. It suggests that the basis of the world's (extremely limited) economic prosperity has deep roots in history, culture and geography. But it was this passage that jumped out at me after reading one of the comments on the Trimble thread:The correlation between religion and economic development is inescapable, but the nature of the connection is controversial. Max Weber explained how belief in predestination led to austere, hard-working morality we still call 'the Protestant ethic'. RH Tawney and Robert Merton gave greater weight to the intellectual ferment that followed the breakdown of clerical authoritarianism: the opportunity to challenge established ideas and practices which is essential to the co-evolution of technology and institutions. The combination of moral rigour and free inquiry is the basis of disciplined pluralism - the defining characteristic of the successful market economy.
Apart from anything else it underlines the massive social and economic changes that have taken place in the Republic over the last decade or so. Indeed, the roots of the current situation are deeper than that. As Andrew Greely noted in his 1999 essay Religions of Ireland:
...the southern Irish work longer hours than members of the other two communities [Northern Irelanders], almost forty four hours a week as opposed to slightly under forty for the Northerners. If number of hours worked is a sign of the Protestant Ethic then Irish Catholics are the last Protestants in Europe.
6 comments:
"The correlation between religion and economic development is inescapable..."
Really? Tell that to the Chinese. Atheist county and economic powerhouse.
"Protestant work ethic" is a pile of bollocks, a vaguely supremacist throw over from a different age.
Protestantism did help break down barriers and along with say, French style secularism encourage scientific inquiry and ferment a lot of bloody good ideas (Republicanism among them) but I find the suggestion that somehow Prods either worked or desired to work harder vaguely offensive, and moreover, easy disproved by Irish immigrants all over the world.
The book is not bad otherwise though. I like the idea of disciplined pluralism as a driving force, and I think it makes a nonsense out of a lot of the Privitisations that were done where a state monopoly was swapped for a private one, benefitting a very few.
Religion might be more important in the socialist stage and perhaps after it all falls apart ?
Mick, i guess there are lots of different inputs to economic development There are of course things like, a stable society, a society working together, recognising, respecting and legislating eachothers rights with the quest to further develop ones self and to look after your families. But these come to the fore only after an initial rush of wealth exists and has poured into the country, usually after a decidely morally questionable beginning.
It seems that the precursor to large economic expansions are an abundant supply of wealth pumped into a local economy usually because of costs. Be it cheap slaves in the old days or low tax rates and costs today. The concentration of that wealth in local economies expands and develops the local economy and then finally the distribution of this wealth to 'the common man'. After that, things might stay stagnant or fall apart until the next abundant supply of wealth.
But it seems initially there are less comforting reasons that preceed economic growth.
It seems that the Christian European powers, after a period of scientific advance and through this, world supremacy, gained their initial 'abundant supply of wealth' through militarily conquering their colonies and importing huge numbers of cheap raw materials sourced from native workers. This wealth was concentrated in the hands of an aristocracy with local people working hard to eventually gain there share of the wealth (after many generations).
Much of the economic development of the world has flowed from this.
The American colonies developing of Indian land with black slaves and poor white immigrants. The syphoning of European wealth after the two world wars in rebuilding Europe.
After this the exploiting / investing in cheaper countries like Japan, that then have their own cycles and that then go off and do the same themselves in Korea, China, thailand, Singapore etc.
Ireland of course has only recently had their turn in developing / being taking advantage of.
So i guess there are lots of different inputs for economic growth. Like Karl Marx said, first their is a need for capitalism, then there is a need for socialism depending on where you are in the cycle.
I think religions role, as the main moral force of most societies that go through this cycle, is mainly in initiating and continuuing the 'socialist' role of working hard and getting a fair days wage in order to distribute the wealth. But equally, it seems you cannot get away from an initial exploitation and concentration of wealth which might be better described as a failure of religion.
No gain without pain so they say. No good without evil ?
It seems to be the way.
I think a lot of the arguements in economic politics might be from people being in different cycles from eachother. Some restricted from expanding, some wanting to catch up on the last wave.
We're all Prods down here anyway, ask a few Catholics where they stand on the various points of difference between Catholicism and the Protestant faith. Al a carte all the way.
From a purely practical viewpoint, if you're talking Muslims, heading off to the mosque five times a day doesn't leave a lot of time for serious graft.
And if you're talking Christians, I've never quite understood how the yanks square the notion of not 'laying up treasures on earth' and 'a rich man not being able to enter the kingdom of heaven' with huge bank balances and big cars.
Hey what do I know?
Very old at this stage, but here goes. The thesis is nonsense, based on deeply flawed inductive reasoning - Protestant countries are rich at the exact moment in time of my survey, therefore being Protestant makes them rich. Completely ignoring that at other points in history Catholic countries have been wealthier. The thing about scientific thinking, it only takes one observation to render a hypothesis null and void.
A couple of centuries early, the richest country in the world was Catholic Spain. She ruled the Protestant Netherlands, and would have ruled Britain if not for a little bad luck. Then mistaking money for wealth, she imported tons of money (silver and gold) from the Americas, created huge inflation, bankrupted herself, lost the Netherlands and stagnated economically. Modern banking had it's origins in Catholic northern Italy, but was adopted well elsewhere (Britain, the Netherlands).
After the fall of Spain it was France's turn to be the richest country in the world. But, hold your horses, here comes Scotish Protestant by birth John Law. Just in time to convince the French monarch to give him the keys to the printing press. He inflated a the Missippi bubble and bankrupted France (leading in turn to the birth of French and by extensions American and Irish Republicanism).
Protestant Britain and the Netherlands finally got to take their place in the sun, after a lucky escape from Napeolean's clutches, and yes if you took a snapshot at that point of history it does look like Protestant countries were more successful economically. But it is purely the landscape at one moment in time, to build a thesis around a stationary snapshot was sloppy.
The wish, I suspect, was the father of the thought....
Post a Comment