John Kenneth Galbraith was the most widely read economist of the 20th century, and certainly one of the most interesting. Besides his long career teaching economics at Harvard, Galbraith held impor...

In a previous essay (Part 1), we examined the economic arguments for development policies that placed certain groups at the vanguard of development policy, making note of the place of the poor in these arguments. In this essay (Part 2), we look at the case for making the poor the central focus of development policy, following the principle in Catholic social thought of the “preferential option for the poor.” That principle recommends evaluation of policies and outcomes first and foremost on how they affect the poor. In looking at the U.N. development agenda, from the first development decade to the millennium development goals and sustainable development goals, we can see a tension between economic growth and eradication of poverty. Over time, a shift in focus has occurred towards placing the poor at the center of development policy. By focusing on the poor and poverty eradication, development policy becomes more about human flourishing, which, ironically, produces higher levels of growth in developing countries. It does, however, lower the growth rate of developed countries, as it reduces their privileged position.

The often-stated goal of economic development is to lift people out of poverty. However, the poor are usually an afterthought in the design of development policy, with any benefit that reaches them "trickling down" from what goes to whatever group is the real focus of development policy. All development policy consists of directing and redirecting resources to the group that is felt will promote the aims of those implementing the policy. Political realignments and the evolution of capitalism have changed the group that is in the vanguard of development at various stages. In this essay (Part 1), we will look at the economic arguments that each of the first three vanguard groups-merchants, capitalists, and bureaucrats-applied to development policy, with special emphasis of the position of the poor. In a separate essay (Part 2), we will look at the Catholic principle of the "preferential option for the poor," which recommends making the poor the central focus of development policy. In the past seven decades of the U.N.'s development agenda, we see a tension between a status quo development policy that makes economic growth the primary goal and a bottom-up development strategy that emphasizes programs to build up the capabilities of the poor. We also look at some of the evidence of the successes of each approach and argue that a human-centered agenda has a better chance of lifting the poor out of poverty.

The American Journal of Economics and SociologyVolume 80, Issue 4 p. 1051-1059 Introduction Editor’s Introduction: Economics and the Option for the Poor Charles M. A. Clark, Corresponding Author Charles M. A. Clark clarkc@stjohns.edu Senior Fellow, Vincentian Center for Church and Society. Research Fellow, Center for Global Business Stewardship. Professor of Economics, Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University (NY). Email: clarkc@stjohns.eduSearch for more papers by this author Charles M. A. Clark, Corresponding Author Charles M. A. Clark clarkc@stjohns.edu Senior Fellow, Vincentian Center for Church and Society. Research Fellow, Center for Global Business Stewardship. Professor of Economics, Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University (NY). Email: clarkc@stjohns.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 November 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12426 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume80, Issue4September 2021Pages 1051-1059 RelatedInformation

The polarization of the debate about artificial intelligence (AI) pulls in two mutually exclusive directions of either complete takeover of future jobs by omnipotent algorithms or an absolute bliss with robots at work while humans reap the benefits of endless vacation. Add this to conflicting views of work as either a disutility to be minimized or as an essential component in human flourishing, and it is no wonder a wide range of views are expressed on AI and human flourishing. The literature, from Smith to Keynes and beyond, offers some initial methodological guidance. Still, the true social and economic implications of an AI-type environment in production and labor markets are yet to be fully understood. This article argues that neither of the predictions are realistic. Instead, the global economy may be passing, albeit at a faster speed, through a phase of technological change, similar to those experienced before. While a nuanced balance is emerging, with an emphasis on human skills in future employment, the benefits may not be equitably distributed, as equality of opportunities for human development may not be reachable, though visible, in the AI-driven society. Hence, as firms seek efficiency gains, much weight is shifted onto governments and quasi-private entities in maintaining decent living standards conducive to human flourishing in unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article reviews various popular concerns and advances new public policy measures aimed at tackling some of the immediate fears of automation.

American Journal of Economics and SociologyVolume 79, Issue 4 p. 1073-1084 Introduction Editor’s Introduction: Catholic Social Thought and Work Charles M. A. Clark, Charles M. A. ClarkSearch for more papers by this author Charles M. A. Clark, Charles M. A. ClarkSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12360 Senior Fellow, Vincentian Center for Church and Society. Research Fellow, Center for Global Business Stewardship. Professor of Economics, Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University (NY). Email: clarkc@stjohns.edu Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume79, Issue4September 2020Pages 1073-1084 RelatedInformation

In his encyclical Laborem Exercens, John Paul II asserts the principle of the priority of labor over capital. The purpose of this article is to examine this principle. The conflict between labor and capital is often noted as an essential part of capitalism. There is a long tradition of assigning more significance to labor than to capital. In fact, the classical economists argued that labor determined the "value" of a good. To understand this conflict, we must first review what is capital and its role in capitalism. We will then look at John Paul II's assertion of the principle of labor over capital, followed by a review of how economists have understood the relationship between labor and capital. Neoclassical economists dismiss labor and capital as classes, so they believe there is no conflict. We examine one neoclassical economist's claim of a gap in the principle of the priority of labor over capital by not including finance capital in the analysis. We demonstrate that the Church's teachings on usury answer the objections raised. We conclude with a review of the implications of the priority of labor over capital.

