Ellen Van Stichel
Journal of Economics, Theology and Religion, vol. 5, no. 1 (2025): 141-155
Abstract
Aristotle’s conceptualization of chremastikè and oikonomia offers a foundational framework for understanding the distinction between an economy focused on the accumulation of wealth, as represented by chremastikè, and one that prioritizes the needs of all members of a “household,” as embodied by oikonomia. A theological perspective critiques the contemporary economy, asserting that it has become excessively aligned with chremastikè, while its fundamental function and objectives should more closely align with the principles of oikonomia, as it was originally defined. The question that arises is: what does this mean? In this paper, an effort is made to retrieve some of that original meaning, in light of Catholic social thought’s (CST) view on the role and function of the economy, which should serve humanity and not the other way around. The notion of integral development, as developed by the Dominican economist Lebret, is still extremely relevant. Furthermore, the Catholic Church’s understanding of oikonomia has evolved to encompass not only a relational perspective but also the concept of the “home” in oikonomia extending to material resources and the environment. This paper will explore the implications of this evolution of CST’s understanding from integral development to integral ecology and its differences from so-called neoclassical economics.
Keywords
Catholic Social Thought, Lebret, integral ecology, economic ethics, Laudato si
Publication history
First view: 23 April 2025
Published: 20 May 2025
1. Introduction
In the history of Western thought, there was a time when economics was regarded as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Philosophical thinking on economics had a normative character, with the question of its aims being of central importance. Philosophers asked: to what end? What is the purpose of the economy? The evolution of economics as an independent scientific discipline has not occurred without consequences. One consequence has been a loss of normative reflection on the purpose of the economy. Taking Greek philosophy as a starting point to draw further on Catholic Social Teaching, both of which are embedded within this philosophical economic tradition, I pose an old question to our present context: to whom or what does the economy serve?
In elucidating the manner in which economics deviated from its original purpose, Kate Raworth (2017, 32ff) begins with the well-known dichotomy posited by the ancient Greek philosophers Xenophon and Aristotle between oikonomia and chremastikè. The former denotes the ‘art’ of managing a household, whereas the latter signifies the ‘art’ of accumulating wealth and goods. The term “economy” is derived from the Greek word oikonomia, which refers to the management of a household. This term has a clear objective: to ensure the well-being and prosperity of all members of the household within a community. In the 18th century, Raworth continues, when economics became an independent science, James Steuart, the founder of “political economy,” still had a clear goal in mind for the economy: to guarantee subsistence, to mitigate conditions that lead to precariousness, to meet the needs of the community, and to provide the context for “reciprocal relations and dependencies between them, so as to make their several interests lead them to supply one another with their reciprocal wants” (see Raworth 2017, 32–4). During the same period, a normative perspective on the purpose of economics also emerged in the writings of Adam Smith. However, this perspective gradually receded from view. While Lionel Robbins (London School of Economics) still referred to economics in 1932 as “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” (Robbins 1932, cited in Raworth 2017, 34), Mankiw, in his description of economics as “the study of how society manages its scarce resources” (Mankiw 2012, cited in Raworth 2017, 34), fails to consider the ends, resulting in a perspective akin to that of Milton Friedman and others who view economics as a value-free discipline. Put differently: instrumental rationality (i.c. choosing means in light of a well-defined goal, namely focus on profit maximization) trumped “ethical reasonableness” which “appeals to values and desires such as happiness, hope and suffering” (Opdebeeck 2016, 44).
The separation of economic and philosophical discourse (and its normative reflection) was so effective that the underlying presuppositions of this view on the economy became mainstream. The scientific character of economics and the economy contributes to an unquestionable status quo, which is legitimized in a context where normative questions and discussions on goals and the good are viewed with suspicion. However, as Michael Sandel correctly asserts, “For fear of disagreement, we hesitate to bring our moral and spiritual convictions into the public square. But shrinking from these questions does not leave them undecided. It simply means that markets will decide them for us. This is the lesson of the last three decades” (Sandel 2012, 202).
In light of the current state of global affairs, with prevailing poverty challenged by the environmental crises, it is imperative to reinvigorate the discourse on the objective and trajectory of economic policy. This must be done not merely descriptively, but also normatively, as evidenced by the growing number of initiatives within and beyond the field of economics that seek to do so. Indeed, there is a growing sense of urgency that the model of chremastikè has reached, or is rapidly reaching, its limits. This calls for a return to the roots of the economy as oikonomia, with the aim of ensuring that it serves the whole household, including what Kate Raworth terms “our planetary household.” As a theologian, it is not so much a matter of reclaiming the debate as it is of reaffirming the long-standing connection between the normative foundations of economic theory and Catholic Social Teaching (CST), which is the perspective I espouse here. Rather, it is about reintroducing CST’s initial focus on the purpose of the economy to the discussion.
While Pope John XXIII’s papal teaching in the early 1960s supported the optimistic view of the United Nations with its “Decennium of the Development,” believing that a Western-style economic development was possible for the entire world, his successor Pope Paul VI took the discussion a step further by focusing on the fundamental questions of the roots and purpose of the economy. This led him to introduce Louis-Joseph Lebret’s concept of “integral human development” to CST, which remains within this tradition the primary objective and evaluative criterion for our economy to this day. With the additional focus on our environment as “our common home,” the notion was recently expanded by Pope Francis to include the planet into our idea of the “household” leading to the introduction of the notion of “integral ecology.” This expansion of the notion of oikonomia, as posited by Aristotle, is a key aspect of CST. This paper will argue how CST’s view on economics and the economy aids us to rethink the role and goal of the economy as an Aristotelian oikonomia.
2. Louis-Joseph Lebret’s understanding of the purpose of the economy
Louis-Joseph Lebret (1897–1966), an economist and Dominican, was of crucial importance for CST’s understanding of the role and purpose of the economy. While he was an academic economist, Lebret’s reflections are not the product of an abstract reflection, produced in an academic ivory tower; rather, they are inspired by and grounded in his life and experience. After leaving the navy and joining the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), Lebret returned in 1929 to his birth region in Saint Malo (Brittany, France), where he was able to reconnect with the challenges facing the fishing community. As this community grappled with the ramifications of industrialization and economic turmoil, Lebret demonstrated a keen interest in their material and spiritual well-being, as well as in the broader implications for the community. This is evident in his dedication to the Movement of Saint Malo (a union organization of fishermen) and his role as the founding father of the Jeunesse Maritime Catholique, which drew inspiration from the JOC established by Joseph Cardijn. He promptly recognized that merely implementing social reforms was insufficient to address the fishermen’s challenges. Instead, a more comprehensive and radical transformation in the economic system was necessary to effectively address the issues they were grappling with. This prompted Lebret to consider the development of a “human economy,” an economy that serves humanity, with the aim of enabling a “population to pass from a less human to a more human phase at the fastest rate and at the least cost, considering the inter-related development of all peoples” (Lebret 1959, 16).
This demonstrates Lebret’s recognition that the issues extend beyond the French fishermen and encompass other sectors, including other communities and nations. Consequently, the “Foudation Economie et Humanisme” was established in 1939 with the involvement of lay individuals and members of the Dominican Order, including Henri Desroche and Thomas Suavet. As Lebret gained international recognition for his work, he was invited in the 1950s to teach on the human economy in São Paulo, Brazil. This led to the second significant experience of being confronted with the nature and consequences of underdevelopment, this time in the southern hemisphere. Cosmao refers to this as “the great shock of his life” (Cosmao 1970, 64), and it had a profound impact on his theory. This focus resulted in the establishment of the “Institut de recherche et de formation en économie du développement” (IRFED) in 1958. The Manifeste pour une civilization solidaire offers a synthesis of this reflective trajectory, addressing such key concepts as the human economy, development, and underdevelopment.[1]
These experiences and reflections led Lebret to define the goal of the economy in the notion of “integral development,” which entails the development of both “the whole person and every person.”[2] First, ‘the development of the whole person’. In response to an economic and developmental model that prioritizes the purchasing power of individuals, reducing them to mere consumers, capital owners, or production factors, Lebret underscores that development is not merely about “having more,” but rather about “being more.” He asserted that measuring development and well-being solely in terms of national gross product, distribution of material goods, and a quantitative summation of goods is inadequate. The notion that human beings are not solely material entities, but also possess spiritual qualities is a central tenet of Lebret’s philosophy. He posits that spiritual needs are as fundamental as material ones, a perspective that differs from the hierarchy of needs proposed by Maslow (Puel 2015, 1–4:2). This may explain his focus on the importance of love and recognition, as evidenced by his writings in his Manifeste:
The aggression of popular masses against the bourgeoisie and capitalism have without doubt to do with reasons such as the low salaries, the excess of work, the job insecurity, the slums, the increasing perception of the contrast between misery and luxury, but the most fundamental reason is that fact that workers do not feel themselves loved. They only count as production factors and profit, not as human beings (Lebret 1959, 53).
Secondly, the concept of “development for every person” is introduced. Despite the plight of the impoverished in Brazil serving as a wake-up call, Lebret remained mindful of the fishermen in his homeland. Moreover, the development he envisions is not limited to those on the margins, but also encompasses the privileged and the middle class grappling with forms of “poverty” beyond mere material deprivation, such as depression, loneliness, and, in the contemporary era, burnout. His perspective is, therefore, universal in scope. One might additionally propose that the objective should be “development with every person.” For Lebret, the objective and the methodology of striving for integral development were self-fulfillment while taking responsibility at the local level. At the same time, he was aware of international networks, organizations, and structures that, at best, facilitated integral development and, at worst, constituted an obstacle to it.
It is also important to note that Lebret rejected the concept of a “uniformization” or “standardization” of development, which would imply that a single, universal model of living could be exported globally. The prevailing international view at the time was that the issue of global poverty and inequality in the southern hemisphere was primarily a matter of underdevelopment. The solution would be to ensure that these countries could undergo a comparable development process to that experienced by Western countries. However, Lebret was aware of the inherent power imbalances between unequal economic partners, namely the West and the South, which could potentially compromise the development of the South. In addition to this more objective argument questioning the possibility of a standardization of economic development following the Western model, Lebret also considered the normative implications of rejecting uniformization. He believed that integral development could not be achieved without contextualization, as human beings and populations are inherently unique. Furthermore, he argued that there is no single, universal recipe for integral development, neither within a single nation nor across the globe (see also Puel 2015, 1).
It would be erroneous, however, to assume that every individual or nation must independently ascertain the means of ensuring integral development. As evidenced by the title of his manifest, Lebret’s objective is the establishment of a global civilization based on solidarity. It is insufficient for each individual to achieve personal fulfillment; rather, the common good is at stake. This concept is similar to the one he developed nearly two decades earlier in Découverte du bien commun. In Mystique d’un monde nouveau (1947), he posits that “the common good is the good of a human community … among brothers who share it, search for it together, realize it together, receive it together” (Lebret 1947, 23). Although the pursuit of personal fulfillment is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, it is not a capacity that can be achieved in isolation. As Lori Keheler notes, the capacity to stand in relationships of solidarity is integral to authentic human development; “Within the integral human development perspective, authentic development integrates each and every person in a humanizing process of standing in relationships of solidarity as we strive together towards promoting the common good” (Keheler 2018, 31). This signifies Lebret’s fundamental inspiration and conviction, which is rooted in the universal love of God: “Love of God is not true if it does not include an intense love for all members of humankind” (Lebret 1959, 14–5). This love is the “creative dynamic of the conditions for civilization” (Cosmao 1970, 68).
3. The notion of integral development in CST
In both secular and ecclesiastical circles, Lebret emerged as a prominent intellectual figure (Cosmao 1970, 64–5). From an external perspective, he was one of six experts who participated in the 1953 UN Conference on the measurement of living standards. Additionally, in 1964, he represented the Holy See at the UN Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva. Additionally, he was a highly active and influential contributor to the Second Vatican Council’s publication Gaudium et spes, which addressed the relationship between the Church and the world. In accordance with the tenets espoused in that document, he played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace since. Additionally, he served as the principal author of Populorum progressio, the encyclical on development, for which he had drafted the initial version in 1964. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to attend the promulgation of the encyclical in 1967, as he died a few months earlier. Nevertheless, the impact and input of Lebret were so self-evident and irrefutable that Pope Paul VI referred to the encyclical as a “tribute to his memory” (see Cosmao 1970, 66, quoting Paul VI).
In Populorum progressio, Lebret’s concept of “integral development” was introduced within the context of CST.[3] While Pietro Pavan is credited as the final editor of Populorum progressio (see Deck 2018, 307), it is evident that Lebret served as the primary source of inspiration for the text. In presenting “the heuristic concept of development” (see Dorr 2012, 156) of integral development as “the development of every person and of the whole person” (§14) and “a development which is, for each and all, the transition from less human conditions to those which are more human” (§20), the encyclical makes direct reference to Lebret. In alignment with the interconnection that Lebret established between integral development, the common good, and solidarity, the encyclical further elucidates how integral development is inherently defined by the recognition of the interplay between the individual growth of the human person and the collective advancement of all individuals on a global scale. Indeed, development is fundamentally about mutual flourishing, linking the individual and the common good. Consequently, integral development is inextricably linked to the collective advancement of humanity in solidarity (§43). Additionally, Populorum progressio reflects Lebret’s emphasis on the importance of self-fulfillment: while the lack of material goods is a key indicator of injustice, the inability to assume responsibility or engage in community (cultural, social, political) participation also impedes integral development (§30). In other words, poverty and inequality, as well as exclusion and marginalization, constitute forms of injustice. In light of this perspective, the encyclical marked the beginning of a new phase in CST’s examination of economic development and the objectives of the economy.
This phase was initiated at the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1971. The final document, entitled De iustitia in mundo, addressed the theme of global justice. [4] In a historic event, two-thirds of the bishops who participated in the Synod came from the Global South. In light of the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, which was influenced by dependency theory, and the struggles for independence from colonialism across the entire southern hemisphere, it is unsurprising that these bishops brought a different perspective to CST’s analysis of the economy and development. Following the interdependency theory, De iustitia in mundo offers a critical analysis of the prevailing circumstances and the internationally held belief in progress, as well as its underlying assumption of economic development as a rise in GDP (Himes 2018, 355). Consequently, the concept of “progress” as it is commonly understood, particularly in terms of economic development, is not a viable model for achieving universal prosperity. The bishops stated:
Such is the demand for resources and energy by the richer nations, whether capitalist or socialist, and such are the effects of dumping by them in the atmosphere and the sea that irreparable damage would be done to the essential elements of life on earth, such as air and water, if their high rates of consumption and pollution, which are constantly on the increase, were extended to the whole of humanity (§11).
However, progress is not merely a matter of material development; it also concerns the capacity for agency, which is currently beyond the reach of many individuals due to the complex networks of dependency in which they are enmeshed. In this context, progress also implies the necessity of a development model that is composed of both economic growth and participation. Progress thus also implies “the necessity—within the political system chosen—of a development composed both of economic growth and participation. … Participation constitutes a right which is to be applied both in the economic and in the social and political field” (§18). Participation is a fundamental right of the individual, as well as of nations and peoples. It enables them to “take their future into their own hands, and manifest their uniqueness and personality” (§17). This is consistent with the view put forth by Lebret and Populorum progressio that there is no single, universal model for development.
The bishops advance their argument further, arguing that participation would not only improve the wellbeing and development of peoples and countries in the South, but would also enable them to contribute to the global common good. They assert that “every people, as active and responsible members of human society, should be able to cooperate for the attainment of the common good on an equal footing with other peoples” (§71c). The perspective put forth by CST is that the search for defining and realizing human flourishing, and thus what “integral development” for the whole person and every person entails, is a common project to which all can and should contribute. De iustitia in mundo articulates a global application of this perspective, emphasizing the necessity of ending marginalization and exclusion on a global scale to achieve equality and mutual partnership in this collective endeavor. Acknowledging the reciprocity and mutuality inherent in this perspective requires recognizing the invaluable contribution that each individual can make to the creation of a shared future and a global common good. As social beings, human flourishing entails the inclusion of individuals as active participants in the discourse surrounding the “good life,” including its conceptualization, construction, and practical realization. This process can be summarized as “justice as participation.”[5]
4. From integral development to ‘integral ecology’
From the outset of his papacy, Pope Francis has been forthright in his criticism of the prevailing economic paradigm. In his inaugural Apostolic Letter, Evangelii Gaudium, the Pope does not hesitate to condemn the current economy on the grounds of its exclusion of the poor. He states, “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. … Such an economy kills.” (§53) The rationale behind this assertion is that exclusion leads to a sense of being superfluous, akin to being a mere “leftover” who is perceived as disposable (§53). This exclusion is fundamentally at odds with the Gospel message. Inclusion, therefore, entails not only “ensuring nourishment or a dignified sustenance for all, but also their ‘general temporal welfare and prosperity.’ This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives” (§192). This is not a matter of charity; rather, it requires a fundamental restructuring of the global community in order to achieve justice and liberation. In his most recent encyclical, Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis offers a critique of the prevalent misconception that the economy is inherently “open to the world” (§12). Instead, he asserts that it is primarily driven by the pursuit of foreign interests and the desire of economic powers to invest without hindrance or impediment in all countries. Furthermore, the “neoliberal dogma,” or more accurately, “its trickle-down theory,” has not yielded the anticipated outcomes and cannot be considered infallible, he argues (§168). The persistence of inequality gives rise to violence that erodes societal stability. Conversely, it is becoming increasingly evident that the economy requires trust and the centrality of human dignity (§168). Decades after the promulgation of the idea of ‘integral development,’ our global economy still fails to embody its core principles.
In his first social encyclical, Laudato si (2015), Pope Francis argues how the ecological crisis shows us that the ideal of the realization of integral development is threatened at a different level: “our common home” (§5) itself is at stake.
Our global common home is facing significant challenges. Francis attributes the underlying causes to individual factors, such as consumerism (§144; §162) and the pursuit of profit, which is one-sided, expedient, and myopic. This pursuit of profit is driven by a “selfish lack of concern” (§36), individualism, and an inability to consider the broader implications of personal interests (§162). As a more structural cause, Francis offers a critique of the impact of the technocratic paradigm: “we increasingly gain control over things, but in the process forget the object in front of us and its limits of it as evidenced by the environment with instrumentalism and manipulation as a result” (§106-7).
The field of economics lends support to this paradigm, including a belief in a quick-fix whereby technical evolutions will (easily) solve problems such as inequality and hunger (§ 109). However, it also encourages a short-term thinking that facilitates consumerism in order to generate significant profits in a relatively short period of time (§190); it ignores the ecological costs (e.g. cheap airline tickets); the financial sector’s dominates over the “real” economy (§189); it sustains “structurally perverse” trade relations and property rights regarding land ownership in the South (§52), and so on. This technocratic paradigm is fundamentally grounded in worldview which perceives nature as an object that can be instrumentalized, exploited and dominated, in which goods “end up in the hands of whoever comes first or the most powerful,” resulting in “enormous inequality, injustice and violence” (§82). This situation places the economically disadvantaged in a dependent and vulnerable position in relation to the rest of the world. The concept of a sort of “‘superdevelopment’ of a wasteful and consumerist kind” is prevailing “which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation” (§ 109). While ‘we’ benefit the ‘rest of humanity, present and future’ pays “the extremely high costs of ecological degradation” (§36). Furthermore, the most vulnerable and impoverished people are the initial casualties of this ecological crisis. They are subjected to adverse health consequences due to pollution, compelled to relocate as a result of ecological degradation, and are already experiencing the effects of climate change in the Global South. The concepts of ecological degradation, social exclusion, and material deprivation are inextricably linked.
Being increasingly aware of the devasting effects of human mistreatment of nature and ‘our common home,’ Pope Francis decides to extend the view of integral human development to the notion of ‘integral ecology’ (§11). Elaborating the notion, its complexity and multi-layered understanding becomes clear. At a fundamental theological level, integral ecology refers first and foremost to a deeper theological vision, specifically a relational vision in which all and everything are connected and interdependent. Laudato si’ extends this classical Christian view on human interdependence, claiming that not only human beings, but every creature shows something of the greatness and goodness of God and has value in itself (§69). Here, Pope Francis goes a step further than his predecessors: while they showed increased attention and concern for ecological issues, they were at the same time more reluctance to define nature in this way, out of fear that it would overly reduce the position of humankind as well as the transcendence of God. By recognizing the intrinsic and divine value of each element of creation, Francis is more in line with ecotheologists who also emphasize the immanence of God without, however, falling into pantheism (Zenner Peppard 2018, 519).
Given this relationality and divine reflection throughout creation, matter and nature cannot be considered merely as necessary resources to build human community. The current pervasive “technocratic paradigm” (§106-14) does exactly that: economic growth and technological developments become ends in themselves rather than means to other, more human-centered ends, resulting in a strict separation between object and subject. Laudato si’ wants us to understand that “people are not only relational among themselves. They are part of a relational universe” (Borgman 2017, 98). It requires a certain lens to be able to recognize this relationality – what Francis calls “contemplation”. That “contemplative gaze” (§85) allows us to take that relational perspective, the connectedness of all creation, as a starting point for reflection and action.
At the same time, a second element of integral ecology, according to Francis, requires that attention to the most vulnerable is not lost sight of. In other words, integral ecology means that the development of human beings and the care for the environment are interrelated, such that he confirms his concern for people in poverty while simultaneously linking it with the ecological crisis; the ecological issue and the social issue of inequality and poverty must go hand in hand (§11; §139). Moreover, integral ecology encompasses not only so-called ‘economic’ (§141) and ‘ecological’ ecology (§138ff), but includes also social (§142), ‘cultural’ ecology (§143ff) as well as ‘ecology of daily life’ (§147ff). Additionally to the integral development of human beings and care of the environment, these refer respectively to the ‘health’ of our social organizations and institutions, respect and wonder for cultural heritage of humanity, in all its facets and forms, and care for and need for improvement of the context in which our daily lives unfolds themselves (with a focus on how our cities and local neighborhoods are developed for instance and what kind of relationships they do or hinder to foster). Obviously, the notion of integral ecology does moves beyond how currently ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable’ development may be conceived.
The realization of this integral ecology necessitates the “liberation” from the technocratic paradigm and the associated economic policies (§112). It is imperative that we reconsider the prevailing model of development, production, and consumption, as well as our conventional understanding of progress (§138; §194). The criterion for progress must include both ecological flourishing and human flourishing—inclusive of not only economic wellbeing but also other aspects that impact quality of life such as community, access to nature, time for leisure, and just working conditions, among others. It is necessary that profit cease to be the exclusive objective of the economy and of development (§189). Instead, it must serve the interests of human life. The growth paradigm must be subjected to critical scrutiny and replaced with a model that incorporates environmental considerations (§193; §195). This model should prioritize local economic networks, such as small-scale agriculture, and facilitate stakeholder participation in decision-making processes (§135; §183). Those most immediately affected by the implementation of economic projects are also the most qualified to critically investigate “which might lead to an imbalance between excessive technological investments in consumption on the one hand and insufficient investment in solving the pressing problems facing the human family” (§192). Moreover, there is a necessity for the establishment of “economic institutions and social initiatives that give the poor access to basic goods” (§109). Financial assistance is merely a provisional solution. In alignment with the overarching principles of social teaching, Francis reiterates that guaranteeing access to employment is a more sustainable approach, enabling individuals to construct stable livelihoods for themselves. This is not only beneficial for the individuals in question, but also contributes to the development of social capital, which in turn strengthens the entire society (§128). The challenges are significant, yet despite the apparent indifference, Pope Francis believes that we are “always capable of going out of ourselves toward the other” (§208).
5. Integral ecology as a means to foster the common good
Although only briefly mentioned thus far, it is evident that in CST, the concept of integral ecology is firmly rooted in the principle of the common good. From an economic standpoint, this necessitates further elaboration, as this theological perspective diverges significantly from the conventional understanding of the “good” or “common good” within mainstream economic thought.
The mainstream economic model begins with the individual and his/her preferences, often depicted as a homo oeconomicus, who makes decisions based on rational grounds to fulfill their own preferences and operate on the basis of self-interest. Catholic theology, and thus also CST, begins with a relational anthropology: it considers human beings as interconnected and interdependent through in a web of relationships with each other and the environment. From this perspective, theology aligns with the Aristotelian eudaemonist notion that an individual’s well-being is inextricably linked to the well-being of others. Humans are inherently social creatures, and a sense of belonging and interconnectedness within a community are crucial elements in attaining a fulfilling and happy life. In contrast with the Hobbesian anthropology, which posits a state of perpetual conflict between individuals, this relational anthropology regards other persons as a source of enrichment rather than a hindrance.
In light of these considerations, this perspective calls into question the underlying conception of the common good that informs our economic and economic thinking. In neoclassical economics, the common good is frequently equated with the utilitarian principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” As Goodpaster and Naughton observe, both stakeholders and shareholders frequently assume this principle to be the foundation for business, whether explicitly or implicitly. The greatest good is therefore typically composed of goods that can be allocated through the market (incentives) or the state (regulations and contracts) so a larger number of people can benefit, with a focus on material goods related to production and consumption—interpreted as interest or preference satisfaction (Goodpaster & Naughton 2021, 117–40, 128–9). In the past, this kind of common good has typically been measured in income, as reflected in GDP. In CST the common good represents the integration of the individual’s well-being with that of the good over everyone and of the community as a whole. This concept is encapsulated in the notion of “integral development” (Goodpaster & Naughton 2021, 129). In this way, the notion expresses that the development of both the individual and the collective are intrinsically linked. It shifts the perspective from a focus on interests to the human dignity of each person and the community (Goodpaster & Naughton 2021, 130).
In summary, the common good can be defined as the mutual flourishing of individuals within a healthy and sustainable environment. The term “mutual” is of particular significance in this context, as it underscores the fact that the common good is not merely the sum of the individual goods. While individual wellbeing and self-fulfillment are important, they do not yet constitute a common good. This is because a common good is a good held in common, and thus includes the “quality of the relationships among people” (Goodpaster & Naughton 2021, 133). It is therefore characterized by reciprocity, mutuality, participation, and inclusion within and among communities. While allocated goods “diminish when shared,” so-called “participative goods” or “relational goods” (Bruni & Zamagni 2007) increase when shared.
Allocative goods are material goods. They are divisional and represent a sum zero reality; participative goods are relational, typically immaterial, and cannot be parsed into pieces. When a group of people shares a pizza at a meal, the pizza as a material good diminishes through the division. But if good conversations are occurring, with a sense that each person wants others to have their share of the pizza, relationships among the group start to develop. This group is not only sharing pizza that is diminishing; they are also expanding relationships and community. … The key is how the allocation serves to build a community of persons where relationships are strengthened (Goodpaster & Naughton 2021, 133).
This, however, implies a different understanding of human relations based on the aforementioned relational anthropology. In his book, The Wound and the Blessing (Bruni 2012), the Italian economist Luigino Bruni offers an original interpretation of the historical development of the modern economy. The neoclassical view is based on a more negative anthropology, which is suspicious of “the other” and mistrusts society. The foundation for this skepticism is the encounter with destructive pre-modern social relations, exemplified by the asymmetrical power dynamics inherent to feudal structures, Bruni claims. These immediate, face-to-face relations gave rise to a number of problematic outcomes, including inequality, dependence, exploitation, and oppression. In contrast with Aristotle, who regarded relations as a blessing and a vital component of the “good life,” modern thinkers viewed these immediate, unequal relations with others as a “necessary evil” and a “problem” (Bruni 2012, 1). According to Bruni’s interpretation, they saw relational networks in society as a continuing threat of injury to individuals, a view that stems from the inherent challenges and potential for harm that arise from direct human interactions.
In order to mitigate the unavoidable “injury” and “wounds” to human dignity that arise from direct relationships, and to guarantee individual freedom, Adam Smith can be read—as Bruni does—as an argument for public human relationships to become indirect and anonymous (Bruni 2012, 15). Following this interpretation of Smith, organizing public life according to the rule of contracts secured by the market would result in increased equality in the asymmetric relations of medieval Europe, where weak people were dependent on the benevolence of others. In light of these considerations, Smith famously observed that butchers are driven by benevolence and self-interest. The market is the space where goods can be exchanged between equals who have agreed to this transaction as free and autonomous persons. In this way, as a ‘third’ agent in the relationship, the market thus “guarantees a free zone in which to meet each other without being wounded” (Bruni 2012, 12). Especially in the context of the global economy and the advent of e-commerce, it is evident that the implications of this market are becoming increasingly pronounced. New technologies are emerging as novel forms of new “forms of relationship that promise happiness (or blessing) without injury” (Bruni 2012, 97).
The acceptance of the role of society in general and the economy in particular to be an oikonomia implies a willingness to take risks. It can be argued that all communities and relationships are simultaneously conducive to both life and death, as well as blessings and wounds. In the face of conflict, one might be inclined to disengage from interactions and relationships altogether, motivated by a desire to avoid confrontation or conflict. Nevertheless,
we cannot give in to the fear of injury and avoid this embrace, though risking even mortal injury, because from that open wound caused by the other, and which we cause the other, flows the only blessing that makes human life worth living (Bruni 2012, 112–3).
6. Conclusion
Although the title of this article may have influenced readers’ expectations, I did not develop an exhaustive analysis of Aristotle’s view on the economy. Rather, I began with the Aristotelian distinction between chremastikè and oikonomia, with the aim of reconsidering the fundamental principles of the economy, its purpose, and its objective based on CST.
In considering the fundamental principles of an economy that serves both individual wellbeing and the common good from a Catholic theological perspective, it is imperative to acknowledge the significant contribution of Louis-Joseph Lebret. Although some of his ideas may now be regarded as conventional, his perspective on the economy as a means of facilitating “integral development” was, at the time, highly innovative. First, it did not restrict the necessity of human development to material growth; rather, it encompassed the “whole person,” encompassing emotional, spiritual, and social dimensions. This is evident from his awareness of the significance of recognition, belonging to a community, and being regarded as a member for individuals. Secondly, he postulated the notion of the “good of all persons,” thereby extending the conceptual boundaries of economic advancement to encompass a universal scope. However, this did not entail a universal interpretation of economic development, as he underscored the necessity for individuals to engage in the process of developing their own understanding of development, contextualized within their specific circumstances.
The introduction of the notion of “integral development” resulted in the incorporation of these elements into CST, thereby informing its understanding of human development and the role of the economy therein. The growing awareness of persistent global poverty, unequal access to basic necessities, and inequality in lifestyles, coupled with the environmental costs of contemporary economic development, prompted Pope Francis to transition from “integral development” to “integral ecology.”
Through the concepts of integral development and integral ecology, CST presents a vision of the economy that extends beyond its role as a mere instrument for profit (chrematikè). When considered together, Lebret’s integral development and Francis’s integral ecology provide a framework for contemplating the economy as a means of sustaining life in a manner that respects human dignity and the environment. This reinforces a more comprehensive, ethical, and sustainable vision of economic life as taking care of ‘our common home’ in the fullest sense of the words. Is this not what oikonomiais actually about?
References
Borgman, Erik. 2017. Leven van wat komt. Een katholiek uitzicht op de samenleving. Zoetemeer: Meinema.
Bruni, Luigino. 2012. The Wound and the Blessing. Economics Relationships and Happiness. Translated by N. Michael Brennen. New York: New City Press.
Bruni, Luigino, and Stefano. Zamagni. 2007. Civil Economy: Efficiency, Equity, Public Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chamedes, Giuliana. 2015. “The Catholic Origins of Economic Development After World War II.” French Politics, Culture and Society 33, no 2: 55–75.
Cosmao. Vincent. 1970. “Louis‐Joseph Lebret, O.P. 1897‐1966: From Social Action to the Struggle for Development.” New Blackfriars 51, no. 597: 62–8.
Deck, Allan Figueroa. 2018. “Populorum progressio.” In Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations, edited by Kenneth R. Himes et al., 292–314. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Dorr, Donal. 2012. Option for the Poor and for the Earth: Catholic Social Teaching. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Goodpaster, Kenneth, and Michael J. Naughton. 2021. “The Institutional Insight Underlying Shareholder/Stakeholder Approaches to Business Ethics.” In Business Ethics and Catholic Social Thought, edited by D. K. Finn, 114–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Himes, Kenneth R. 2018. “Commentary on Justitia in Mundo.” In Modern Catholic Social Teaching. Commentaries and Interpretations, edited by Kenneth R. Himes et al., 377–402.Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Hollenbach, David. 2012. Common Good and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keleher, Lori. 2018. “Integral Human Development: Development of Every Person and of the Whole Person.” In Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, edited by J. Drydyk, and L. Keleher, 29–34. New York: Routledge.
Lebret, Louis-Joseph. 1947. Decouverte du bien commun. Mystique d’un monde nouveau. Paris: Economie et humanisme.
Lebret, Louis-Joseph. 1959. Manifeste pour une civilisation solidaire. Paris: Economie et Humanisme.
Mankiw, Gregory. 2012. Principles of Economics. 6th edition. Delhi: Cengage Learning
Opdebeeck, Hendrik. 2016. Zingeving in economie. Een utopie. Kapellen: Pelckmans.
Puel, H. 2015. “L’humanisme économique de L.-J. Lebret.” Développement et civilisation 425: 1–4.
Raworth, Kate. 2017. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. London: Penguin.
Sandel, Michael. 2012. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, New York: Farar, Straus and Giroux.
Van Stichel, Ellen. 2020. “How to Link Fulness of Life and Justice For All: Theological Explorations Inspired by Schillebeeckx and Lebret.” In Fullness of Life and Justice for All: Dominican Perspectives, edited by Ellen Van Stichel, Thomas Eggensperger, Manuela Kalsky, and Ulrich Engel. Adelaide: ATF.
Zenner Peppard, Christine. 2018. “Commentary on Laudato si.” In Modern Catholic Social Teaching. Commentaries and Interpretations, edited by Kenneth R. Himes et al., 515–50.Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Notes
[1] Of course, Lebret writes in a particular context, namely in the context of World War II and the Cold war afterwards with the struggle among communism and capitalism on the one hand and decolonization processes on the other hand. Also it should be acknowledged that Lebret praises the superiority of Catholic thought over other philosophical and religious traditions (see for instance Chamedes 2015). I do not want to neglect the context and undertone of Lebret’s writings, but in the scope of this article it is not possible to have a detailed analysis hereof. Hence, I think it is possible to investigate the concept and its current relevance without this context—as shown by the evolution of the interpretation of his notion of integral development within CST in particular and the value contributed to it for development ethics in general as the article of Lori Keleher (2018) shows.
[2] Lebret’s view is often summarized referring to this notion of integral development, but he himself attributes the consequent elaboration as ‘the development of the whole person and every person’ to his French colleague François Perroux (cf. Lebret 1959, 14).
[3] I use the official Vatican versions of the documents of CST as published at <www.vatican.va>, and refer to the paragraphs as mentioned in these official texts.
[4] For an English translation, see <www.cctwincities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Justicia-in-Mundo.pdf> (accessed 22/02/2024).
[5] The term is based on the work of the American Jesuit David Hollenbach (2012; 1986). He explores this notion of participation in a more elaborated way, tying it to the framework of different kind of justice (commutative, distributive and contributive). For the purpose of this article, however, further elaboration is not necessary.
