IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v153y2018i1d10.1007_s10551-016-3346-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reframing the Moral Limits of Markets Debate: Social Domains, Values, Allocation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Wempe

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Jeff Frooman

    (University of New Brunswick)

Abstract

What should and what should not be for sale in a society? This is the central question in the Moral Limits of Markets (MLM) debate, which is conducted by a group of business ethicists and liberal egalitarian political theorists. These MLM theorists, which we will dub ‘market moralists,’ all put forward a specific version of the argument that while the market is well suited to allocate some categories of goods and services, it is undesirable for the allocation of other such categories. We argue that the current MLM debate is too much framed in terms of a market/non-market dichotomy. Moreover, authors tend to distinguish insufficiently between values such as freedom, equality, and efficiency, and allocation methods such as the market, the queue, and rationing. We introduce a new conceptual scheme consisting of societal domains, values, and allocation methods to provide a better structure for this debate. The argument is illustrated from the education and healthcare domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Wempe & Jeff Frooman, 2018. "Reframing the Moral Limits of Markets Debate: Social Domains, Values, Allocation Methods," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:153:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3346-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3346-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3346-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3346-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno S. Frey, 1997. "Not Just for the Money," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1183.
    2. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2012. "Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199653591.
    3. M. Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee & Grace Yu, 2011. "Consumer Sovereignty in Healthcare: Fact or Fiction?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 459-474, July.
    4. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2007. "Social Choice And Just Institutions: New Perspectives," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 15-43, March.
    5. Buchanan, Allen, 1985. "Ethics, Efficiency and the Market," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198285335.
    6. Bradley L Kirkman & Kevin B Lowe & Cristina B Gibson, 2006. "A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(3), pages 285-320, May.
    7. Jodie Ferguson & Pam Ellen & Gabriela Piscopo, 2011. "Suspicion and Perceptions of Price Fairness in Times of Crisis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(2), pages 331-349, January.
    8. Timothy Besley, 2013. "What's the Good of the Market? An Essay on Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(2), pages 478-495, June.
    9. Deane,Phyllis, 1978. "The Evolution of Economic Ideas," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293150, October.
    10. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185, October.
    11. Juan Elegido, 2015. "The Just Price as the Price Obtainable in an Open Market," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 557-572, September.
    12. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    13. Nicholas Santos & Gene Laczniak, 2009. "“Just” Markets from the Perspective of Catholic Social Teaching," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 29-38, May.
    14. Michael J. Sandel, 2013. "Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning: Why Economists Should Re-engage with Political Philosophy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 121-140, Fall.
    15. Jevons, William Stanley, 1871. "The Theory of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number jevons1871.
    16. Bart Nooteboom, 2014. "How Markets Work and Fail, and What to Make of Them," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15917.
    17. James Angel & Douglas McCabe, 2009. "The Ethics of Speculation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 277-286, December.
    18. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Koster, 2023. "Counting what counts: Moral considerations and market surplus," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Frooman, Jeff, 2021. "Where MLM Intersects MFA: Morally Suspect Goods and the Grounds for Regulatory Action," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 138-161, January.
    3. Andreas Ostermaier & Dominik Aaken, 2020. "Freedom trumps profit: a liberal approach to business ethics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(5), pages 947-962, June.
    4. Jason Monios, 2023. "The Moral Limits of Market-Based Mechanisms: An Application to the International Maritime Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 283-299, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    2. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2013. "Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 141-164, Fall.
    3. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    4. Benny Geys & Bruno Heyndels, 2006. "Disentangling The Effects Of Political Fragmentation On Voter Turnout: The Flemish Municipal Elections," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 367-387, November.
    5. Thomas Braendle & Alois Stutzer, 2017. "Voters and Representatives: How Should Representatives Be Selected?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2017-05, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    6. Rick Wicks, 2012. "Assumption Without Representation: The Unacknowledged Abstraction from Communities and Social Goods," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 57(1), pages 78-95, May.
    7. Braendle, Thomas, 2013. "Do Institutions Affect Citizens' Selection into Politics?," Working papers 2013/04, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    8. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.
    9. Nicolás Maloberti, 2019. "Markets in votes: Alienability, strict secrecy, and political clientelism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 193-215, May.
    10. Natalie Gold, 2019. "The limits of commodification arguments: Framing, motivation crowding, and shared valuations," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 165-192, May.
    11. Buchholz Wolfgang & Heindl Peter, 2015. "Ökonomische Herausforderungen des Klimawandels," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 324-350, December.
    12. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    13. Marie Daou & Alain Marciano, 2022. "Commodification: The traditional pro-market arguments," Post-Print hal-03876907, HAL.
    14. Grüner, S. & Fietz, A., 2014. "Chancen, Grenzen und Barrieren staatlicher Regulierungspolitik – Eine verhaltensökonomische Betrachtung unter Berücksichtigung des individuellen landwirtschaftlichen Unternehmensverhaltens," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    15. Jones, Philip & Dawson, Peter, 2007. "`Choice' in collective decision-making processes: Instrumental or expressive approval?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 102-117, February.
    16. Bublitz, Elisabeth & Regner, Tobias, 2022. "The social pay gap across occupations: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Werner Gueth & Hartmut Kliemt, 2013. "Fairness That Money Can Buy. Procedural Egalitarianism in Practice," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 4(65), May.
    18. Michael Bayerlein & Vanessa A. Boese & Scott Gates & Katrin Kamin & Syed Mansoob Murshed, 2021. "Populism and COVID-19: How Populist Governments (Mis)Handle the Pandemic," Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 389-428, December.
    19. Philip Jones, 2004. "‘All for One and One for All’: Transactions Cost and Collective Action," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(3), pages 450-468, October.
    20. Joachim Fuenfgelt & Stefan Baumgaertner, 2012. "A utilitarian notion of responsibility for sustainability," Working Paper Series in Economics 234, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:153:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3346-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.