Jonathan Wight's Ethics in economics: an introduction to moral frameworks. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015, 275 pp.

Abstract

Review of Jonathan Wight's Ethics in economics: an introduction to frameworks. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015, 275 pp.For many years now those of us looking for a text to use in courses on ethics and economics and have had to rely primarily on Hausman and McPherson's Economic analysis, philosophy, and public policy (2006). In my experience that largely comprehensive work has proven to be a far better guide for the instructor than for students who are new to the study of and political philosophy, or to the practice of normative engagement. Working with upper level undergraduate and graduate students in a school of international studies-where students are typically more widely trained than in economics departments-I've found the book too choppy in its presentation (too detailed in some respects and too rushed in others, which interferes with its narrative flow) and ultimately discouraging for students trying to wrap their minds around the central concepts of philosophy. Though there are sections of the book that are superb-its extended treatment of the infamous Larry Summers World Bank memo that advocates dumping pollution in poor countries is analytically and pedagogically first rate- the book now serves me primarily as a useful reference in my own research and teaching. It is no longer featured on my syllabi.In part for this reason I was eager to read Jonathan Wight's Ethics in economics, to see whether it might provide a viable alternative for introducing students to the field. In fact, it does. But the book is more than the introductory text that it purports to be. The book has deepened my own reckoning with normative and economic theory, human behavior, and policy adjudication. For the sake of the many students who have passed through my courses over the years, I only wish the book had appeared a decade or two earlier.Ethics in economics covers familiar ground (before introducing innovative ideas), but in ways that are both wonderfully accessible and directly relevant to economics. For instance, the three chapters in Part I demonstrate why ethics matters in economics, and why even positive economics is value laden. This is something many economists are reluctant to concede, even following the persuasive work by Amartya Sen (1987) and others. Here Wight explores consequentialist, deontological, and virtue-based frameworks. The presentation is analytically sharp but also intuitive. Within the first dozen pages Wight has already introduced a concrete case that is both engaging and instructive-the infamous decision in the 1970s by GM not to repair a known problem with the gas tank placement on the Chevy Malibu that could and did cause explosions in certain crash situations that led to serious injuries and death. Wight exploits the case to convey the principal features of alternative theories and to tease out the distinctions between them. Having presented the frameworks, many normative theorists-and especially economists-would rush toward a forced normative choice of one framework over others as the uniquely appropriate lens by which to judge behavior, and economic policies and outcomes.1 In economics, after all, we tend toward what philosopher Howard Radest (1997) calls moral geometry-the reduction of baffling ethical problems via a neat, analytically tractable machinery that yields unambiguous policy directives. Hence our profession's deep attachment to Pareto, Kaldor-Hicks, cost-benefit analysis, or social welfare functions. Given his previous work on Adam Smith, one might have expected Wight to reject consequentialist and deontological ethics in toto in favor of virtue ethics as the singly appropriate and defensible framework to guide agents' decision-making and ground normative economics.Wight does not take that route, however.2 Instead, a central objective (and certainly the most novel feature) of the book is to argue that any mono-theoretic approach is just as stunted and harmful in normative theory as it is in positive theory. …