Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 149, Issue 1, pp 57–82 | Cite as

The Rehabilitation of Adam Smith for Catholic Social Teaching

  • Gregory Wolcott


Catholic Social Teaching (CST) takes a rather cautious view toward the value of the ideas of Adam Smith, due to his emphasis on negative political and economic liberty. Detractors of Smith within CST point to what they consider to be deficiencies within his works: an impoverished moral anthropology, a lack of concern for the common good, and markets untethered to human needs. Defenders of Smith within CST tend to emphasize the material benefits that derive from Smithian institutions, such as economic growth, improvements in standards of living, and the new opportunities that arise from cultures focused on innovation. This paper argues that Smith’s ideas have real value for CST. However, this value primarily lies in his moral psychology. While not denying the dangers of business activity for our moral lives, Smith also helps us to understand the possibility of the moral corruption of those who wield political power, thus providing an indirect defense of political and economic liberty that coheres with important Christian ethical notions found in CST. This is the case even though CST does not consistently recognize concerns surrounding the dangers of wielding political power—and thus Smith’s arguments offer real challenges to CST as well. This paper further suggests that these basic insights are relevant regardless of one’s favored institutional arrangements.


Catholic Social Teaching Adam Smith Virtue Politics Government Free markets 



Many thanks to the very helpful and astute comments and suggestions by anonymous reviewers selected by the editors of the Journal of Business Ethics. Their ideas have prompted me to make many important clarifications and amplifications through the entire text of this paper. I presented earlier versions of this paper at the 2015 Society for Business Ethics Annual Conference and at the 4th Annual Colloquium on Christian Humanism in Economics and Business. Many thanks to audience members, co-presenters, and panel moderators for helpful questions and conversations. As always, all remaining errors are my own.


