Blueprint for a humane economy: What Pope Francis can teach the left

On matters of political economy, the left is in a funk. Even as social and economic inequality have radically increased, wages have stagnated or gone backwards for the vast majority of citizens, and the cost of private health insurance has skyrocketed, citizens of many developed countries have continued to support leaders that embrace the neo-liberal policies that are the root cause of those problems. This is especially true in the Anglosphere, where characters such as Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson, and, of course, Donald Trump hold the reins of government. (And while Joe Biden has won the US presidential election, it must be remembered that Democrats could have chosen Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, both of whom were much more economically progressive than Biden. It is also important to be realistic about the electoral effect of COVID 19, as well as Biden’s relatively slim margin of victory.)

Judged by its electoral failures, then, the economic vision of the left is in drastic need of an overhaul. Instead of acquiescing to the neo-liberal idea that the market is a cure-all to our social ills and offering band-aid solutions to structural economic problems, the left needs to develop an economic message which clearly demonstrates the failings of the neo-liberal agenda and creates a productive economy which enables all to flourish and participate effectively in the life of society.

Unfortunately, at least within the political realm, the left is lacking a truly popular voice that can articulate an alternative, appealing perspective.

But there is a global voice to whom the left should pay heed, namely, Pope Francis. In a number of speeches and writings — most recently, his encyclical Fratelli tutti — Pope Francis has laid-out a blueprint for a more humane economy, one in which the ideas of community and human flourishing take centre-stage. According to Francis, our economic policies have lost touch with the reality on the ground and have come to treat economic growth as the end, rather than one important means to human flourishing. As he states: “Some economic rules have proved effective for growth, but not for integral human development.”

According to Francis, neoliberalism must be repudiated because it resorts to “the magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle’ — without using the name — as the only solution to societal problems”, while ignoring the “inequality that gives rise to new forms of violence threatening the fabric of society.” Pope Francis argues that it is, therefore, necessary to create policies and institutions that “look beyond the free and efficient working of certain economic, political or ideological systems and are [instead], primarily concerned with individuals and the common good.” For Francis, the human person must be placed “at the centre of all political, social and economic activity.”

This vision of a community-focused, humane economy should prove attractive and useful to the left because it moves past the sterile, reductive, neo-liberal aim of measuring success through impersonal economic measures. Francis’s message gives the left a clear narrative consistent with the movement’s historical focus on economic inclusivity. Under Francis’s tutelage, the aim of economic policy becomes the flourishing or development of the human person, through the upbuilding of community.

The left can thereby change the terms of the debate — prudent economic management is not determined by the size of GDP, or whether there is a budget surplus, or whether the stock market has hit a new high, but rather by the degree to which a society is focused on ensuring the good of all of its members, by enabling them to participate effectively in economic, political, and social life. (As support for this last claim, think of the current state of play in the United States: although the GDP of the United States is the largest in the world, it cannot be credibly asserted that the country is characterised by a community ethos that is conducive to the flourishing of all of its citizens.)

I want here to explore three important themes in Francis’s work, demonstrating how these themes can be taken up by the left and used to create a new, community-based vision of a humane economy: the idea of a community devoted to “integral human development”; the need to avoid a reductive globalisation and petty nationalism; and the requirement to focus on the poor and marginalised.

“Integral human development”

Pope Francis’s most recent encyclical, Fratelli tutti, is devoted to the topic of fraternity and solidarity. But it is not a naïve call for friendship and love. Francis recognises that fraternity and solidarity can only be built through an intense process of dialogue and engagement. It requires a community in which “authentic encounters” can occur — in other words, a community in which we are open to one another, appreciative of mutual vulnerability, and capable of viewing each other as cooperators, not competitors. But how can such a community be built?

In political philosophy it is often argued that solidarity requires a common aim or belief. Sometimes this is cast in terms of culture or nationality. But Francis quite rightly rejects such appeals. For him, solidarity and community are built around the mutual recognition of the value of persons and their need for “integral human development”.

