This has the feeling of an important book, though it somehow leaves you disappointed. This reviewer first came across Michael Sandel when he delivered the Reith Lectures in 2009 and this book continues with similar reasoning. The question Sandel addresses is if there should be a limit to where markets are applied, contrasting particularly with Gary Becker’s proposal that human life would be better with most of it organised by the principles of economics, particularly markets.
The book is heaving with examples that many reasonable people will disagree about, from paying for professional queue-standers to markets for organ transplant. Sandel has two basic principles about whether the presence of markets is appropriate – whether it corrupts the good in question or whether a market norm would produce fair results.
Examples can illustrate these two ideas. If a child is paid for reading books they may come regard it as a task suitable for recompense, rather than something to be done for its own sake. This is the corrupting idea. Fairness seems to crop up in more subtle ways. In a market for organs the end may not necessarily be corrupted, but that the sellers of organs are likely to be those who are desperate and, in some sense, are forced to donate. Consider the price it would take for you to part with a kidney to a stranger?
The book is split into 5 chapters. The first three – on queueing & queue jumping, on the effect of incentives and on the effect of markets on morals are superb. The discussions & examples are illuminating and the principles mentioned above are established in an extremely accessible way. The discussion of friendship & gifts shows both where limits to markets lie and also how those limits are moving. Some of this dovetails nicely with behaviour economics, though given Sandel is a philosopher he can be forgiven for not making more of this.
The final two chapters are not as good. Perhaps as an actuary the morality of life assurance and life settlements are too familiar to me. But the line between good and bad here is perhaps too blurry to be satisfactory. The ongoing spread of advertising into all corners of our lives, particularly sport, is a source of irritation and Sandel is not short of examples. It feels like perhaps there is too many that are too similar and they drown the arguments somewhat. Having said that, his point about Moneyball1 leaving baseball feeling like a duller sport will be recognised by sports fans around the world (I think rugby union has had a similar sort of experience.)
But these should not detract from the core of the book. If you have ever felt uncomfortable about whether market intrusion is appropriate and haven’t quite understood why then it is a must read. And if you haven’t then read it anyway and awaken your moral sensibilities!
1. Book by Michael Lewis about how a baseball team achieved success by using statistics to choose players who helped them win more often rather than the spectacular ones loved by fans.