Contributory Justice – The Conversational Economist

Today is Labor Day in the United States. Our jobs are one of the ways we contribute to society as a whole. In this spirit, I share some thoughts from Michael Sandel’s 2020 book. Tyranny of Merit. In the final part of the book (pp. 206-213), he raises the idea of ​​what he calls “contributory justice.” Sandel writes:

Economic concerns are not just about the money in your pocket. They are also about how your role in the economy affects your status in society. Those left behind by 40 years of globalization and rising inequality were suffering more than just stagnant wages. They feared becoming increasingly obsolete. The society they lived in no longer seemed to need the skills they had to offer. … [C]Contemporary liberals have … offered working-class and middle-class voters greater distributive justice, that is, fairer and more complete access to the fruits of economic growth. But what these voters want more is greater contributory justice, that is, the opportunity to earn the social recognition and respect that comes with producing what others need and value. …

Sandel argues that when economists focus on economic output and the resulting distribution of income, they miss important aspects of human flourishing. He writes:

People have different views about what is important in life. We disagree about the meaning of human flourishing. … But we can all agree, and it may seem so, that increasing the economic pie is better than decreasing it. Contributory justice, on the other hand, is not neutral about human flourishing or the best way to live. From Aristotle to the American Republican tradition, from Hegel to Catholic social teaching, theories of contributory justice teach that we are most fully human when we contribute to the common good and earn the respect of our fellow citizens for our contributions. According to this tradition, basic human needs are those that we share in common life with. The dignity of work emphasizes our ability to meet those needs. …

Political economy that is only interested in the size and distribution of GDP undermines the dignity of work and creates an impoverished life for citizens. … [P]Progressives have largely abandoned the politics of community, patriotism, and the dignity of work, and have instead offered a rhetoric of upward mobility: … Go to college. Prepare to compete and win in the global economy. What you earn depends on what you learn. If you work hard, you can succeed. This was an idealism suited to a global, meritocratic, market-driven era. It flattered the winners and humiliated the losers. By 2016, that time was up.

It’s always helpful to read Sandel’s writings because of the open and accessible way he poses questions. I find myself nodding in particular at his critique of the long-held fallacy that success in any way requires extraordinary merit. Moreover, this merit can be generalized to other areas. For example, when a top athlete wins a championship or an award, sportscasters often get excited about the winner “working harder” or “being more competitive” than the others. The implication seems to be that the hardest-working and most competitive are the winners. But of course, it’s almost certainly possible that there are Olympic athletes who worked harder and competed more than the winners, but who underperformed on certain metrics of the Olympic event because of other sinful factors, such as access to coaching and advice, access to financial, family, and social support, and genetic factors that shape their body structure.

Success, whether in sports, acting, or business, is often associated with some type of personal merit, but the correlation is imperfect. Moreover, maximizing achievement and merit in one area of ​​human endeavor can often be associated with behavior bordering on obsession, which conflicts with other aspects of human experience. There is no reason to believe that someone who is successful in sports, acting, or business should care about their opinions on, say, love, marriage, parenting, or politics.

But while I largely agree with Sandel’s argument, I also recognize that he can ruffle my feathers. For example, is it true (as Sandel writes) that “we are most fully human when we contribute to the common good?” The words “contribute” and “common good” come into play here. If working in a paid job is contributing to the common good, does that phrase mean that we are all “most fully human” when we are at work? In evaluating such statements, I would like to know much more about who decides what “contribution” means, who decides what counts as the “common good,” and the extent to which it is permissible to disagree with the definitions offered by others. I am neither an ancient Greek nor a Catholic, so I am willing to listen to and learn from Aristotle and Catholic social teaching, but I do not expect to fully agree with their views.

I agree that Sandel doesn’t pay enough attention to the dignity of work itself. In the words of poet Marge Piercy, “usefulness” is what matters. I sometimes like to quote the transcendentalist philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson: As one man wrote in 1844:[W]Whether your work is good or rough, whether you plant corn or write an epic, if it is honest work, and work that you recognize as your own, it will reward sense and thought. No matter how often you are defeated, you were born to win. The reward of work well done is that you have done it.” But note that Emerson’s view of the dignity of work is not what Sandel calls “social recognition and respect.” Instead, Emerson is referring to a direct relationship between “honest work that you recognize as your own” and people. When Sandel discusses the “dignity of work,” he focuses primarily on political economics, the somewhat vague notion of the “common good,” and the possibilities for “alternative political projects.”

There seems to be a hint of inflexibility and stagnation in Sandel’s thesis. Perhaps it is true that (in Sandel’s words) “a political economy that is concerned only with the size and distribution of GDP undermines the dignity of work.” I am willing to consider this proposition, but the word “only” here carries a heavy burden. After all, a huge part of the real-world political economy already includes policy objectives that go beyond the size and distribution of GDP. But it may equally be true that (in my words) “a political economy that is concerned only with the dignity of work undermines the size and distribution of GDP.” To take an extreme example, if the “dignity of work” in agriculture had been sufficiently supported 100 years ago to require no change, or if the “dignity of work” in manufacturing jobs had been sufficiently supported 70 years ago to require no change, the American economy would not have evolved. The notions of “dignity of work” or “contributory justice” should not imply that workers can stay in the same role or industry forever.

But of course Sandel knows all this. This short essay is simply to highlight this idea of ​​“contributory justice” as a starting point for further discussion. Perhaps the greatest sin on Labor Day is not taking the time to appreciate all those who work and contribute, whether paid or unpaid.