hi

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT626

But there is a more substantial worry about the unkept promise of the book. Putting emphasis on practice in order to get away from normative methodology is one thing, but the emphasis on practice in the history of science also bears witness to another suspicion: that scientists lack a language to describe what they do; self-representations of scientists are misleading, as they are just like musicians not trained in doing so. While Maas does a relatively good job in overcoming normative methodology, he still shares much of the language that economists themselves use when talking about their work in controversies. Questions regarding the historical nature of economic method- ology are thus diffi cult to even pose (do controversies aim at representing economic practices, or rather at changing them? Under which historical conditions are methods contestable and contested in the fi rst place?). The reason why Maas does not pose such questions might be that he lacks a historical theory as a source of a different language. Claiming the label of “historical epistemology” (p. 4), what he does is in fact not more than factual history of methods. But even the most conservative philosophers of sci- ence have never questioned the mere fact that methods changed. Just as philosophical epistemology gives an explanation of why one scientifi c theory is superior to another, historical epistemology, according to the understanding of this reader, should give reasons why this or that regime of knowledge was appealing to historical actors at a specifi c moment of time.

In short, this is a charming and short introduction to economic methodology that calls for more research to re-appropriate the standard body of knowledge of this fi eld. As in an Old Amsterdam cheese, there remain many holes to be fi lled in the historical epistemology of economics. Perhaps in future years, we will read more by Harro Maas, then written with a Swissfranco touch, but probably still with a Dutch accent.

Till Düppe Université du Québec à Montréal

REFERENCES

Maas , Harro . 2011 . “Sorting Things Out: The Economist as an Armchair Observer.” In Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck , eds., Histories of Scientifi c Observation . Chicago : University of Chicago Press , pp. 206 – 229 .

——— . 2012 . “Questions of Scale in Economic Laboratory Experiments.” Revue de Philosophie Économique 13 ( 1 ): 103 – 125 .

Paul Oslington , ed., The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics ( New York : Oxford University Press , 2014 ), pp. 656 , $142.50, hardcover. ISBN 978-0-19-972971-5 . doi: 10.1017/S1053837215000528

In The Handbook of Christianity and Economics , Paul Oslington has achieved the commendable feat of bringing the seemingly different areas of economics and Christian theology in dialogue with each other, creating the space for an interdisciplinary discussion.

at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000528 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 20 Mar 2020 at 07:24:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

BOOK REVIEWS 627

The aim of this handbook is twofold: to survey the new interdisciplinary fi eld of economics and Christianity, and to show that these two seemingly different academic areas are interrelated. Interconnection between economic activity and Christian faith is the primary focus of this handbook; included are thirty-three articles sourced from various contexts to describe this important but rarely researched topic.

The organization of the articles of various discipline-specifi c approaches, denomi- nations, and historical backgrounds into categories is itself the result of an important process of interpretation, which is infl uenced by the editor’s own understanding of the interdisciplinary relationship between mainstream economics and Christian theology. I concentrate on the structure of the handbook not because each chapter is not worth reviewing, but because the analysis of its structure helps to evaluate the aim of this handbook. Each of these articles is worthy of a detailed review in its own right, but, given time and space constraints, only a brief overview is offered here.

The thirty-three articles included in the handbook have been broadly sourced. Written by authors of varied backgrounds with different methodologies, they are divided into fi ve categories: historical relationship; economic thoughts of the main Christian denominations; Christianity’s role for economic development; economic analysis of region; and interdisciplinary topics such as justice, happiness, usury, human nature, gender, and poverty.

The fi rst eight chapters are collected in Part 1 under the title “Historical Relationships between Economics and Christian Theology,” and include historical explorations from various perspectives. The articles included show that the relationship between eco- nomics and theology is confi rmed in various historical aspects such as the Christian scripture (M. Douglas Meeks), the Church Fathers (Hennie Stander), Scholastic eco- nomics (Odd Langholm), Italy in the eighteenth century (Luigino Bruni and Stefano Zamagni), France in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Gilbert Faccarello), Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (A. M. C. Waterman), Europe from the nineteenth century (Pedro Teixeira and Antonio Almodovar), and after the Separation (Ross B. Emmett).

Those historical surveys, however, only describe the possibility of the interrelationship between economic behaviors and religious faith from the ethical point of view of each respective era. They do not explain how economics and theology are interrelated.

For example, in chapter 1, Meeks describes how biblical economics is based on abundance, hospitality, and mercy, in contrast to the axioms of mainstream economics, such as artifi cial scarcity, comparative advantage, and calculation of cost-benefi t. Given this, the question that follows is: why bother connecting these two diametrically opposed areas at all? In order to link economic activity and religious faith, more dis- cussion is required; an historical approach alone is not suffi cient. Historical surveys of the relationship between economics and theology show that there may be a close rela- tionship between economics and theology. Yet, how these related? That is a different question.

Part 2 begins to answer this question. Titled “Contemporary Theological Economics,” it includes eight articles, addressing perspectives such as Roman Catholic (Andrew Yuengert), Anglican (Kim Hawtrey), Eastern Orthodox (Daniel P. Payne), Reformed (Bob Goudzwaard and Roel Jongeneel), Theonomy (Edd Noell), Anabaptist (Jim Halteman), Pentecostal (Shane Clifton), and interface and integration (J. David Richardson). These articles deal directly, from various denominational perspectives,

at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000528 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 20 Mar 2020 at 07:24:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT628

with the question of how different theologies infl uence economic behaviors in the market.

Part 2’s methodology of analyzing the interrelationship between economic and religious faith in terms of denomination-specifi c economic behavior offers a clearer explanation of the interrelationship in question than the historical approach of Part 1, in that there is a more concrete presentation of the relationship. However, the question of clarifying the relationship between economics and theology, in more substantial conceptual terms beyond well-established characteristics, remains. Part 2 shows that given the fact that each religious denomination has its own economic characteristics, the two areas are thus interrelated. However, it does not necessarily show how economic activity is integrated into religious faith, or vice versa.

Part 3, “Christianity, Capitalism and Development,” deals with this question, asserting that religious faith has an impact on economic life. The fi ve articles that are included encompass a broad range of perspectives, addressing Max Weber’s theological eco- nomics (Max L. Stackhouse), economic religion and environmental religion (Robert H. Nelson), development in the global South (Peter S. Heslam), international development (Katherine Marshall), and global economic order (Paul S. Williams). According to the articles of Part 3, religious faith infl uences economic activity.

In contrast, Part 4 deals with the question of how economics and theology are inter- related in the opposite direction. It shows that economic motive impacts religious ac- tivity. Titled “Economic Analysis of Religion,” six articles are included: church models (Robert Mochrie), religious schism and switching (T. Randolf Beard, Robert B. Ekelund Jr., George S. Ford, and Robert P. Tollison), spiritual capital (Theodore Roosevelt Malloch), religious labor markets (Ian Smith), regulation of religious mar- kets (Charles M. North), and behavioral economics of religion (Jonathan H. W. Tan).

It’s important to note here that Part 3 and Part 4 clearly illustrate the relationship between economics and theology as a mutual, two-way relationship. This in turn high- lights and further supports the arguments presented in parts 1 and 2 of the handbook, illuminating the place of these specifi c inquiries in the broader discussion of the rela- tionship between economic activity and religious faith.

Part 5 is titled “Interdisciplinary Exchanges.” The title recognizes the fact that the concepts addressed in the six articles of this section—justice (Albino Barrera), happi- ness (Ben Cooper), usury (Ian Harper and Lachlan Smirl), human nature (Gordon Menzies and Donald Hay), gender (Carrie A. Miles), and poverty (Craig M. Gay)— require analytical tools and observational skills beyond that of a perspective limited to a single discipline. In this sense, this section represents the mutual relationship between economics and theology, and the need for interdisciplinary perspectives in addressing current social issues.

While this in itself is a valuable contribution, the interdisciplinary dialogue of the handbook has overlooked an important point. That is, economics and theology have fundamentally different understandings of human nature and the attributes of God. In order for the interdisciplinary fi eld of economics and theology to thrive, it is impera- tive that we develop a common foundation, from which we can conduct a fruitful conversation between seemingly dissimilar disciplines.

This volume offers a survey of current thinking and research into the area of the relationship between economics and theology. The various approaches utilized in this interdisciplinary discussion include historical, denominational, Christian, economic,

at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000528 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 20 Mar 2020 at 07:24:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available

BOOK REVIEWS 629

and thematic perspectives. This handbook is surely a landmark in the interdisciplinary research fi eld of economics and Christianity, and a valuable guide for those who are interested in the dialogue between economics and theology.

Yong-Sun Yang Alphacrucis College

Jacob Viner , The Customs Union Issue , edited and with an introduction by Paul Oslington ( Oxford : Oxford University Press , 2014 ), pp. 256 , $39.95. ISBN 978-0199-75612-4 . doi: 10.1017/S105383721500053X

The republication of any signifi cant past contribution to the fi eld of economics is an occasion of joy for historians of economics because it means new scholars will fi nd themselves engaged with the insights of a classic text. Jacob Viner’s text is a great example, because its discussion of the discriminatory nature of preferential trade agreements has shaped much of the debate over the past fi fty years, even though refer- ence to the text itself dropped away by the 1970s. Comments such as “It is a serious mistake, although a widely prevalent one, to transfer from the fi eld of free trade in general, where it is probably true, to the fi eld of preferential trade relations …, where there is no reason at all to believe that it is true, the ancient proposition that the removal of barriers to trade works powerfully for peace and amity” (p. 129) sound even more prescient today than fi fty years ago. Almost everywhere we look, regional trade accords and other forms of economic integration are fraught with tension and discord.

For the historian, however, the occasion also gives an opportunity to consider not only the book’s infl uence, but also its original context and purpose. Paul Oslington’s introduction covers much of this ground quite well. Viner’s interest in preferential trade arrangements, and customs unions in particular, emerged from his background of working with Frank Taussig at Harvard and at the US Trade Commission. At fi rst, he looked favorably on customs unions, thinking them a step toward freer trade, espe- cially in the context of trade protection all around. But a consulting assignment with the province of Manitoba gave Viner the opportunity to examine how preferential trade arrangements within his native land worked to the benefi t of some Canadian provinces and not others, with potentially substantial welfare losses. Oslington also walks through the reception of Viner’s argument in the trade literature, and provides a reasonable assessment of his contribution.

One thing Oslington does not look at in his introduction is the contribution of Viner’s treatise to our evaluation of the Chicago School. I was surprised, given the context he does provide, that Oslington did not mention that this text was written over the span of time during Viner’s decision to leave Chicago and move to Princeton. Since much of the book was written before he left, we can consider it a contribution to the trade literature of the Chicago economists. And what a good example of the early Chicago School’s work it is. The focus of attention is on the way in which the social organization of economic activity is effected by a specifi c set of trade policies, with Marshallian price theory as the framework for evaluation. The nineteenth-century proponents of laissez-faire had lost both politically and intellectually to protectionism,

at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000528 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Victoria Libraries, on 20 Mar 2020 at 07:24:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available