The Moral Limit of Markets

“This issue goes to the heart of fairness in our country. There has been much discussion recently about economic inequality, but almost no conversation about the way the spread of markets nurtures a broader, systemic inequality."-Michael Sandel, The Moral Limit of Markets, 2012

 

     The issue of fairness, of social justice, of equitable redistribution, the core rationales for modern,  liberal societies has been percolating in my mind; as I ride through West London on my way to tutor, the numbers of Ferraris and Lamborghinis is startling both in their excess and their symbolism in this great bastion of free market liberalization. And thus, the issue that Sandel brings to public light, of fairness. Is is fair that some should be driving $250,000 cars, when there are plenty of $20,000 cars which are perfectly capable of performing the same function, and people starving to death in other nations, and multitudes of homeless and destitute in this same city? What is the appropriate balance of free markets, governmental restrictions on personal liberties, private property rights, and moral excess? 

     Economic inequality is a fundamental feature of liberal economies. However, the gap continues to widen; and as this gap continues to widen, and societies are increasingly polarized, we must ask as a society, as a modern experiment in social relations, what kind of world is it that we wish to live in? What is fair? What is responsible? What is just? What is fairness in both the eyes of the rich and the poor (as well as the middle)? What is the point of excess, and what is the redistribution that must be enacted, at this point, to further our aims of basic social justice and equity? 

      How can this market economy, with its excesses, be legitimized in the eyes of the masses? As Dani Rodrik asks, how can a functioning market economy be "...compatible with social stability and cohesion?" 

 Nick Kristof, commenting on Sandel's work, concludes succinctly, “Market fundamentalism,” to use the term popularized by George Soros, is gaining ground. It’s related to the glorification of wealth over the last couple of decades, to the celebration of opulence, and to the emergence of a new aristocracy. Market fundamentalists assume a measure of social Darwinism and accept that laissez-faire is always optimal. "

The Limitations of Participation

The Limitations of Participation: What Else Needs Consideration? 




In being a proponent of a particular ideology, it is vital to understand the negative ramifications of overtly positive thrusts in development. Thus, a fantastic critique of participatory design that I have encountered before, but not so succinctly.....the dangers of local "duplicitous agendas." which was also highlighted in Banerjee et all's "Can information campaigns spark local participation and improve outcomes"(2006), in which localized participatory integration was neither effective nor truly egalitarian in nature; in dealing with human beings, at the local level, we must also understand the negatives of human/power relations that are intrinsic to us all, regardless of socioeconomic development,  and not look at the poor as simple, innocent recipients of our developmental agendas. Vogt and Clemons explain:


"On the other hand, what Chambers' (1994) failed to anticipate was Kapoor's (2002) concerns that "local controls" may not be without their own duplicitous agendas. Arguably, village politics often mimic the gross inequalities at the global level. Therefore, as researchers and practitioners, if we accept that globalization combined with decentralization of nonformal education introduces a complex phenomena, we must further agree that site specific research must be dependent upon localized social and political contexts of reform as much as on specific national or global directives (Crook & Manor, 1998)."
- Vogt and Clemons, 2004

Global Education Program?

"Harvard Offers New Global Health Program"

-Today's New York Times (5.14.12): a fascinating article on the scale and scope of rural health care delivery in Rwanda; "...the country provides health care and insurance to more than 90% of its population, inspiring medical leaders from across the globe to visit the African country to study its transformation." 
The new program at Harvard, which analyzes public health through this local context, "...is one of the first that focuses exclusively on the challenge of delivering health care. It encourages students to think about politics, economics, and other social factors effect health....

Thus, putting great minds together, both in Rwanda and in the academic world, to highlight local innovations, local solutions, and the causation to these local realities.  My question, of course, is why is this not being done in education, and how can we implement this same mode of thought into educational development?

Resource scarce environments demand a delicate level of social understanding and analysis/diagnosis into service delivery blockages in basic education, just as health services; however, in education, quality and efficiency is taken as a given; enrollment rates, instead of educational outcomes, the yardstick. What would the analysis reveal if health centers were judged on their intake of patients, alone, and no attention was paid to mortality rates or levels of care they were receiving once in the clinic? This is exactly what is occurring with most of the world's educational systems.  And this is the mindset that needs to be changed, through innovative, diagnostic, local projects such as this new Global Health Program.