift all boats”, when in reality it may have more to do with drowning out those who have no boats and are unable to swim. An economy of lack leads to more self-centered consumption, which leads to more production but in a way that is still always fundamentally about finding that we perceive we lack. The economy of lack and nonsustainable production are linked.
Contrast that to an economy of abundance, as you say a Jubilee economy - if we start with the assumption that God has created a world for which we are to care and we truly believe that God will provide for us everything we need how much more likely will be be to seek to meet those needs in ways that honor the creation.
In other words, if the world is given as a gift then the gift must be the beginning of how we engage it and each other. If it is an adversary, a different system altogether comes out.
This has me really wanting to read some of Dr. Long’s stuff, as well as Cameron Whybrow’s The Bible, Baconianism, and Mastery over Nature.
Jason Barr said this on December 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Eric, if I read you right, your saying, in essence, that if our desires weren’t mal-formed scarcity wouldn’t be a problem, that it only exists because we desire more than we legitimately need. As the saying attributed to Gandhi: “There is enough in the world to supply every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” And that when we labor together in community there does seem to be a surplus generated. “Many hands make light the work.”
If that’s right, then I think there’s a lot of truth to it. Still, I can’t help but think that, at least in a fallen world, there is struggle to carve out the comforts and goods we enjoy. Agriculture and medicine and the like didn’t invent themselves, much less all our luxuries. Clearly those have been mixed blessings, but few of us are willing to forsake them!
Lee said this on December 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Eric, something much much lighter than anything you might usually read, but on-topic nevertheless: Miroslav Volf’s writing on giving and forgiving as part of a Godly orientation (the book I read is called _Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace_). As I remember he doesn’t spend much time talking about economic models, though buying and bartering do come up as alternatives to giving… so he’s not reasoning from the mundane up to the divine. Instead he reasons from the divine to the mundane — analyzing God’s orientation towards grace and arguing that as images of Him, we should also image His orientation.
KM said this on January 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
KM, thanks for the recommendation. My wife actually got me that book last Christmas, but unfortunately I haven’t gotten to it yet! I will have to bump it up in my queue!
ericaustinlee said this on January 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm