A review of Personalist Economics

O'Boyle (1998) begins his book by stating that "Personalist economics is at once something old and something new" (p. 4). He is viewing economic affairs from the perspective of Catholic social thought. The writings, which inform O'Boyle's framework, date back more than a hundred years to the publication of Rerum Novarum and are therefore "something old". The use of these materials to form a coherent paradigm which we can use to order and evaluate economic decisions is "something new". I think that O'Boyle's efforts can also be classified as "something old and something new" at a different level. My first thought when reading this book was the striking resemblance that O'Boyle's work bears to Smith's. Yes, I am referring to the infamous Adam Smith, creator of the "invisible hand". Although I am told that Smith is considered to be the father of social economics, as well as neoclassical economics, I fear that his work does not rate too highly with O'Boyle. And yet, I think that the way that O'Boyle approaches economics is similar to Smith for reasons which I will attempt to explain. The approach of both authors is multidisciplinary. Smith's academic brief was much broader than we are used to today. He taught "moral philosophy", which was divided into four parts; natural theology, ethics, jurisprudence and political economy. A contemporary of Adam Smith, who read The Wealth of Nations (1976a), had probably read The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1976b). [1] The reader, like Smith, would not be "crossing boundaries" as we are today. A basic familiarity with what we consider to be distinct disciplines was part of a classical education, for the few who were lucky enough to obtain it. O'Boyle's approach is also multidisciplinary. Setting out the stall which separates personalist economics from other varieties, O'Boyle states, "Personalist economics is a blending of economic science and moral discipline in which economics is one of several distinct sciences that study human nature and depend on moral discipline to address the economic disorder of the modern age. " The sciences are distinct because they consider different aspects of human nature but because they focus on the same subject,". each may contribute something instructive to the others" (p. 4). O'Boyle's task is more difficult because he is writing in the age of the specialist. Many economists believe that it is sufficient to be well versed in a particular specialism of neoclassical economics. In fact, they would argue that there is so much material to master within the discipline that moving outside of it constitutes an unnecessary distraction. They distrust those who attempt a multidisciplinary approach as straying from "pure economics". Therefore, while the bias of Smith's readers was in favor of a multidisciplinary approach, the bias of O'Boyle's readers is definitely against it. Even the economists who are "open minded" have to be educated to the nuances of the other disciplines. O'Boyle cannot count on readers with classical educations and therefore has to fill in the gaps. He has to make the connections between the disciplines much more explicit. I think that a more fundamental similarity between Smith and O'Boyle concerns the way in which both authors employ a system of morality to inform economic choices. For Smith, the system is primarily influenced by Stoicism and Christianity. For O'Boyle, it is based on Catholic social thought and revelation. Although the origins of the two systems differ, I think that the economic choices based on either system would be remarkably similar. Both writers see "self-interest" as a crucial motivator of economic activity. I am going to look at how each author "restrains" self-interest in a way that ensures that individuals are also aware of the social dimension of their economic choices. Most economists, if they read Smith at all, read Wealth. They see it as being his "economic" work while Sentiments is viewed as his "philosophical" work. …