  1. Abela, A., & Capizzi, J. (2014). A catechism for business. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. (2002). Summa theologica. In W. P. Baumgarth & R. J. Regan (Eds.), Law, morality, and politics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Benedict XVI. (2009a). Fighting poverty to build world peace. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from
  4. Bevan, D., & Werhane, P. (2015). The inexorable sociality of commerce: The individual and others in Adam Smith. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. (1996). The common good and the Catholic Church’s social teaching. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from
  6. Booth, P. (2007). Taxation and the size of the state. In P. Booth (Ed.), Catholic Social Teaching and the market economy (pp. 111–140). London: Institute for Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, P. (2012). Catholic Social Teaching and the market economy: A reply to Daniel K. Finn. Journal of Markets & Morality, 15(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; forthcoming. Shared in correspondence with author.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrasco, M. (2012). Adam Smith: Self-command, practical reason and deontological insights. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 20(2), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catholic Church. (1997). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from
  12. Cavanaugh, W. T. (2005). Killing for the telephone company: Why the nation-state is not the keeper of the common good. In P. D. Miller & D. P. McCann (Eds.), In search of the common good (pp. 301–332). New York and London: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
  13. Cima, L., & Schubeck, T. (2001). Self-interest, love, and economic justice: A dialogue between classical economic liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Den Uyl, D., & Rasmussen, D. B. (2010). Adam Smith on economic happiness. Reason Papers, 32, 29–40.Google Scholar
  15. Editors. (2006). Papal diplomacy. America. Retrieved October 13, 2015 from
  16. Editors. (2015). Economy for the people. America. Retrieved October 13, 2015 form
  17. Evensky, J. (2005). Adam Smith’s theory of moral sentiments: On morals and why they matter to a liberal society of free people and free markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evensky, J. (2011). Adam Smith’s essentials: On trust, faith, and free markets. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 33(2), 249–268.Google Scholar
  19. Finn, D. (2011). Nine libertarian heresies tempting neoconservative Catholics to stray from Catholic Social Thought. Journal of Markets & Morality, 14(2), 487–503.Google Scholar
  20. Finn, D. (2012). Private property, self-regulation, and just price: A response to Phillip Booth and Samuel Gregg. Journal of Markets and Morality, 15(2), 325–328.Google Scholar
  21. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fleischacker, S. (2000). Review of Charles Griswold, Adam Smith and the virtues of Enlightenment. Mind, 109(436), 916–923.Google Scholar
  23. Fleischacker, S. (2009). Review of Ryan Patrick Hanley, Adam Smith and the character of virtue. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved October 20, 2015 from
  24. Fleischacker, S. (2013). Adam Smith’s moral and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 22, 2015 from
  25. Francis I. (2013a). Address to the new non-resident ambassadors to the Holy See: Kyrgyzstan, Antigua, and Barbuda, Luxembourg and Botswana. Retrieved February 9, 2015 from
  26. Galinsky, A., Magee, J., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregg, S. (2007a). The commercial society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  28. Gregg, S. (2007b). Catholicism and the case for limited government. In P. Booth (Ed.), Catholic Social Teaching and the market economy (pp. 254–273). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  29. Gregg, S. (2012). A brief note on the state and society’s moral ecology. Journal of Markets & Morality, 15(1), 7–10.Google Scholar
  30. Griswold, C. (1998). Adam Smith and the virtues of enlightenment. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griswold, C. (2003). Religion and community: Adam Smith on the virtues of liberty. Theoria, 102, 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gruenfeld, D., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J., & Galinsky, A. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haakonssen, K. (1981). The science of a legislator: The natural jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanley, R. P. (2009). Adam Smith and the character of virtue. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Higgs, R. (1987). Crisis and Leviathan. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, J. (1991). Moral imagination, objectivity, and practical wisdom. International Philosophical Quarterly, 31(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. John XXIII. (1961). Mater et magistra. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from
  38. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.Google Scholar
  39. Kleinbard, E. (2014). Invisible man. Commonweal. Retrieved October 13, 2015 from
  40. Konisky, D., & Teodoro, W. (2015). When governments regulate government. American Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12221.Google Scholar
  41. Lammers, J., Stapel, D., & Galinsky, A. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacIntyre, A. (1984) After virtue (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  43. MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals. Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Maitland, I. (1997). The market as a school of the virtues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCloskey, D. (2006a). The bourgeois virtues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCloskey, D. (2006b). Bourgeois virtues? Cato Policy Report. Retrieved March 12, 2015 from
  47. McElroy, R. (2014) Market assumptions. America. Retrieved October 13, 2015 from
  48. McKenna, S. (2012) Paul Ryan’s Adam Smith problem. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from
  49. Melé, D., & González Cantón, C. (2014). Human foundations of management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore, G. (2005). Humanizing business: A modern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Novak, M. (1996). Business as a calling: Work and the examined life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Otteson, J. (2002). Adam Smith’s marketplace of life. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Otteson, J. (2006). Actual ethics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phelps, E. (2013). Mass flourishing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from
  57. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2012). The vocation of the business leader. Retrieved January 26, 2014 from
  58. Rasmussen, D. C. (2006). Does ‘bettering our condition’ really make us better off? Adam Smith on progress and happiness. American Political Science Review, 100(3), 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rasmussen, D. C. (2008). The problems and promise of commercial society. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rasmussen, D. C. (2011). Adam Smith on commerce and happiness: A response to Den Uyl and Rasmussen. Reason Papers, 33, 95–101.Google Scholar
  61. Riordan, P. (2008). A grammar of the common good. New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  62. Rodríguez Maradiaga, Ó. A. (2014). Conference presentation. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from
  63. Rose, D. C. (2014). The moral foundation of economic behavior. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, A. (1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Vol. 2). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, A. (2002). The theory of moral sentiments. In K. Haakonssen (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Teichgraeber, R. F, I. I. I. (1981). Rethinking Das Adam Smith problem. Journal of British Studies, 20(2), 106–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trout, J. D. (2009). The empathy gap. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  68. Van Kleef, G., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LouKagan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waterman, A. M. C. (1999). Market social order and Christian organicism in Centesimus Annus. Journal of Markets & Morality, 2(9), 220–233.Google Scholar
  70. Wolcott, G. (2015). The new (old) case for the ethics of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 127–146.Google Scholar
  71. Zak, P. (Ed.). (2008). Moral markets. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quinlan School of BusinessLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations