Book Description
This book presents a comprehensive anthology of readings, legal perspectives, and cases in ethics in business. Contrasting business ethics approaches, Regulation of business, Performance Monitoring. Genetic testing and screening. Third world issues. Federal sentencing guidelines. Ideal for business professionals interested in reviewing ethical issues in business.
Customer Reviews:
Biased, but a good primer on business ethics.......2006-02-24
This book is a good primer on business ethics, and it would be even better if the writer / editors hadn't shown their bias with their selections of included material.
Business ethics theories evolve, just like any other social phenomenon; however, just because a theory is new doesn't make it right. Especially in an ethics book! The authors are clearly biased against big business, against small government, and against "shareholder management" theory.
Does this make them right or wrong? No. The only "wrong" committed is the bias itself.
As you read this book, just keep your critical thinking skills sharp and your eyes open.
A Critical Compendium.......2002-07-20
This book is a critical reader, and it's probably the most highly used text in business ethics today. Those who reviewed this book negatively sound like people looking for a fun, non-academic overview of the field. If so, this book isn't it. These are articles published in top academic journals, edited for readability, by scholars who are addressing the fundamental issues in a wide range of topics. It's meant to expose the span of the field and still give students (not light readers) exposure to contemporary literature that touches on the most salient points. It's meant to be a starting point to deeper research in any given topic. As such, the book is a complete success. B & B do a great job (here as in other ethics compendiums) of providing a framework that makes it easy for a professor to expose her students to the field in one swoop. They do a fine editorial job, stripping the articles of padding, and they work hard to keep the offerings up to date (passing on older articles that are superceded by fresh insights that touch on contemporary challenges and technologies; look for something relating to the corporate scandals of this last year in the next edition). If you are a student looking for an overview on business ethics, this book is the correct starting point. If you are someone looking for light reading about corporate corruption, with illustrations and full-color photos, stick to People magazine.
A Good Anthology.......2001-06-23
I really enjoyed this anthology, especially the section on sexual harassment. Some of the subjects were hard going, but, it was a good introduction to business ethics.
In Defense of Beauchamp and Bowie.......2001-06-17
I teach business ethics at the college level, and have found Ethical Theory and Business to be very helpful. Basically, B and B attempt to do three things, or so it seems to me. First, they offer an introductory essay, covering some of the main distinctions in both meta-ethics (e. g. whether morality is objective or subjective) and normative ethics. This essay is the weakest part of the book, I think, because they seem to offer caracatures of most relativist leaning views (e. g. egoism), and do not adequately criticize Kantian moral philosophy. But even so, the essay does explain many useful distinctions in philosophical ethical thought. Second, B and B offer both classic readings in Business Ethics (e. g. Milton Friedman), as well as really up to date readings, by many of the leaders in the field (e. g. R. Edward Freeman). This is quite a good selection of readings, although they have omitted a few classic essays (like Galbraith's 'The Dependence Effect'), and a few subjects which might have been useful, such as the question of whether one can attribute moral agency to corporations at all. Even so, B and B include more than any course in Business Ethics could cover. Third, B and B provide a Web site with excersizes and instructor aids. Depending on how much one uses the Web, this may be helpful too. So generally speaking, although no anthology is perfect, Beauchamp and Bowie have put together an admirable collection. There is a seventh edition coming out soon. Perhaps that one will be as good as this one.
This Book is Whack!!!.......2001-05-11
Ethical Theory and Business by Beauchamp & Bowie is the worst academic book I have ever been required to read. I agree with the reader from Minnesota that this book is very dry and boring and if I could give this book zero stars I would. All of the chapters in the book do not flow together very well since this book is very unorganized and is nothing more than a collection of narrative articles. The book does not have an index or any illustrations in it and the companion website to the book [stinks]. I do not think I learned anything about business ethics from reading this book nor did I find the information in it helpful for me in my life. After I finished reading this book, I felt like throwing it away, but instead I sold mine back to the bookstore. So if you want to learn about business ethics and are not required to purchase this book for a class, do not purchase this book.
Book Description
Faulty decision-making can have dire consequences, and when it comes to group decisions, the challenges are even greater. Join Dr. Jerry B. Harvey as he clearly illustrates why no organization wants to find themselves goin' to Abilene.
See how group dynamics can keep individuals from stating their true beliefs for fear of isolation and separation, and how that often leads to mismanaged agreement.
You'll learn to recognize the warning signs of risky group dynamics and improve decision-making processes throughout your organization.
Customer Reviews:
the abilene paradox and other medidations on management.......2007-05-07
It is an excellent and enlightening book with much food for thought and a precise account of reality in malfunctioning organizations. Also provides suggestions for improving organizations and helping them act in an ethical manner.
A classic and a must read.......2005-11-04
With humor and "paradox" Professor Jerry Harvey does a great job in stimulating personal reflections about management. Among the several tales, see Management and the myth of Abraham ("every time a boss makes a stupid mistake, he sends his administrative assistant to try to rectify it"), my favorite Captain Ashok and the Concept of Grace ("Asoh told the truth, and we are starved for it") and Group Tyranny and the Gunsmoke Phenomenon (our behaviour is related to our fear of separation but we have a choice "when confronted with the possibility of group tyranny"). Enjoy your reading and start thinking.
Thought Provoking Essays.......2004-12-30
These "Meditations" provide great thinking into how to be a more effective manager. As "Meditiations", this is not a how to cookbook on management, or checklist. There are no promises of improved customer service, or increased efficiency. Rather, by reading them, your thinking about management will improve.
Two examples on the meditations:
1 - The Abilene Paradox essay talks about a family vacation to Abilene. Nobody really wants to go there, but everyone thinks everyone else wants to go there, but is affraid to speak up. The lesson is self evident, but the story conveys it in a manner much more memorable than a directive to "Create an organization with open communication"
2 - The writings of Elliott Jaques. Harvey introduces the concept of the "Requisite Organization", an idea developed by Jaques. This highlights the imnportance of understanding complexity (as defined by the time horizon of projects one is capable of thinking of) and designing an organization where that is the key component to success. That's a deep thought in today's quarter-driven business.
Reading and pondering these meditations will make one a better manager and leader. But it isn't spoon feeding, it takes some thought as well.
Wonderful advice, coming and going.......2004-01-25
The Abilene Paradox... has been one of my favorite books for many years. Whenever I read it, I find something of value in it for whatever challenges I am facing in my work. Plus, it's just fun to read. The first essay (the actual Abilene Paradox) should be required reading for anyone who wonders why groups do stupid things. And the last essay (on teaching future managers to cheat) should be required reading for anyone who wonders how one simple change could make a huge difference in business education, making it more relevant and more solidly ethically based. Everything in between these two essays is worth, reading, too.
All Managers should know about Abilene!.......2003-06-12
The first time I heard about the Abilene Paradox was back in the early 1980's when Jerry Harvey made a video for use by the government in training management.
I had run into a recent management situation in which our Director wanted only agreement with her. I immediately began to search a reference on "Abilene" and management.
So, immediately, you can see how much this little video lecture influenced me. Over twenty years later, I still remembered the reference that was needed now in 2003, and it was called the road to "ABILENE" or something similar.
A quick search on my favorite reference site "Amazon.com" and voila: I found a book called the "Abilene Paradox".
Jerry writes likes he speaks but *OH* he speaks in such an amazingly entertaining way.
Jerry gives a lot of examples of things that can happen in the workplace that will bring you down a path to disaster. He is amazingly accurate in pointing out the potholes to avoid.
Although, he is a bit shy on things you should do, I highly recommend this book. If all you get out this is that "Yes" men or "Yes" folks are not conducive to good business, then you have learned one gem of management that you will value forever.
Book Description
In The End of History, Francis Fukuyama showed that the human historical process had culminated in a universal capitalist and democratic order. The end of the Cold War thus marked the end of ideological politics and the beginning of a struggle for position in the rapidly emerging order of 21st century capitalism. Yet despite the historic convergence of economic and political institutions throughout the world, we still see a great deal of social and cultural turbulence, not only in the West but in the emerging liberal states of Asia and Latin America. Now that Marxist economics and social engineering both have been discredited, Fukuyama asks, what principles should guide us in making our own society more productive and secure?
In Trust, a sweeping assessment of the emerging global economic order "after History," Fukuyama examines a wide range of national cultures in order to divine the hidden principles that make a good and prosperous society, and his findings strongly challenge the orthodoxies of both left and right. Conservative economists believe that only free markets can liberate individual initiative and thereby foster greater prosperity, an assumption that dovetails with the popular myth that America was built by rugged individualists making unfettered "rational" choices. If Marxist economics undervalued the role of individual choice in a market economy, neoclassical goes too far in the other direction, promoting a radical individualism that neglects the moral basis of community and ignores the many "irrational" factors that influence economic behavior.
In fact, economic life is pervaded by culture and depends, Fukuyama maintains, on moral bonds of social trust. This is the unspoken, unwritten bond between fellow citizens that facilitates transactions, empowers individual creativity, and justifies collective action. In the global struggle for economic predominance that is now upon us -- a struggle in which cultural differences will become the chief determinant of national success -- the social capital represented by trust will be as important as physical capital.
But trust varies greatly from one society to another, and a map of how social capital is distributed around the world yields many surprises. For instance, contrary to the assumptions of the "competitiveness" school, the United States has historically been quite similar to Japan in levels of social trust; and both differ greatly from low-trust Chinese Confucian societies on the one hand, or Latin Catholic societies like France and Italy on the other. Fukuyama argues that only those societies with a high degree of social trust will be able to create the kind of flexible, large-scale business organizations that are needed for successful competition in the emerging global economy.
The greatness of this country, he maintains, was built not on its imagined ethos of individualism but on the cohesiveness of its civil associations and the strength of its communities. But Fukuyama warns that our drift into a more and more extreme rights-centered individualism -- a radical departure from our past communitarian tradition -- holds more peril for the future of America than any competition from abroad.
Customer Reviews:
I thought this was dazzlingly brilliant..........2006-01-07
Fukuyama outlines how the "intermediate social organizations" of society, under the Protestant ethic, permitted the development of modern capitalist structures; whereas in low-trust societies (where you cannot depend on the corresponding person to trust you, or you to trust him), only family oriented businesses could grow, and inevitably collapsed after the second or third generation. He links the development of these intermediate organizations--guilds, PTAs, unions, volunteer activities--to the social fabric that engendered trust. He comments that a country can "spend" this hard-to-develop social capital and eventually become a rigid, non-trusting, and economically backward state. Furthermore, Fukuyama points out that the United States probably is doing just that, in nearly all intermediate social organizations, which are now surrounded by litigious critics--the educational system, Boy Scouts, union-management conflicts, the Catholic Church (which has never trusted its parishioners to have other than the standard orthodoxy, and now has suffered enormous scandal), and so forth. The lack of trust in our country is seen as pointing to our economic future, whether for good or bad.
Fukuyama is a genuinely interesting and informative writer. In his sense of fairness, he also points to examples where trust is generated, and cites them as necessary for a country to make both social and economic progress. I really enjoyed the multiple perspectives that the author brings to his task of explaining how some countries are prosperous, and some are not. He is truly an innovative thinker.
Before you read the reviews look at the section above called "Customers who viewed this book also viewed" you will gain insigh .......2005-08-14
This book was written ( I bet)by unpaid graduate assistants. I borrowed it from the library to read before mr Fukuyama's arrival to speak at a university.
The book was "written to order" to appeal to American conservatives. If Mr Fukuyama had really wanted to write about the construction/maintenance/increasing/decreasing of TRUST he could not have pointedly ignored the European Union. Nations and peoples with a thousand or more years of organised warfare are now at peace and trying to work together now that's an exercise in TRUST BUILDING.
I asked Mr Fukuyama why, as the book doesn't have America in the title, did he only mention distrust in medieval Italy and not the phenominal TRUST required to bring Germans, Brits and the French together. His reply "Oh .. people always want me to talk about their country. Next question." well!....
I feel that this book is a dis service to Americans because as with so many political/cultural and economic books from the USA what is left out of the book adds to the hurly burly spiral of disinformation accepted as the truth about the world by many Americans and esp. uncrital conservatives. I am, of course by my own reckoning, a conservative - a mixed economy democratic christian from the U.K.(OK OK New Labour) So I am not hostile to the US, but this type of book and the supportive reviews sadden me. Good luck America and PLEASE read wider and TRAVEL!
Racism and religious bigotry masquerading as science.......2005-03-15
Fukuyama trots out stereotypes that he must have picked up at his Japanese-Protestant father's knee, under a thick veneer of impenetrable sociological jargon that can fool the occasional reader into believing that this is an impartial scientist at work. Like all stereotypes, Fukuyama's are a blend of breathtaking overgeneralizations, and huge blind spots. And, like all stereotypes, they are utter nonsense.
The book attempts to update Max Weber's "Protestant ethic" story to include some non-Christian societies. The basic argument of the book is that Catholics are unable to trust people outside their immediate family, and so unable to form associations that are not based on family ties. The same is true of the Chinese, claims Fukuyama. These are the Catholics of the Orient.
The Japanese and Protestants are able to transcend family ties and therefore form a vast range of associations that do not have a genetic basis, especially large professionally managed corporations.
The feckless Catholics and Chinese however are doomed to form business enterprises that can never be more than over-grown Mom and Pop operations. Fukuyama therefore has a gloomy prognosis for the economic miracles of China or Taiwan or Singapore--however brilliant a businessman Pop or Mom may be, sooner or later Paris Hilton will be minding the store.
There is an interesting chapter on Korea, where Fukuyama is at pains to show that however like wannabe Japanese/Protestants Korean business organizations may seem, they are really Chinese/Catholic at heart.
The book's thesis is obvious nonsense. Dramatic counter-examples exist, such as the Chinese Communist Party or the Jesuits. Also, the broad idea that Catholicism or Chinese-ness contributes to poverty lacks a statistical basis.
I saw a recent article about thousands of Japanese orphans in China who were taken in and looked after by Chinese families after Japan's World War II defeat. Rather surprising behavior in this "low-trust" society! Perhaps these Chinese had been somewhat civilized by the high-trust ways of the occupying Japanese.
underrated despite being an oversimplification.......2004-11-12
I live in Europe close to the fault line between (in Fukuyama-speak) low-trust-land and high-trust-land and I have rarely read such an interesting book. In some ways the book is the successor to Max Weber's magnum opus, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (published in 1905) about the impact of protestant religion and culture on economical success in Germany.
Rather than compare Protestantism with Catholicism and their economical impact on German citizens, Fukuyama divides the world into high and low trust societies. Within Europe low trust societies largely coincide with Catholic countries and high trust societies coincide largely with Protestant countries, hence some of Fukuyama's work will sound familiar at times to a reader of Max Weber. Still, Fukuyama's categorisation is not based per se on religious affiliation. Fukuyama is at pains to attribute the low trust of Italians or French to historical events or situations. At times it seems he goes out of his way to avoid attributing any causal role to religion. But the advantage of his approach is that his methodology in theory works in any culture outside the European Christian context. Fukuyama also applies his trust criterion on societies such as the US, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China. The Middle East and Africa are conspicuous in their absence, possibly because there are few if any examples of so-called high-trust cultures in these parts of the world.
There are a few shortcomings to the book :
Fukuyama only draws economical consequences from the presence or absence of trust, for instance, he claims high trust cultures such as Japan and Germany find it easier to form very large companies, whilst low trust cultures such as Taiwan or Italy feel more at home in family companies. It is a pity he does not extend the field of study of consequences into areas such as corruption (low trust countries generally score higher on corruption), the law (for instance perjury is not regarded as a big deal in low trust countries), demographics (intermarriage, such as consanguineous marriages, is much more common in low trust cultures such as in the Middle East), etc...
The division of the world by Fukuyama into low and high trust cultures is very binary. Some studies by others into trust have first segmented the environment of individuals in concentric layers, starting with the immediate family, then friends, then the extended family, then the local community, then the country and then his or her civilisation. In such a scenario trust typically decreases with each layer which is further removed from the individual (although there are exceptions, such as in failed Islamic states where more trust is put by individuals in the Umma - all Muslims - than in the nation.), but the slope of the curve differs between low and high trust cultures. Still, as a simplification, the division into two extremes of trust is an interesting start.
Like all human phenomena, economic organisation can never be explained by one variable. But even if trust turns out to be only one of the variables which have a high correlation with economic structure, it remains a valid subject for a book like this.
Finally, some reviewers have accused Fukuyama of explicitly arguing that economic development is hampered by low trust, whilst I think he actually argues economic structures are merely different in both categories. Nobody will argue Belgium, a typical low-trust culture, is poorer in GDP per capita terms than - say - the neighboring Netherlands, a typical high trust culture that even shares its language with the majority of Belgians. But it is true that Belgian multinational companies are even rarer than famous Belgians.
Despite the simplifications this is still a very interesting book for those interested in the compatibilities or incompatibilities of cultures in the workplace. One of Fukuyama's underrated books.
Trust!.......2003-06-14
Summary:
The author claims in his chapter, Friction-Free Economies, that it is necessary to turn to a cultural characteristic like spontaneous sociability to explain the existence of large-scale corporations in an economy, or prosperity more generally. The question of spontaneous sociability is particularly important because we cannot take the older ethical habits for granted. A rich and complex civil society does not arise inevitably out of the logic of the advance of industrialization. On the contrary, Japan, Germany, and the United States became the world¡¯s leading industrial leaders in large part because they had healthy endowments of social capital and spontaneous sociability, and not vice versa. Also, the author emphasizes on the economic function of trust and spontaneous sociability. If we presume that if legal institutions exist, the presence of a high degree of trust as an additional condition of economic relations can increase economic efficiency by reducing what economists call transaction costs, incurred by activities like finding the appropriate buyer or seller, negotiating a contract, complying with government regulations and enforcing contracts.
In conclusion, traditional sociability can be said to be loyalty to older, long-established social groups. By contrast, spontaneous sociability is the ability to come together and cohere in new groups, and to thrive in innovative organizational settings. Spontaneous sociability is likely to be helpful from an economic standpoint only if it is used to build wealth-creating economic organization. Traditional sociability, on the other hand, can frequently be an obstacle to growth.
Critique 1:
In the article, the writer talks about the free rider problem. It is said that when a country which has communal solidarity, people will get resources without contributing to society as much as others. The solution, suggested by the writer, is to designate the work in unit base. And, the writer cited a successful example of Mao¡¯s policy, a famous Chinese leader, towards peasants. However, nowadays, it seems that it is more difficult to prevent such problems as the relationship between people become more and more indispensable. It is difficult to delimit the job by unit clearly as what was done in agricultural society in the past.
Moreover, there is no perfect government policy in the world as it is impossible to balance all the interests equally among people. For example, the free rider phenomenon is serious in some countries. In some cases in Hong Kong, the free riders are getting the government¡¯s subsidy without contributing to the society. Especially, during the economic depression, people are in hard time and the government tries to help them by providing subsidy to the public. However, in some cases, the subsidy fund for a family provided by the government is similar to the salary during an economic depression. Therefore, many people select not to work which can be said to be a kind of free rider. Even through it is known by the government, it is unpreventable. Therefore, nowadays, the free rider problem is not easy to combat with.
Critique 2:
In this article, author mentions about the economic function of trust and spontaneous sociability. It is right that a high degree of trust can increase economic efficiency and reduce transaction costs comparatively. But, in my point of view, it doesn¡¯t mean the companies can get great benefit and guarantee from the high degree of trust, their gains are very limited. In economic activities, we should take a minimal level of trust and honesty for every economic partner, even the companies which have good relation and cooperative experience with us. Business is business. When you choose high trust in appearance, actually, you are also taking high risk in disappearance stealthily. Because all the economic activities only focus on one goal-benefits.
As the author mentions, societies manifesting a high degree of communal solidarity and shared moral value should be more economically efficient than their more individualistic counterparts. This is due to the ¡°free riders¡± problem. This kind of problems cannot be avoided. The greater organizations become, the greater the tendency of ¡°free rider¡± is. Why it happens? One reason is those organizations¡¯ benefits or efforts are most influence or control, and in the organizations, his or her individual benefits or efforts are ignored. We can see, in a small group, because the group members are highly dependent on one another, and, also when a single partner slack off, which will be noticed immediately by colleagues. So, I think, it needs kinds of high degree of trust and solidarity in a group. Moreover, it would be helpful to put the organization and an individual interest together, create member¡¯s self-motive, and enact proper roles are also good methods to limit free rider in the group.
Amazon.com
Ever feel like you just can't get ahead with the bills? You're not alone. More than half of Americans believe the American dream has become impossible for most people to achieve. And two-thirds think this goal will be even harder for the next generation. (One reason for the gloominess--average full-time income has fallen 15 percent since 1975.) All this has Benjamin Friedman worried. In his hefty, 549-page tome, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, the acclaimed Harvard economist and advisor to the Federal Reserve Board says economic stagnation is bad for the moral health of a nation. Friedman, a former chair of Harvard's economics department, argues that economic growth is vital to social and political progress. Witness Hitler's Germany. Without growth, people look for answers in intolerance and fear. And that, Friedman warns, is where the U.S. is headed if the economic stagnation of the past three decades doesn't soon reverse. It's not enough for gross domestic product to rise, he says. Growth also has to be more evenly distributed. The rich shouldn't be the only ones getting richer.
Friedman's arguments are provocative but at times lack rigor. In his comparisons of various countries, he offers no objective data to measure their levels of social progress, relying instead on his own--sometimes selective--interpretation of historical events. He glosses over the fact that China, where the economy has grown sevenfold since 1978, has seen little political change in that time. He also acknowledges that the Great Depression--which brought Americans together to achieve great social and political progress--tends to disprove his theory. Friedman makes a good case that the economy sometimes influences social movements, but the jury is still out on exactly when and how that happens. --Alex Roslin
Book Description
From the author of Day of Reckoning, the acclaimed critique of Ronald Reagan’s economic policy (“Every citizen should read it,” said The New York Times): a persuasive, wide-ranging argument that broadly distributed economic growth provides benefits far beyond the material, creating and strengthening democratic institutions, establishing political stability, fostering tolerance, and enhancing opportunity.
“Are we right,” Benjamin M. Friedman asks, “to care so much about economic growth as we clearly do?” To answer, Friedman reaches beyond economics. He examines the political and social histories of the large Western democracies—particularly of the United States since the Civil War—distinguishing times of generally rising living standards from those of pervasive stagnation to illustrate how rising incomes render a society more open and democratic. He shows, too, how our attitudes toward economic growth and its consequences have roots in the thinking of prior centuries, especially the Enlightenment, and also include significant strands of religious influence.
Friedman also delineates the role of economic growth in determining which developing nations extend the broadest freedoms to their citizenry. He makes clear that growth, rather than just the level of living standards, is key to effecting political and social liberalization in the third world. But he also warns that the democratic values of countries even as wealthy as our own are at risk whenever incomes stagnate for extended periods. Merely being rich is no protection against a society’s retreat into rigidity and intolerance once enough of its citizens lose the sense that they are getting ahead.
Finally, Friedman shows us why, if America is to strengthen democratic institutions around the world as a bulwark against terrorism and social unrest, we must aggressively pursue growth at home and promote worldwide economic expansion beyond what purely market-driven forces would create. And for the United States, he offers concrete suggestions for policy steps to achieve those objectives.
A major contribution to the ongoing debate on the effects of economic growth and globalization.
Customer Reviews:
The Chicken or the Egg?.......2007-02-06
Since the rise fascism and Bolshevism in the 1920s there has been the question of how political rights and civil liberties correspond to economic rights and growth. Amartya Sen has argued that the political rights and civil liberties should not be divorced from economic process (Development As Freedom). Sen's normative approach of equating economic rights to the freedoms one achieves with guaranteed civil liberties is one that many can respect.
Benjamin Freidman has taken a more positivist to the same issue. In doing so he asks, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Does economic growth in a capitalist setting require democracy and civil liberties or visa versa? Friedman's study looks back not only over all to this question in modern economic history. But, he also takes specific case studies from the United States, Germany, France and others to see the over all trends of the problem.
From this he develops a matrix on the issue. In times of growth political rights tend to expand. In times of stagnation they tend to contract. What is interesting his not how Friedman arrives at this basic framework, but his look into the exceptions of this common sense rule. Why in the 1930s was the political openness of the New Deal accepted, but the recent economic stagnation in France caused the rise of the right-wing Le Pen party?
Friedman is one of the foremost experts on the political economy. He has held a seat at Harvard since 1972. Yet, in this work for public consumption his writing is more along the lines of an historian. He does not delve too far into the economics or the political science of the issue, which many academics tend to - even for the lay reader. Instead, he sees to it that the main ideas are gotten across.
His prescriptions are simple. Maintain economic growth and we can maintain political and civil liberties. While Amartya Sen may find a problem with placing the chicken before the egg, after this work one must understand that economic stagnation helps noone.
Better than church: Economics, the joyful science.......2006-12-01
Economics is often considered a values-free discipline (and economists - well, a sperm cell has a better chance of becoming human). Economists have promoted this view with their emphasis on "positive" (scientific) economics. Economic theory must generate testable hypotheses which stand on their ability to predict the future and withstand the test of data. This is actually very important if economic theory is going to serve as the basis for policy. Without a rigorous and dispassionate analysis of the problems we face and their potential solutions, policy is more likely to be destructive than useful. But taken to an academic extreme, this approach makes economics rather arid, an extremely formal social science that looks more like a branch of mathematics. Indeed, some economics journals publish articles so arcane they might as well be about string theory for all the relevance they have to actual human beings.
Friedman understands that economics is much more than mathematics, that it deals directly with human happiness. It's the most optimistic and joyful of sciences, not simply a ruler by which we can measure policy. Its uses and conclusions are fundamentally moral (or immoral). Economic growth isn't just about GDP and reams of statistics, but about the expansion of opportunity, the lifting up of the poor and the powerless to prosperity and self-determination. Markets aren't just about money, but about liberty. It may be the responsibility of economic advisors to be cold, impartial and rational in their analysis and advice, but policy makers and citizens must apply moral reasoning and moral sense to the products of that analysis.
Friedman's book is a solid introduction to the moral relevance of economics. Friedman shows us that economics matters, though it doesn't matter in quite the way that physics matters. Physical knowledge may be used for moral or immoral purposes, but physics is fundamentally without morality. It also need not deal with anything that really matters to you and me. Economic theory can explain human behavior in ways similar to thermodynamic explanations of molecular motion, but humans aren't molecules. You can't simply describe the impact of globalization or tax policy on humans without a moral framework; an attempt to objectify humans as you'd objectify hydrogen molecules contains its own grim morality. It's the strength of Friedman's book that it makes clear that economic decisions and economic analysis are firmly embedded in a moral framework, no matter how hard we might try to ignore it in our pursuit of scientific and mathematical rigor.
Friedman's book isn't just a moral tract; he attempts to make a case for his moral stand. Friedman is a skilled economist, and he marshals historical data and comparisons of different nations and different periods in our own history to make his case. He provides some information useful for evaluating his thesis that economic growth is moral, he doesn't simply assert it. But herein is a weakness in his book. He doesn't provide nearly as much hard information as he should, and he scatters his supporting numbers throughout the text. It would be very helpful to the reader if data were gathered into charts and tables. There's but a single Figure in the book, no tables of data. It should also be noted that his national comparisons leave out some states (China, Singapore, Vietnam) that might contradict his thesis regarding the linkage between economic growth and political liberty. He's chosen his examples far too carefully.
Another weakness of this book is a natural danger of the type of text Friedman has written. Because he is dealing with economics as a moral issue, he takes a moral stance, one that's clearly to the political left in many ways. I have no problem with this, even though I'm somewhat to the right of him, but we should be very clear on one point. While a trained economist like Friedman is in a much better position than the average person to analyze the effects of different policies, he's no more qualified than a pastry chef to comment on the relative desirability of those different policies once their effects have been laid out in terms the pastry chef understands. Friedman makes a number of policy suggestions in his book with which I disagree. He doesn't make it sufficiently clear that their potential effects aren't unambiguously better than those of alternative policies designed to create or enhance economic growth.
My final objection to this book is its length. Friedman is clearly a well-read man of wide interests, and he brings a great deal of his erudition to this book. It strengthens his case, but I'm not sure that the marginal benefits of the 400th page exceed the marginal costs. More than once I found myself wanting an executive summary of the chapter I was reading and wishing that he would just cut to the chase. But that's really a minor complaint. I benefited from reading this book. It's an interesting and thoughtful contribution to the issue of economic growth (and by extension to international trade and economic aid to developing countries), and I strongly recommend it.
Society and Economic Growth.......2006-11-05
Friedman explains how growth is good for promoting a freer, more tolerant and open society. The author gives good reasons for defending growth as the major objective of any government.
Interesting Thesis, but overlooking some important points.......2006-06-13
Mr. Friedman's book begins with an interesting thesis, defining morality and its definition within a context of economic growth. The idea that economic growth or stagnation effects the mindsets of the people living in that time period is a logical argument that Friedman often well supports with historical facts. However, the exceptions to his argument make me wonder if he really believes in his own thesis, or if he just felt the need to write a book. Furthermore, for every chapter in the book, there seem to be at least one or more flawed arguments or points that, with a little thorough thought or research, don't make sense or can easily be disproven. With these things being the case, I find Friedman's argument a little hard to buy. The entire book seems to build up to the final chapter, which Friedman uses to make policy recommendations that would aid in economic growth; this final chapter could have stood alone from the book entirely, however, because the evidence in the book an his arguments elsewhere in the book (ie. the importance of education) do not add or support his final policy recommendations. His policy recommendations could have easily been listed by students in an economics class as responses to the question "What should the government do to promote economic growth?" They don't push the argument forward or indicate anything that hasn't already been suggested in the past, nor do they give suggestions as to how to go about implementing his policies.
Puzzling.......2006-06-02
Friedman begins with a few troubling statistics, particularly the fact that except for a brief period in the late 1900s, most of the fruits of the last three decades of economic growth in the U.S. have accrued to only a small slice of the population. Further, after allowing for higher prices, the average 2004 worker in an American business made 16% less each week than 30+ years earlier. With more and more two-earner households and more individuals holding two jobs, most families' income have more than held their own. But nearly all the gain in the last three decades came only in the late 1990s. Young men entering the American job force in the 1970s started off earning two-thirds more, on average, than the generation starting out in the 1950s; by the early 1990s it was one quarter less than their parents.
Economic growth positively affects the character of the society as a whole, and because neither tolerance nor democracy is a good that private markets value, there is a role for government measures to seek growth beyond what the market would provide on its own. Improved transportation, crime reduction, safety from external attack, savings, education, and patent protection are examples of valuable government contributions.
Friedman asserts that declining investment is a problem in the U.S., and blames it on increased current consumption and government borrowing. (But what about the fact that much cheaper labor is available in Asia?) He goes on to posit that chronically large deficits' depressing effect on America's investment probably received a greater spur from change in the tax structure than the positive aspect of the tax reductions.
Friedman suggests improvement that begins with undoing the Bush administration high-end tax changes that provided 60% of the benefits to the top 10% (earning over $120,000) to reduce the deficit and improve society.
Fireman, like many others, very much wants to improve American education. He begins by focusing on improving the high school graduation rate - stable at about 90% over the last several decades - through more spending. (Friedman, however, forgets that enormous increases in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending also occurred during this period, and that dropout rates closely correlate with race - ergo, positive home influence is probably a much more potent lever.) More government support for college education is also highly recommended because their incomes average some 70% more than those without a college degree. As for class sizes, Friedman is aware that most quality research has found reductions do NOT improve pupil achievement; nonetheless he suggests reductions would improve graduation rates, though the sources he cites seem to confound race and socio-economic status with class size as influences. He also supports competition within education, citing several inner-city positive examples such as Harlem Community Schools.
Another significant recommendation is raising the Social Security retirement age.
What is puzzling about "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" is that Friedman does not address a major issue of today's economic growth - the impact of free trade and illegal immigration on American incomes. Also, his treatment of economic development and population growth on environmental impacts is overly optimistic. These issues seriously limit the book's contributions.
Customer Reviews:
People helping people help themselves.......2003-12-14
In the mid 1970's I was an Amway Distributor and one thing that always stuck with me were the tapes by Mr. Rich Devos. To this day, even though I am no longer associated with Amway, I enjoy listening to "Four Winds", "Selling America" and other audio tapes recorded by Mr. Devos. This man has a voice and something to say! He is great. An outstanding businessman and an outstanding American.
In Compassionate Capitalism, Devos explains that the "dog eat dog", law of the jungle and every person to himself rat race mentality is not only not necessary to achieve success but in fact, impedes success.
Devos offers a completely different vision of capitalism. A vision of capitalism as the finest tool yet known to help people become all they can be for others as well as themselves.
In Compassionate Capitalism, Devos offers more than just a vision, it is a plan--a practical plan--a proven plan. And it is not just about Amway and it's incredible success stories. It's about you and me and everyone. How we can all become more by helping others help themselves in a nation of free enterprise.
Compassionate Capitalism spells out clearly and eloquently the guiding principles and concrete steps to take to make your life and your world better. Devos shows how your energy, your ambition, and your spirit of enterprise can travel together down a path in which the spirit of capitalism and moral values inextricably merge.
Devos illustrates both how success is achieved and what it really means. He demonstrates how compassionate capitalism is the only solution to the most crucial issues of our time---poverty, homelessness, hunger, the enviroment, and the many other challenges that face us in the new millenium.
Whether you are the owner of a huge corporation or a worker on a assembly line, a student about to graduate or a homemaker ready to enter the job market, this important guide to success the compassionate way can be the most inspiring and enlightening book you ever read.
Highly recommended. AND to repeat, I am not an Amway Distributor. Just someone who appreciates Mr. Devos and what he is doing to create a stronger nation, the compassionate way.
Call to Arms, Unless We Have, We Cannot Give.......2002-09-06
Some highlights:
1) Compassion is the ultimate goal of capitalism.
2) Capitalism is the economic reality which drives us as individuals to excel and maximize our talents and potential. However, money is not everything. It is just a tool.
3) Albert Schweitzer said, "The purpose of life is to serve and show compassion and the will to help others."
3) Question: So, why do we work? Why do we need money?
Answer: Unless we have, we cannot give.
5) The reality is that most people live their lives very defensively. They are always afraid that someone will take some of what is theirs. They are too busy protecting ~ to give to anyone.
6) Question: So, how do you succeed?
Answer: Be an entrepreneur. Start small, and inexpensive. Be creative, believe in yourself, find a good mentor, have a dream, make a goal, do the basics everyday, learn from mistakes, work hard, care about others, put people before products,don't make excuses, never give up.
"Never give up, never give up, never give up"
-Winston Churchill
"Success is going from one failure to another failure with great enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill
"One man with courage is a majority."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The best portion of a good man's life is his little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and love."
- Wordsworth
A successful entrepreneur shares the secrets to true wealth.......2001-01-29
There are lots of wealthy people out there but most aren't truly happy. This is largely because they aren't fulfilling a higher purpose with their businesses, they're simply out there trying to survive in the often cutthroat business world. DeVos explains what it takes to make your business a positive force in the world; "positive" by virtually any standard.
Contrary to a lot of advice you may have heard out there on how to successfully build a prosperous business, DeVos claims that integrating compassion for your fellow man with lucrative opportunities is the real secret to security and happiness. It's the knowledge that what you're doing is making a difference that makes you feel worthy of the privilege and comfort of wealth. And even before the wealth comes, having a compassionate attitude along with sound business acumen (which can be learned) goes a long way towards increasing your chances of attaining wealth and influence.
A great book written in a language anyone can understand. I don't have any complaints, but I refrain from giving it five stars because it didn't "knock my socks off!" Highly recommended reading for anyone looking to understand the attitudes and principles necessary for *true* success.
Definitely worth buying (and reading).......2000-07-28
I am not involved in Amway (Rich de Vos sure is!), nor am I an ardent Christian (I believe Rich de Vos is), yet I have no hesitation in recommending this book. I suppose I'm always on the lookout for new ways of doing things and new ways of thinking. "Compassionate Capitalism" provides some real meat for a hungry world in need of just that - new ideas. Economics is a complicated field (so I've been told - I'm no expert), yet Rich de Vos has managed to demystify it, at least as far as this reader is concerned. His ideas seem to be free of any real political ties or religious taints (religion doesn't enter into the book at all) - he seems just to be genuinely interested in people (I wish I couldn't hear the sneers, but unfortunately I do). I also admire him as an American. Goodness knows America has the driving force and energy to influence the whole of this world one way or another, but it doesn't really seem to have the will (nor, perhaps, the imagination) to do anything really creative (sure they have introduced fuel efficient motors - a relative concept at the best of times - but have you seen the size of the 1999 and 2000 models? ). So learning that there are ideas out there which do not just mean more of the same, and bigger and meaner (whether from the auto industry or the rest of the military-industrial complex) is somewhat reassuring.
One thing I'm sure of: every American (those who can read) should digest this book. It doesn't try to convert. It simply tries (very well) to make sense out of the current madness.
A Book The Country Should Read.......1999-06-09
This book was written by one of the most prominent businessmen in the world. He and his partner started with just an idea, as with many other large corporations we are familiar with, and turned it into one of the only debt free companies in the U.S.. Producing billions of anual revenue. Rich Devos has a huge heart and he is more generous than most, for he is willing to share with the world what beliefs and habits put him into the positions that he is at now. Rich Devos has been able to help milliions of people find hope and rekindle their dreams by using a direct selling method that many other companies alike can only wish they had. This book has great stories about success and failure alike, for one does not come without the other. If you are looking for a book with strong priciples and beliefs then this is the book for you. I would recommend it to anyone building an amway business or not, simply because of what it will teach. This book will make you feel proud to be in a FREE country and make you think "why am I not doing my part to help out?"
Book Description
In this elegant critique, Amartya Sen argues that a closer contact between welfare economics and modern ethical studies can substantively enrich and benefit both disciplines.He argues further that even predictive and descriptive economics can be helped by making more room for welfare economic considerations in the explanation of behavior, especially in production relations, which inevitably involve problems of cooperation as well as conflict. The concept of rationality of behaviour is thoroughly proved in this context, with particular attention paid to social interdependence and internal tensions within consequentialist reasoning. In developing his general theme, Sen also investigates some related matters; the misinterpretation of Adam Smith's views on the role of self-seeking; the plausibility of an objectivist approach that attaches importance to subjective evaluations; and the admissibility of incompleteness and of 'inconsistencies' in the form of overcompleteness in rational evaluation. Sen also explores the role and importance of freedom in assessing well-being as well as choice.Sen's contributions to economics and ethics have greatly strengthened the theoretical bases of both disciplines; this appraisal of the connections between the two subjects and their possible development will be welcomed for the clarity and depth it contributes to the debate. These essays are based on the Royer Lectures delivered at the University of California, Berkeley.
Customer Reviews:
Ethics of Choice and No Choice.......2004-09-05
It's interesting how ethics and their practice seem to fall along the lines of events that tend to produce profits, and are therefore, more easily justified than not, to the point of being made a part of the law that governs ethics as well as processes. This aspect of human tendencies to favor profits as ethical under any circumstances may well have given rise to the Enron's, Worldcom's, etc., that often also produce the exonerations of bankruptcies where privileges of "restarts" are common, under different names, or through acuisition/mergers where social responsibilities are thrown by the wayside and efforts to salvage the more profitable opportunities are typical of commercial justice. The inconsistency that these ethics represents is often difficult to rationalize in rational minds.
Sen - But not at it's best.......2004-03-04
This short book consists of three lectures.
In the first lecture Sen mainly argues that economic agents shouldn't be modelled as completely self centered. He argues that real individuals don't behave that way. I think that's fairly obvious and the reason people have often be modelled as egoistic is technical convenience. Other than that, he argues that rationality should mean more than consistent actions. Point taken. Since more work is done today that isn't based on selfcentered individuals, the lecture is of somewhat minor importance. But if you think all people act in an egoistic fashion (at least in an economic environment), read that part.
The second lecture is IMO the best one. Sen looks on the impact utilitarianism had on economics at identifies the parts utilitarianism is made of. He the goes on to argue that these parts are independent and that their merit should be judged independently. He shows several roads one can take without accepting utilitarianism in its totality.
In the third lecture Sen takes a look at the proper scope of social choice theory and things that should be incorporated but aren't yet. It's fairly good but nothing spectacular.
Apart from the rough outline given, the worth of the book lies in little remarks Sen makes on a number of topics. These remarks make one think and reconsider ones position.
Can a thermometer cure the illness?.......2003-05-14
Amartya Sen makes a number of specific criticisms of utilitarianism which are his own. The most significant of these is the criticism of âutilityâ as a measure of well-being. He rightly points out that âfunctioningâ is a more rational measure of well-being than opulence â" command over a mass of commodities, or utility â" the value of desired objects. People can use things they command, whether purchased or enjoyed by nature, in order to achieve a level of functionality in life, but the level of functionality achieved is dependent on numerous factors over and above the things used. A landless peasant may be very âhappyâ at getting a pile of straw to sleep on for the night, and may have no âdesireâ for crepes suzette, but neither fact contributes anything to a measure of their well-being. Functionality, however, is amenable to perfectly objective measurement: life expectancy, freedom from illness, level of education, freedom, access to love ones, etc.. Measurement of expenditure on food, medicines, educational services, transport etc., indicates only the effort taken under given conditions to achieve a level of functionality, but this may be as much inversely related to the degree of functionality achieved as directly related. The more a person is subject to crime, the more they spend on crime prevention, the more unhealthy a person is, the more they spend on medicine. Public policy can therefore only measure its own success by the summation of functionality or capability.
On top of this, Sen points out that even the level of functionality achieved is not a proper measure; in the first place, someone may not want to achieve a certain functionality, and in the second place, such a capability (such as the ability to do violence to other people) may not be morally valued by the community as a whole. Therefore, the more ephemeral capability is the true measure of well-being, rather than achieved functionality.
Utilitarianism is a justification for free-market capitalism. The phenomena described in the dot points above are all too familiar phenomena of the action of the free market. They are not just âanomaliesâ for utilitarianism, they are its unambiguous expression. The point of utilitatarianism is simply to prove that all these abominations are âthe best of all possible worldsâ ridiculed three hundred years ago by Voltaire.
It is clear enough that utilitarian ethics is simply a justification for free-market economics which has the superficial appearance of intuitive validity. So there is value in criticising utilitarianism, in exposing its fraudulent character, and in trying to produce an alternative measure of the goodness of a state of affairs. Such a measure could be used to legitimise public policy which is not aimed just at maximising the accumulation of capital.
âGreen economicsâ has had a similar aim, to encourage governments to keep statistics on values which are external to the economy (such as forests and rivers, clean air and so on) so that the government has available a measure of its success or failure, alternative to the calculation of GDP.
The great advantage of utilitarianism in its most naïve and primitive form, is that it fairly well captures the real ethic of capitalism. That is, it is very poor ethics, but reasonably good economics. (I say âreasonably goodâ because of course no real person ever acts as the narrowly self-interested infinitely well-informed computer which utilitarian economic assumes them to be.) The definition of the free economic agent which constitutes the definition of the person for utilitarianism is the basis for the exchange of commodities at their value, and constitutes the ideal condition for the accumulation of capital.
Sen raises the deeper question raised by the critique of utilitarianism as public policy, as to what, if any, justification is there for presuming that in a community there is any agent having the legitimacy to choose one state of affairs over another and determine public policy accordingly, at all. Or, more specifically, where such legitimacy may lie. To construct a theory of capability-utilitarianism still supposes that the agency which collects the data on capability and enforces laws aimed at maximising it has the legitimacy to do so.
And incidentally, the project also raises the question of the capability to do so.
Utilitarianism in its naïve form was nothing but an apology for the naked rule of capital, whose function is to advise governments to let the market do its work without interference, to justify self-seeking by âprovingâ that the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved by unfettered individualistic self-seeking. As a guide to public policy therefore it was simply an advice to do as little as possible, within the limits imposed by avoiding or suppressing riot, revolution and war.
Once we say that, actually, the market does not produce the greatest well-being for the greatest number, or any version of social justice at all, then the provision of a measuring scale is a fairly marginal contribution to doing something about the problem.
On the one hand we have an economic system, capitalism, based on the free exchange of commodities at their value, whose outcome is the concentration of economic and therefore political power in the hands of a few, and on the other hand a state and governmental machine which aims to measure and regulate this economy. Perhaps being in possession of a sound critique of utilitarian ethics makes it easy to interfere in the market with a good conscience, but we are still a long way short of an ethic which can implement a general improvement of living capabilities.
The thermometer can tell the doctor when you have a fever, can cannot cure the illness. Most people donât need a thermometer to know when they have a fever.
ethic.......1999-03-25
ethi
Book Description
This wise and optimistic book examines the rampant scandals that plague American corporations today and shows how companies can reverse the resulting climate of mistrust. By seizing the opportunity to address some of the nation’s—and the world’s—most serious problems, business can strengthen its reputation for integrity and service and advance to a new stage of ethical legitimacy. Daniel Yankelovich, a social scientist and an experienced member of the corporate boardroom, describes the toxic convergence of cultural and business trends that has led inexorably to corporate scandals. Yet he offers reassurance that opportunity exists for positive change. Creative business leaders can advance market capitalism to its next stage of evolution, building upon business norms that simultaneously emphasize the legitimacy of profit making and the importance of the care that companies give to employees, customers, and the larger society.
The book asserts that American culture has abandoned its old tradition of enlightened self-interest, of “doing well by doing good.” A narrow legalism has taken over (“I didn’t break the law; therefore I didn’t do anything wrong”). Yankelovich argues that attempts to deal with such flawed ethical norms by means of more laws and regulations cannot succeed. He offers a series of case histories to show how and why stewardship ethics can strengthen individuals, corporations, the nation, and the world economy.
Customer Reviews:
Lots of Stimulating Thought in a Small Book.......2007-08-09
Daniel Yankelovich is a social scientist who has also served on several corporate boards. That gives him a unique perspective on the ethical challenges that face board members.
Yankelovich, to use his term, is a "privileged witness," who sees business from the outside, but has seen its inner workings up close. Even more important in some ways is the fact that he and his company have been among the firms tracking changes in society over several decades.
Here is why he wrote this book: "The purpose of this short book is to suggest that the business community can turn the scandals of recent years to good use, both for business itself and for the larger society."
Yankelovich sees three causes for these scandals. They are: 1) deregulation; 2) linking the biggest part of CEO compensation to stock price; and, 3) the importing of wider social norms into business, resulting in what he calls "unenlightened self-interest."
In the first half of the book he outlines changes in social norms in both business in society over several decades. Business, according to Yankelovich is more likely establish the norms he desires than society as a whole. And, he thinks, if business does so it will "help dispel moral confusion in the culture at large."
He says: "My main argument in the book is that the time has come for market capitalism in the United States to advance to a new stage of enlightened self-interest."
To do that he advocates something he calls "Stewardship Ethics," which he defines as "commitment to care for one's institution and those it serves in a manner that responds to a higher level of expectations." He devotes the second half of the book to describing what a set of norms based on "stewardship ethics" might look like and how they might come about.
In one of the most helpful sections of the book, Yankelovich spends time outlining the difference between his Stewardship Ethics and the bundle of beliefs and positions that come under the heading of "Corporate Social Responsibility."
If you're like me, you'll find Yankelovich's position a refreshing change from the "profit is evil" approach of most CSR types. If you are someone who sees the pursuit of profit by companies as, at best, a necessary evil, you will be very uncomfortable with this book and its ideas.
This book has two key strengths. First, Yankelovich himself is both knowledgeable and logical. Second, the book is short, only around 170 pages of text. Those are also the book's weaknesses.
Because Yankelovich himself is knowledgeable, he often leaves terms undefined. I could not find a definition, for example, of one of his key terms, "market capitalism." It may be that everyone indeed defines that term the same way, but I doubt it.
The shortness of the book means that some arguments are made without adequate support. For example, on page 96, Yankelovich says, "How well a company conceives and executes stewardship ethics as a community has a direct bearing on its long term profitability." He then offers the example of Wegman's as proof. Alas, a single example without supporting evidence is not proof.
This brings us to the key question: "Should you buy and read this book?"
If you are a senior executive, a member of a corporate board, or a faculty member at a business school, this should be on your "must-read" list. Yankelovich has crammed a lot of good stuff and cogent analysis in here about the business climate and corporate responses.
This book is also a good read if you're interested in the ethical challenges of contemporary business, but you don't make it your primary focus. If you're a professional ethicist or philosopher, you'll find the book a little light on both reasoning and support, but that's exactly why it's a good read for the rest of us. The book is filled with provocative ideas and well written.
But if you're looking for a "how to" book, this would be a poor choice. It's a great book for stimulating thought and discussion, but the "how to" will be up to you.
Must Reading For Any Current Or Future CEO And Business Leader.......2007-07-09
This is a book I wish I had written. I have talked at length over the past few years about what is wrong with today's capitalist economy and particularly so since the Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and other corporate scandals. However, I am and always have been a committed supporter of a free-market economy with minimal government interference. In the late 1950s (while very young!) I embraced Ayn Rand's "laissez-faire" theory of business, only to be later disturbed by some of the unwarranted and seriously problematic assumptions one had to make in order to completely buy into her "doctrine" of extreme individualism and "caveat emptor" economics. While I recognized that neither Communism (ala Marx) nor state socialism could bring about a dynamic market economy combined with political liberty, there was, I thought, definitely something missing in the theory and practice of a free-market economy as Rand and her coterie envisioned and promoted it. Moreover, the so-called "mixed economy" (which is what the U.S. pretty much has now -- a mixture of free-market and "socialist" elements) has not prevented the scandals recently experienced.
Enter Daniel Yankelovich with his new book "Profit With Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism." In my opinion, on the Aristotelian scale of ethical virtue, his book represents the "mean" between the extremes of a dog-eat-dog capitalism with profit as the "only" consideration and the position that profit is evil, private enterprise is antisocial and, therefore, a centrally-planned government-run economy is the only acceptable solution. Economic activity is, of course, not fundamentally different from any other human activity, whether it be individual, social, political, or whatever. There has to be some moral foundation, some ethical framework, which justifies and provides a rational structure for the activity. Neither of the aforementioned extremes can provide the necessary theoretical support nor the practical guidelines for an economic system which must take into consideration human nature and the human condition.
In his book, Yankelovich states that his "main argument . . . is that the time has come for market capitalism . . . to advance to a new stage of enlightened self-interest. American business needs to develop a new ethic -- a coherent set of social norms -- both to counteract the forces leading to the scandals and to meet the challenges of the global economy that call upon business to take on many new responsibilities." He calls his program (if that is the appropriate term) a "stewardship ethics," a set of cultural norms for business which involves social responsibility without rejecting the concepts of profit and self-interest. This is, for the most part, my position on the issue. The philosophical enemies of market capitalism have had plenty of ammunition provided to them in recent years by some of those -- dare I say "crooks"? -- who are involved in market capitalism itself. Without a solid and rational moral foundation, market capitalism becomes its own worst enemy. Yankelovich appears to be confronting this challenge and, I think, points the way to a good resolution of the problem.
There is no question now, in my view, that capitalism as it has been practiced in the past is just that -- a thing of the past. Capitalism must now advance to the "next stage of evolution," as Yankelovich envisions it. While it is vital that profit-making remain a central concern and goal of any economic enterprise, companies must also give due consideration to customers, employees, and society at large. There is really no essential conflict between making a profit (which any business must do to survive) and social responsibility. This notion of conflicting objectives was, I suspect, a matter of philosophical immaturity during the developmental growth of the capitalist system. It should be recalled that many of the so-called "robber barons" of the past did participate in philanthropic activities and contribute generously to the "social good." (Think Carnegie libraries, Ford and Rockefeller foundations.)
But, of course, the problem remains regarding the future of market capitalism, especially amid all the recent scandals. This is where I think Yankelovich makes his most noteworthy contribution. Abstract principles of ethics -- which is what many of us were primarily concerned with when I taught classes in ethical theory in years past -- is one thing. Important as that is, however, the application of ethical principles to practical situations, institutions, and social realities is, after all, of immediate concern. What Yankelovich provides is an extension of rational ethical principles into the marketplace, that is, where the action is and where they are most useful. There is no justification now for schools of business and departments of economics to ignore the moral and social ramifications of market activities; courses in business ethics, and I suggest maybe the "stewardship ethics" recommended in this book, ought to be a core part of the curriculum -- not just an elective, but a requirement.
"Profit With Honor" is, of course, not a full-blown treatise on business ethics. It is a short book, a mere 169 pages of actual text. It is, however, concise and to the point. Yankelovich's suggestion that market capitalism should adopt the idea of "doing well by doing good" comes across throughout the book and this idea needs to be internalized by anyone considering a future in business leadership. He concludes: "In our culture . . . the transformation to stewardship ethics may take place without even being widely noticed. But its effects will register in enhanced trust in the business sector, in improved long-term profitability, and in significant advances in global well-being." One can only hope what he says proves prophetic. This book is an excellent introduction to the problem at hand and, for many of us I suspect, a framework within which the practical solution to the problem can be realized. Must reading for any contemporary or future CEO. Highly recommended.
Should Be In Every Boardroom.......2007-07-07
This book is about ethics and integrity in corporate America. The author discusses the various scandals of the past decade or so, looks at root causes, and proposes a solution.
This book could easily have been a statist prescription for yet more regulation by that whacko entity we call the federal government (which doesn't actually govern), but fortunately it was not. Just as easily, it could have been yet another book used by the author to push the leftist agenda in the rosiest of terms, despite the fact that agenda has always failed and always will. Fortunately, we were spared that reality-challenged view as well. Nor is it another effort to push the "conservative" agenda (basically, a way of diverting money to special interests). In fact, Yankelovich stresses the need to move beyond political "solutions" to problems.
People change careers, and I am one of those people. In my former life as an engineer (in a galaxy far, far away or something to that effect), one of the skills I learned was root cause analysis. This kind of analysis is demonstrably absent in public policy, as is evident from the demonstrable failure of federal policies, federal agencies, federal programs, and just about anything else spewing forth from Washington, DC. I notice that most "experts" have pretty logical-sounding solutions to what ails us, but almost none of them first determines what problem needs solving. They have a hammer (their area of expertise), and the whole world is their nail.
Yankelovich takes a humbler and more rational approach. This book talks about what CEOs and other leaders should do to restore integrity in our corporations, yet in the preface he says he's neither a celebrated CEO nor an expert on the subject. Upon reading the book, I found this worked to his advantage. He's not an armchair general type, either, though. He was on many boards over many years and has seen the workings of the inner sanctum firsthand. His background as a social scientist and researcher is also a critical qualification, because he has an excellent lens through which to observe and analyze.
At 169 pages in paperback format, this book is short. It's not a highly detailed academic treatise on case histories. Yankelovich is certainly capable of producing such an opus. But it would be read by academics rather than CEOs. This book is the perfect size for its primary target audience--the high level corporate executive. It can fit into a briefcase for reading during a return flight or two.
Profit with Honor has ten chapters. The first two give us a clear picture of the problem. In those chapters, Yankelovich also discusses why legal remedies don't work. For example, if you have a law barring a certain behavior, people who believe it's OK to game the system will find and exploit a loophole. To see how this pans out, look no further than our insane, and counterproductive, federal income tax code. He also talks about what happens when a company promises to play nice and then doesn't.
The next two chapters explain why "What's good for GM is good for America" isn't so (not to pick on GM--that was the actual statement, but the sentiment was quickly adopted by other companies). Yankelovich also provides comparisons between the ethics of today (or lack thereof) to the ethics of previous times. This isn't a "sure was great in the good old days" fantasy. Yankelovich bases his analysis on actual research, including a study of the Harvard Business School Class of 1949.
What he has to say about "civil society" in Chapter Five is right on target, and should be required reading for everyone over the age of six. Unfortunately, we have too few adults with the proper training in civility, and we gag on that aftertaste of that every day.
Chapter Six and Chapter Seven provide a good discussion of stewardship ethics, which Yankelovich proposes as the means of getting our corporations back on track.
In Chapter Eight, Yankelovich exposes the fallacy of the "Shareholder Value" philosophy, leaving no doubt for the reader that it has proven to be costly and destructive. Chapter Nine explores the concept of gatekeeper integrity. Our gatekeepers include institutional investors, auditors, business lawyers, investment bankers, business journalists, and educators--and they have profoundly failed us.
The final chapter, Titled "Hummer vs. Hybrid" nicely ties the book's concepts together. What better way to make things clear than to use a common example and figuratively turn it over in your hand so that each edge, nook, and cranny is exposed to sunlight? This example concerns the attitudes of two companies. The first one is GM, which I loathe. The second is Toyota, of which I am a customer and a huge fan.
GM chased short-term profits by producing gas-guzzling Hummers. Thanks to GM lobbyists, the CONgress (which sells legislation to the highest bidder) introduced more distortions into that abomination called "the federal income tax code" to make it advantageous for people to own Hummers rather than a vehicle that makes sense. Hummers tear up our roads (causing us to pay higher road taxes) and consume four times the fuel that a sensible vehicle does (causing gas prices to be higher). So, we all pay for some insecure person to drive around in a Hummer dominating the road while GM managers soak up their bonuses for short-term profits and Middle East terrorists enjoy the funding provided by the additional oil revenue. All perfectly legal.
Toyota, on the other hand, behaved responsibly by producing the fuel-efficient Prius hybrid. It's important to note that this isn't their only fuel-efficient vehicle. My Camry gets nearly 40 MPG on the highway (5-speed manual transmission, good driving habits, synthetic oil, and other things boost its fuel economy past the EPA rating). Some other models of conventially-powered Toyotas, such as the Corolla, do even better.
If we replaced every GM vehicle with a Toyota Camry, America would no longer have an energy problem.
Toyota's venture into the hybrid market came at the cost of short-term losses. This car isn't a cash cow for them, and it isn't causing their executives to go home with multi-million dollar bonuses. It's part of the their long-term strategy to build cars that serve people and society. It's the result of their "continual improvement" ethic.
Yankelovich follows this same ethic in his writing. He isn't proposing a quick fix. He's proposing a change in underlying attitudes and beliefs, and it takes time for those things to produce effects. It's like eating right vs. taking medications. Eating right won't instantly make you healthy, if you are presently not eating right. But it's the only way to be healthy and correcting the effects of wrong behavior takes time.
It's also a monumental task to get all the players on board with such a change. If this book makes its way into boardrooms and executive suites across the country, and if individuals in those boardrooms and executive suites decide to make personal integrity a top priority ala the Class of 1949, that change can and will happen.
If you like the idea of a nation in which corporations are run in an ethical fashion (providing a model the federal "government" might learn from), read this book and then recommend it to others.
Book Description
For a century and a half, the artists and intellectuals of Europe have scorned
the bourgeoisie. And for a millennium and a half, the philosophers and theologians of Europe have scorned the marketplace. The bourgeois life, capitalism, Mencken’s “booboisie” and David Brooks’s “bobos”—all have been, and still are, framed as being responsible for everything from financial to moral poverty, world wars, and spiritual desuetude. Countering these centuries of assumptions and unexamined thinking is Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Virtues, a magnum opus that offers a radical view: capitalism is good for us.
McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.
High Noon, Kant, Bill Murray, the modern novel, van Gogh, and of course economics and the economy all come into play in a book that can only be described as a monumental project and a life’s work. The Bourgeois Virtues is nothing less than a dazzling reinterpretation of Western intellectual history, a dead-serious reply to the critics of capitalism—and a surprising page-turner.
Customer Reviews:
Very interesting but flawed.......2007-04-04
McCloskey has written a fascinating and potentially great book, but she doesn't quite pull it off. It is a book that covers a remarkable lot of ground, and which has an important argument at its heart: namely, that the so-called bourgeois virtues are generally both treated unfairly and their value underestimated, in terms of contributing to our material well-being. She ranges far and wide, discussing Greek tragedy, character theory and films, moral agency and novels, as well as philosophers, writers, and economists (she is herself an economist, but a very learned and obviously interesting one). The problem, however, is that this book reads like the cobbled-together journal musing and responses of a remarkably talented and well-read diarist, but one that hasn't edited her work carefully enough. To say it is unsystematic is an understatement. Still, it is very much worth reading, not least because it's spontaneity is infectious. It's an exciting book. Many works on virtue theory are dry and detailed, as if the authors want to match the dryness of (most) deontological or utilitarian accounts of ethics. McCloskey's work is the opposite of dry. Think of it as (loosely) applied virtue theory. But as another reviewer says, you will want to read or re-read Adam Smith after this, just to see how an excellent and successful defence of the bourgeois virtues and the market economy is conducted. (Is it unfair to demand of McCloskey that she provide us with another, perhaps updated version of The Theory of the Moral Sentiments? Probably. But her book is good enough that it provokes this demand.)
Very Disappointing.......2006-12-22
I was very eager to read this book. Deirdre Mccloskey has a great reputation as talented and iconoclastic economist, as well as a gifted writer. One would not know this, however, from reading only her latest book, "The Bourgeois Virtues," which is the first of a planned four-book series.
This book is, simply put, a mess. Ostensibly an apologia for capitalism, organized around various traditional (and not so traditional) moral "virtues," in the tradition of Adam Smith's "The Theory of the Moral Sentiments," McCloskey's book is, in fact, a rambling, confused (or, at least, confusing), idiosyncratic, grandiose and self-serving diary of personal experiences and beliefs, complete with lengthy disquisitions on books, articles, films, poetry and music she either adores or detests. Her erudition is as impressive as it is obvious; she rather hits the reader over the head with it. She can cite more works from different disciplines -- both low-brow and high-brow -- on a single page, than most authors can manage in an entire chapter. At first, the reader is awe-struck by the vastness of her knowledge. Soon, however, the reader's head starts spinning from all the sharp turns and digressions, and fatigue sets in. For a while, one presses on, fighting the fatigue in the vain hope of a pay-off that never comes. Perhaps it will come in book 4 of the series. Now, I don't have a particular short time horizon (or high discount rate), but I'm not waiting until book 4 to find out where all of McCloskey's ruminations lead us.
Surprisingly, the author pays scant attention to economics throughout the book; and when she does mention the subject of her real expertise, the analysis is somewhere between skimpy and non-existent. She identifies herself as a Chicago-school economist, and to prove her bona fides she suggests in the book's executive summary that there is no such thing as a public good (citing as support only Coase's justly famous article about lighthouses in England, despite subsequent work by van Zandt showing that Coase's lighthouses were all heavily subsidized from public coffers). And in strong contrast to Adam Smith, who believed in publicly owned (or crown-owned) parks f
General
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Case Studies in Business, Society, and Ethics, Fifth Edition
Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century
Street-Smart Ethics: Succeeding in Business Without Selling Your Soul
Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron
In Search of Ethics: Conversations with Men and Women of Character
