
In addition to harming children, the market for child labor harms society since uneducated children make unproductive workers and poor citizens, philosophy Debra Satz said.
The free market system shapes individual choices and decisions, fosters innovation and facilitates transactions between large groups of people. But along with commodity markets for things like corn and copper there comes a dark side of globalization.
Markets such as those for human organs, child labor, weapons and addictive drugs have expanded their reach as communism collapses around the globe. The diamond trade fuels bloody wars, people are trafficked across continents and wealthier countries ship toxic waste to poorer ones.
A mention of these corrupt industries typically evokes a visceral, negative response – but why? What differentiates a market for human kidneys from one for education when the more socially acceptable industry can have as much detrimental impact on society as the explicitly immoral one?
Stanford philosophy Professor Debra Satz tackles that question in her latest research focused on the ethical limits of markets. And, she raises important issues related to seemingly less reprehensible markets like those for health care and education.
In her search for a more nuanced understanding of markets, Satz found that existing economic and philosophical studies tended to present a one-dimensional picture of markets as economically efficient structures that lacked the social scientific realities of trade.
"It is hard to accept that we are each other’s equals, when some are so poor that they cannot afford basic medical care, or where some schools are so inadequate that poor children cannot compete on equal terms with those of the wealthy for college and careers," Satz said.
Her research is outlined in her book, Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.
"A market in votes might be ’efficient’ in the sense that there are many people who would be willing to sell their votes and many who would want to buy them, so there would be gains from allowing trade," she said.
But, she explained, "That doesn’t mean that we should introduce a legal market in votes. Rather, we need to be guided by political and ethical considerations."
Measuring noxious levels
Questions about why some markets are perceived as more problematic than others led Satz to develop a new method for measuring the "noxious" level of a particular market using four indicators.
The first two indicators concern the sources of the market. These are what Satz refers to as "weak agency" and "vulnerability."
The second two concern the effects of a market.
"Some markets have extremely bad outcomes for individuals and some have extremely bad outcomes for society," she said.
Satz’s hypothesis is that the "higher a given market ’scores’ on these different dimensions, the greater will be our intuitive distrust and, in the extreme, our disgust about that market."
Weak agency involves both poor information and also limited decision-making with respect to the market. As an example of extreme harm to individuals, Satz explained, "consider markets that lead to the depletion of the natural resource base of a country or to the fueling of a genocidal war. Or consider child labor markets, which score high on many parameters."
From the egalitarian perspective that Satz describes, a common characteristic of many noxious markets is the underlying "origins in destitution and desperation."








» Share this page: