Discursive Rationality and the Division of Labour: How Cooperation Emerges

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Oct, 1999 by Jorg Guido Hulsmann

We cannot at this place give an exhaustive account of the public functions of Christianity (this would fill an entire research programme). Yet it should at least be clear that, in the light of these considerations, Christian faith does stimulate the division of labour and spur the development of civilisation. Christian societies thus have a competitive advantage over atheist societies, and over societies that are marked by religions that do not emphasise the sanctity of private property. This is undoubtedly a major factor why Christianity, and not some rain-forest religious community, is at the core of modern civilisation.

VI

Conclusion

THE DISCURSIVE JUSTIFICATION OF PRIVATE-PROPERTY RIGHTS usefully complements the utilitarian economic theories, which explain the benefits of human co-operation, to give a complete account of some major features of our civilisation: large-scale division of labour and a predominantly Christian religion in the first industrialised nations. Another important element in the picture, which accounts for much of the dynamics of capitalist development in these countries, is the public function of religions that emphasise private-property rights. Thus we have a rational, but non-utilitarian, theory of the division of labour. And we have further evidence that reason and the Christian faith are at least not always antagonistic, but also mutually re-enforcing; and when this mutual re-enforcement obtains, civilsation truly develops. [12]

(*.) Dr Hulsmann is visiting Lynen Fellow and professor of economics in the Department of Philosophy of the State University of New York at Buffalo, NY 14260-1010. He would like to thank Professor David Levy, Professor Barry Smith and Jonathan Stanford for comments on this paper.

Notes

(1.) These benefits of specialisation have been forcefully emphasised by Adam Smith and therefore they are, rightly or wrongly, associated with his name. See Smith, The Wealth of Nations, bk. 1, chap. 1

(2.) David Ricardo discovered this "law of comparative cost" within the context of the theory of foreign trade. Later on, Ludwig von Mises argued that this law is a general "law of association." See Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chap. 7, footnote; Mises, Nationalokonomie, pp. 126ff.

(3.) These benefits were first discovered by Richard Whately. See Whately, Introductory Lectures to Political Economy, pp. 122ff.

(4.) M.N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, chap. 26, section C. For similar criticisms, see also William Rappard, "On Reading von Mises," pp. 17ff; Derek Parfit, "Personal Identity." There are of course many other variants of utilitarian arguments, and corresponding critiques. However, the Mises-Rothbard controversy is particularly relevant for our purposes because, if Mises was right, the above mentioned utilitarian theories of the division of labour would be sufficient to explain the fact of widespread division of labour. For Mises' position, see Human Action, passim.

(5.) See also Thalos' essay "Knowledge in an Age of Individual Economy: A Prolegomenon to Epistemology," pp. 169ff; and "Why We Believe." She bases herself on some cursory remarks by Hobbes, which read as follows: "...before the time of civil society...there is nothing that can strengthen a covenant of peace agreed on, against the temptations of avarice, ambition, lust, or other strong desire, but the fear of that invisible power, which they every one worship as God." Hobbes, Leviathan, quoted from Thalos 1998, p. 353.