According to Pope Francis, an "economy of exclusion" is an economy with barriers that prevent individuals and groups from participating in the economy and society to their full potential. Power is a key determinant for both exclusion and inclusion. All economies are based on power relations and an "economy of exclusion" is an abuse of power. This contribution looks at what economic power is and how it can build barriers of exclusion or pathways to inclusion. We use income inequality as a measure of exclusion, giving a general history of power and inequality to demonstrate the role of power. Lastly, we look at the concept of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought as a principle to guide the use of power in the economy.

American Journal of Economics and SociologyVolume 78, Issue 4 p. 849-864 Introduction Introduction: Catholic Social Thought vs. the Economy of Exclusion Charles M. A. Clark, Charles M. A. ClarkSenior Fellow, Vincentian Center for Church and Society. Research Fellow, Center for Global Business Stewardship. Professor of Economics, Tobin College of Business, St. John's University (NY). Email: clarkc@stjohns.eduSearch for more papers by this author Charles M. A. Clark, Charles M. A. ClarkSenior Fellow, Vincentian Center for Church and Society. Research Fellow, Center for Global Business Stewardship. Professor of Economics, Tobin College of Business, St. John's University (NY). Email: clarkc@stjohns.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 September 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12296 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume78, Issue4September 2019Pages 849-864 RelatedInformation

Many of the problems neoclassical economic theory has in explaining the real world stem from its narrow view of human nature—the “rational economic man” model, which forces economists to exclude social and historical context. Every social theory starts with a view of human nature that necessarily comes from outside the social sciences. Philosophy and theology are the sources of our ideas about the nature of humans, society, and the good that humans pursue. Catholic Social Thought has a rich understanding of human nature, which includes both the uniqueness of persons and their inherently social nature. Starting from this foundation, economists can develop a deeper understanding of the nature of the economy. Catholic Social Thought does not offer a different economic theory or model, but it does provide an alternative vision upon which more adequate and realistic economic theories can be constructed.

This investigation examines several key factors believed to promote human flourishing, specifically: Factor 1: Age, Education, & Healthcare, Factor 2: Labor Force Participation, Factor 3: Crime, Factor 4: Income, Factor 5: Youth Unemployment and Factor 6: Voting Behavior. Data was examined at the county level, and collected from a variety of US government and non-governmental organizations. Our investigation into the conditions necessary to promote human flourishing uses internal migration within the United States (measured by moving to another county) as the indicator of “unhappy” communities. The findings reveal that all factors are important in emigration (i.e. leaving) somewhere, but the factors vary for different counties. As a result, attempts to address the ills of society require an appreciation of geography and context.

An essential part of Pope Francis's critique of the "economy of exclusion" is the concept of the "throwaway culture," which is an attitude and a reality that goes beyond mere exclusion. Francis is building on critiques of consumerism (what John Paul II called "economism") that noted both the environmental impacts of unnecessary waste and the social and human impact of reducing humans to mere consumers-the idea that happiness is shopping. Francis adds to this a concern for the people on the margins of society who are treated as disposable and for the consequences of climate change, both of which are connected to the throwaway attitude. This article looks at Francis's views within the tradition of Catholic social thought and at how economists, especially Adam Smith, who provided the foundation for modern economics, looked at waste and consumerism.

The financial crisis was partially caused by neoclassical economic theory and theorists. This failure has prompted business educators to rethink the role of neoclassical economics as the foundation of business education. The author connects this question to the more general critique of the scientific model of business education and the old historical versus scientific methodology debate in the history of economics. It is argued that neoclassical economics has serious limitations that make it a poor foundation for understanding business behavior in a real economy. A realistic and useful business education needs to include historical and social context, both of which neoclassical economics must exclude.

Mainstream economists are currently under fire because they did not foresee the financial meltdown of 2007. This article suggests that many of the shortcomings of neoclassical economics come from its overly narrow understanding of the human person. Economists could turn to the higher discipline of theology, specifically the Catholic social thought tradition, for a richer and more realistic understanding of the nature of the human person. With a more secure foundation, economists will perhaps be able to develop more relevant theories and policies.

The Journal of Income Distribution aims to facilitate communication and discussion of research in the field of social economics and particularly in the sphere of the distribution of income and wealth. Its intention is to provide an international forum for the dissemination of the results of scholarly work in this field.