On the inevitability of justice

A Exortação Apostólica “Evangelii Gaudium” (A alegria do Evangelho) do Papa Francisco parece não ter agradado nenhum pouco os conservadores. Um deles, americano, chegou a acusa-lo de ser marxista. Os progressistas, naturalmente, tiveram reação oposta. Nenhuma surpresa. Confesso não entender a reação dos conservadores: o documento do Papa Francisco retoma criticas do Paulo VI, João Paulo II e Bento XVI ao capitalismo, para mencionar apenas os três últimos Bispos de Roma.

Gostei muito do comentário abaixo.


Last week the Pope, who has surprised many in his short tenure by adopting a reformist, populist—one might go so far as to say Christian—tone, offered a lengthy statement on economic justice. It was a highly progressive comment in its way and was therefore sure to make for occasionally uncomfortable reading in economics departments. Said the Pope:

"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world...This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.

On Saturday Greg Mankiw, author of the bible of first-year econ courses, weighed in:

"First, throughout history, free-market capitalism has been a great driver of economic growth, and as my colleague Ben Friedman has written, economic growth has been a great driver of a more moral society.Second, "trickle-down" is not a theory but a pejorative used by those on the left to describe a viewpoint they oppose. It is equivalent to those on the right referring to the "soak-the-rich" theories of the left. It is sad to see the pope using a pejorative, rather than encouraging an open-minded discussion of opposing perspectives.Third, as far as I know, the pope did not address the tax-exempt status of the church. I would be eager to hear his views on that issue. Maybe he thinks the tax benefits the church receives do some good when they trickle down."

This is just the sort of response that leads non-economists to detest economists: condescending, callous, and, worst of all, intellectually lazy. It is also an example of some truly epic point-missing.

Economic growth is indeed a wonderful thing. Enormous increases in real output per person over the past two centuries have allowed humanity to escape the grinding poverty that was the normal human condition for thousands of years. But the Pope does not appear to be attacking growth. Rather, he is attacking the view that "economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world". (Emphasis mine, since that is apparently an easy word to miss.) Mr Mankiw may feel that "trickle-down" ideas have been wronged, but he certaintly seems to be displaying precisely the viewpoint that the Pope is warning about: don't worry about the outcomes of growth (and for heaven's sake don't do anything about them), because growth is pretty rad.

But let's be clear. Historically it has taken quite a lot of hard work to ensure that economic growth does bring about greater justice and inclusiveness. It took an enormous public investment in public schooling to ensure that the benefits of growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were broadly enjoyed. That was not a market outcome; it was a massive example of government-managed redistribution. A massively successful example.

Neither did economic growth magically free American slaves or end Jim Crow. There was nothing inevitable about the end of institutionalised racism in America, and without the end of institutionalised racism in America growth would manifestly not have led to greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

We can also be grateful that growth has pulled so many of the world's poorest out of dire poverty: hundreds of millions in just the last two decades. But we should remember that for most of modern economic history, the developing world was not catching up; it was falling further behind. The broad-based catch-up growth of the past 15 years may be a new normal, or it may be an anomalous period associated with the rise of China. To look at the history of global economic development and call ever greater inclusiveness an inevitable consequence of growth is simply wrong.

Now Mr Mankiw might argue that growth enabled the generosity that led to social pressure for change: for redistribution, public investment, and broad social reforms. Perhaps that is what he's after in referring to Ben Friedman's book. But societal improvement was not an immaculate thing. It had living, breathing agents here on earth working and often suffering to engineer change, in the teeth of opposition from those who reckoned that they ought to simply shut their traps. If you want to praise growth as justice-enhancing because growth improves our moral intuition, then you also have to praise those who act on their moral intuition in an effort to create institutions that deliver greater justice. Mr Mankiw would rather be snide and complain that the Pope is name-calling.

History suggests that growth doesn't simply take care of things while we go about our business. Growth often creates significant injustices which are ameliorated when popular outrage demands change. The Pope's words, and the public response to them, suggest that just now—with the top income share rising, the share of income going to labour falling, and real wages and employment rates stagnant—there is a certain appetite for calls for change. Mr Mankiw had better improve at handling criticism of current economic structures and outcomes. He's likely to hear much more of it. Maybe at some point he will begin to ask himself why.

Fonte: The Economist