Economics as if Ethics Mattered

  • Stefano ZamagniEmail author
Part of the Virtues and Economics book series (VIEC, volume 1)


After discussing the main reasons why the thesis of the axiological neutrality of economics is indefensible, the paper provides a thorough critique of the standard economic approach to human behavior. It then takes position in favour of the adoption of the relational paradigm in economic discourse. The paper supports the introduction of the principle of reciprocity within economic theory in order to expand its grasp on reality. Reference to the civil economy paradigm and to its salience is offered.

The paper argues that virtue ethics has the capacity to resolve the opposition between self-interest and interest for others, by moving beyond it. The virtuous life is good not only for others but also for the actor. The paper suggests that the discipline of economics needs the relational perspective. The economic world is inhabited by a plurality of types of subjects: some are anti-social (the envious or the malicious) while others are pro-social (who act with the public interest in mind). The personal dispositions of agents matters. Gift as gratuitousness always counterposes its logic of overabundance to that of equivalence, typical of contracts.


Moral Responsibility Economic Approach Extrinsic Motivation Evolutionary Game Theory Civic Virtue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akerlof, G. 1997. Social Distance and Social Decisions. Econometrica 65 (5): 1005–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G., and S. Kranton. 2000. Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 65 (3): 715–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A.B. 2009. Economics as a Moral Science. Economica 76 (1): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R.M. 2006. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Barrera, A. 2013. Biblical Economic Ethics. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  6. Boulding, K. 1969. Economics as a Moral Science. American Economic Review 59 (1969): 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Bruni, L., and S. Zamagni. 2016a. The Challenge of Public Happiness: An Historical Methodological Reconstruction, World Happiness Report, 2016.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2016b. Civil Economy. London: Agenda Pu. Co..Google Scholar
  9. Buber, M. 2000. I and Thou. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  10. Donati, P., and M. Archer. 2015. The Relational Subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durlauf, S., and H.P. Young. 2001. Social Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Emmett, R.B. 2014. Economics and Theology After the Separation. In Christianity and Economics, ed. P. Oslington. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Engel, C. 2010. Dictator Games. MPI Collective Goods Preprint No 7/2010.Google Scholar
  14. Falk, A., and U. Fischbacher. 2001. A Theory of Reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54 (2006): 293–315.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolics. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  16. Frey, B. 1997. Not Just For The Money. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Gui, B., and R. Sugden. 2005. Economics and Social Interaction. Accounting for Interpersonal Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janssen, M.C.V., and E. Mendys-Kamphorst. 2004. The Price of a Price: On the Crowding Out and In of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 55 (2004): 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolm, S. 2000. Introduction to the Economics of Reciprocity, Giving and Altruism. In The Economics of Reciprocity, Giving and Altruism, ed. L. Gerard Varet, S. Kolm, and J. Mercier Ythier. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  20. Lutz, D. 2003. Beyond Business Ethics. Oikos 2003 .Google Scholar
  21. Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Sen, A. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, A. 1950 [1776]. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations. (Edited by Edwin Cannan) London, Methuen.Google Scholar
  24. Strawson, G. 2004. Free Agents. Philosophical Topics 32 (1/2): 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Titmuss, R. 1970. The Gift Relationship. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  26. Townsend, R.M. 1998. Models as Economies. The Economic Journal 98 (390): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wicksteed, P.H. 1910. The Common Sense of Political Economy: Including a Study of the Human Basis of Economic Law. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Ythier, J.M. 2011. Ethics and Economics. mimeo, University of ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Zamagni, S. 2005a. La svolta antropologica in economia. La Società degli Individui 2 : 2005.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2005b. L’economia civile e i beni relazionali. In La nuova economiaed, ed. R. Viale, Milano, Il Sole 24 Ore, 2005.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2015. Beni comuni e economia civile. In Beni comuni e cooperazione, ed. L. Sacconi and S. Ottone. Il Mulino: Bologna.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins University, SAIS EuropeBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations