In the course of looking into the effect of religiousness on economic growth this semester, I have come across an interesting literature on the subject. It basically considers religious activity as a market - the product produced is a certain set of beliefs, beliefs which are produced using the inputs of individuals' attendance and time. Thus, if the beliefs are beneficial to economic growth, an increase in belief should (ceteris paribus) increase growth, while religious attendance should (again, ceteris paribus) decrease growth since it takes resources (time) from other activities. This is the argument of Harvard University's Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary.
At first this approach to religion, and specifically to Christianity, seemed very offensive. The gospel is not a product to be sold. Although men may constantly be trying to make salvation into a commodity (the money changers in the temple and the Tetzel's indulgences come to mind), I'd like to think that isn't the most significant legacy of Christ's Church.
On the other hand, the prediction makes sense if we think about it. If we believe that Christ's commands are a guide to how to best live in the world, a population that becomes more Christ-like should be better off materially as well as spiritually. For a more covenantal spin, if Christ blesses those who obey his covenant, we should have the same effect. Similarly, if we expect those who hear the Word and ignore it to be worse than those who never hear, more attendance without more belief should be harmful. Again for the covenantal spin, if the community grows by apostasizing, we would expect covenantal cursing. Same idea.
I'm left unsure how I should feel about this view of religion in general and Christianity in particular. It doesn't seem to offer any conclusions that blatantly contradict Scripture, and in fact may confirm some of it. Yet I am left with the feeling that this worldview obscures some important truth by looking with economic glasses at something that is not (primarily) a matter of resource allocation. Galileo brought mathematics to bear on physics, and the physicists argued he was destroying the ability to derive true knowledge from the subject. Perhaps we do the same now, and this just makes it easier to see since religion is an area we particularly don't want mathematical analysis to plunder.
Is human interaction in religion fundamentally just another market, or is there some other irreducible social structure at work?
HOW I FEEL WHEN I’M TWO WEEKS OUT FROM QUALS
9 years ago
Posts
4 comments:
Is it a prediction, or a description? Was there a conclusion of some variety, or just the interesting correlation (and I should like to know they contrived to measure levels of belief - my church at home is credo-baptist and that sort of instrument might come in useful).
It seems to me that you can talk about nearly anything in terms of resource allocation, or in terms of natural selection or the class struggle or what have you, if you really feel like it. The only trouble I can see arrives when you mix correlation with causality. But were they doing that in the study, or it limited to 'hey look, this is neat'?
The argument is causal (and thus both descriptive and predictive), namely that beliefs have one causal effect on growth, and attendance another. The measure of belief is based on survey data (I know, sketchy). If you would like to look into the technical side of Barro and McCleary's work, you can view the paper at http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/papers/Religion_and_Economic_Growth.pdf
But as far as mixing correlation with causation, sorting between the two is essentially the job of any science, social or otherwise. Unless we are willing to say that the existence of computers, or new breeds of flowers, or the catching of serial killers, or the ongoing failure of the Venezuelan economy are just magical or random happenings, scientists must be good at it to some degree.
Sorry, what I should have put that differently. I meant to ask if the study was talking about it merely along the lines of 'this is how religious people frequently act', or if they were trying to prove other motives for religion, i.e. 'religion is just a facet of prosperous economies'. Cause and effect... but in a different and slightly unrelated sense. I was thinking of the Marxists.
I think the key question is whether or not your assumption is true:
"If we believe that Christ's commands are a guide to how to best live in the world, a population that becomes more Christ-like should be better off materially as well as spiritually."
Aren't Christ's commands a guide to how best live in this world with the goal of the next world always in mind?
There might be some spin-off benefits in this world (stable families, honest business dealings that hopefully bring in more clients, etc.), but if our duty in this world is to suffer for Christ, what's that gonna do for the GDP?
Post a Comment