I have written this piece to note the importance of creating narratives when discussing the politics of care. The issue matters in its own right. I am also interested in comments on the framing I have used.
What is the role of the market in a politics of care?
One of the questions that my promotion of a politics of care gives rise to is what role might markets play in that form of political thinking?
The question matters because many people assume there are only two options. They think that either society is organised around markets, as neoliberals suggest, or markets are somehow abolished. I think both assumptions are wrong.
In my opinion, a politics of care would not be anti-market. Human beings are creative creatures. We make things, exchange things, invent things, and cooperate through countless voluntary arrangements, and markets can help facilitate those processes. They can provide a space in which creativity, initiative, experimentation, and innovation can occur.
The problem, though, is that markets have no purpose of their own. Markets are just mechanisms. They have no ethical compass. Left to themselves, they do not know whether they are promoting human flourishing or environmental collapse. They do not know whether they are supporting democracy or undermining it. They do not know whether they are building resilience or fragility.
A politics of care does, therefore, have to provide or identify the purpose that markets inherently lack. Markets can, for example, be useful discovery mechanisms. They can also help reveal preferences, coordinate activity, and encourage innovation. However, what they cannot do is tell us what is worth wanting, what should be protected, what obligations we owe each other, or what sort of future we should seek to create. Those are political and social questions that the politics of care embraces.
It does so by beginning with a vision of a good society and then asking how various economic institutions can help achieve it. In that context, markets must be judged according to whether they contribute to that goal. This means that markets are not merely constrained by care; they must be and are embedded within it.
Markets' purpose, in that case, is to help deliver the outcomes that a caring society seeks. Those outcomes include security, opportunity, creativity, participation, sustainability, belonging, minimum levels of well-being, and people's capacity to live meaningful lives.
This is also why a politics of care has no commitment to markets in the abstract. Where markets help create resilience, diversity, innovation, and the freedom to flourish, they may be valuable. Where they create dependence, insecurity, exclusion, monopoly power, ecological damage, financial instability, or political or social capture, they fail.
The key distinction from neoliberalism is therefore not that one likes markets and the other dislikes them. It is that neoliberalism starts with the market and assumes that social good will somehow emerge from it. A politics of care starts with a conception of human flourishing and asks what role markets might play in helping achieve it.
Markets are not, then, the foundation of society in a politics of care. They are just one institution amongst many within society, and their legitimacy arises from their contribution to the common good, and not from any intrinsic virtue arising from the exchanges they facilitate within themselves.
The contrast can be summarised quite simply in this table:
| Neoliberalism | A politics of care |
|---|---|
| Markets create value | Society defines value |
| Markets determine priorities | Society determines priorities |
| Human well-being emerges from markets | Markets are judged by their contribution to well-being |
| The role of the state is to support markets | The role of markets is to support society |
| The economy is the purpose; society adapts | Society is the purpose; the economy adapts |
The differences in approach are profound.
Neoliberalism begins with the assumption that if markets are left alone, desirable social outcomes will follow.
A politics of care begins with the assumption that society has a responsibility to decide what outcomes it values and to then design institutions, including markets, to help achieve them.
Markets may have an important role within a politics of care, but they can never define its purpose. That task belongs to us.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I don’t think anyone is taking any notice of you.
You are
In other words , people first , people second and profit third , that works for me.
🙂
Well said Richard
You have nailed it again
I specially like your observation that neo- liberals believe that society revolves around markets
I would much rather live in a society of care, than in a market-based economy where some even believe that there is no such thing as society- just markets galore!
Thanks
“Markets are just mechanisms. They have no ethical compass. Left to themselves, they do not know whether they are promoting human flourishing or environmental collapse.”
There is an obvious parallel here with AI, and even the software systems I use at work: Systems are supposed to work for us, to make our lives easier; not the other way round. We shouldn’t be changing ourselves to fit the systems; we should instead change the systems to suit our needs.
Agreed
That table truly is profound, and incredibly succinct.
Bravo and KUTWG!
Thanks
Clear as a bell. Love the table. I am tired of typing ‘Richard Murphy does not identify himself as a socialist, and favours a mixed economy’ or similar, in response to ‘ He’s a commie/socialist’ comments to your videos, I may insert your table instead.
Thank you.
Could you give some possible examples of markets working in the politics of care framework Richard?
Go and look at most local markets.
I keep arguing with people that prisons should not be in private hands (Group 4 comes to mind as an example). What you have written here perfectly describes why I think that: Crime is a social issue and should be treated by society, not on a ‘for profit’ basis. Therefore prisons, and the Justice system, should also be treated as strategic industry – to use that term – as should policing.
On another note, someone else mentioned AI here – your words made me think of this, too – and I agree with them.
I’m pleased to see that your thinking is closely aligned with mine. Or perhaps I should say, based on our relative education and experience with the subject, that mine is closely aligned with yours.
A modern society is far too complex for a one size fits all answer yet the most publicised belief systems seem convinced that there is one master solution for everything, be it public ownership of all the means of production or a free market economy. As you say, markets have no ethical compass. Without external control they will not be guided to moral fulfillment by the mythical invisible hand, but will simply perform in the interests of those best placed to manipulate them. No market is wholly ‘free’ and an important task of government is to set the constraints within which they may operate. And to decide when a market approach is not the solution to a specific problem.
My understanding is that markets are not the appropriate answer most especially where monopolies can easily develop or for the provision of services where the return on investment is not easily measured in monetary terms, such as healthcare where there may be a financial benefit but one that is not a return to the original provider. This is a somewhat gray area for me, perhaps a video discussing where and why market based mechanisms are a good option or not in the provision of state-funded services and utilities would also be of interest to readers other than me?
Thanks.
The table showing the difference between markets and society of care is compelling and I’m for society caring for each other How can you get this message out to the wider world?
I am trying. What else do you think we can do?