Although the term “integral human development” sounds complicated, what Francis means is quite simple. Integral human development is the development of the whole person. It entails meeting all the interconnected needs of the person — including their material, social, educational, and spiritual needs. Only when those needs are met in a holistic manner, is an individual able to flourish. It should be obvious that this form of flourishing is not possible on one’s own. As Francis insists, “no one can mature or find fulfilment by withdrawing from others.” It requires a community that is cooperative, willing to engage with and learn from one another, as well as assist each other in providing access to basic goods, opportunities, and resources. So, because flourishing is not possible alone but requires cooperation, we have every reason to come together to create the necessary conditions for each other. And it is precisely in that coming together, that we create a community characterised by solidarity, fraternity, and mutual commitment.

So, how is that sense of solidarity and mutual commitment to be advanced? Francis offers a number of practical proposals that the left would be well-advised to incorporate into their economic vision.

First, in his earlier encyclical, Laudato si’, Francis speaks of worker cooperatives that are focused on environmental sustainability and ensuring meaningful work. This should be a concerted focus of the left because cooperatives and labour-managed firms empower workers by giving them real control, through democratic procedures, over the policies and priorities of the firm. Because they are not controlled by outside investors but by the workers themselves, cooperatives ensure a greater sense of equality across the firm, fair treatment, and beneficial working conditions. They also help to bring workers together in a collaborative spirit.

In the past, cooperatives were a hallmark of leftist thinking, but with the rise of neo-liberalism they have largely been forgotten. However, social philosophers like Carol Gould and Elizabeth Anderson have endorsed cooperatives as a way of ensuring a more equal, fair, or flourishing community. For their part, economists, like Gregory Dow, have demonstrated the economic plausibility and productive efficiency of cooperatives. It is time that the left follow the Pope Francis’s vocal lead and reinvigorate the cooperative movement.

A second way of building community is through public investment and services that bring people together in the creation of a beneficial public good. One obvious public good is a healthy and sustainable environment. Both in Laudato si’ and Fratelli tutti, Francis draws our attention to the environmental and social calamity we face if we do not improve our stewardship of our “common home”. According to Francis, “we need to reject a magical conception of the market which would suggest that [environmental] problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals.” But what sometimes goes unappreciated is the fact that Francis sees the preservation and improvement of the natural environment as coextensive with the upbuilding of community. As he states, “concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.”

Francis urges the development of public works projects to green the environment, investment in research on renewable energy technologies, upgrading transportation networks, supporting sustainable environmental tourism — all for the benefit of the natural environment and the societies that live with in it. These policies can help to provide jobs and offer the kind of common goal that can bring people together.

While it is true that the left has begun to adopt similar ideas, insufficient attention has been paid to promoting such measures as positive ways of pursing human advancement and flourishing. Too often environmental protection is spoken of in regulatory terms — in terms of what persons and societies ought not do, or what they ought to ban. But as Francis argues, “political and institutional frameworks do not exist simply to avoid bad practice, but also to promote best practice, to stimulate creativity in seeking new solutions”. I believe the left should follow Francis’s lead and invest in the environment with the confident assertion that this can create a better life for all through the production of new jobs and a communal focus on a truly common good.

This has particular pertinence for the Australian Labor Party. The ALP’s past climate policies do not reflect a holistic approach to the environment — one in which community is developed even as the environment is improved. Of its main proposals, a vehicle emissions standard is merely regulatory, while its outline of a Just Transition Authority is reactive and amounts to a stop-gap measure that would likely fail to adequately address the larger adaptation problem Australia faces as it transitions to renewable resources. The commitment to invest in hydrogen power is better, but the effect on workers will be muted because it is primarily a regional proposal. Instead, what is necessary is long-term, integrated national policy in which national, regional, and local transportation infrastructure, energy production, and green spaces are all targeted for upgrade and transition. This would create substantial jobs across states and regions and would set Australia on a prosperous and environmentally sustainable path.

Internationalism

Although Pope Francis is opposed to neo-liberal forms of economic globalisation that tend to universalise peoples and subject them to unrestrained market forces, he supports an internationalism in which states cooperatively engage with one another. As he puts it, “Mutual assistance between countries proves enriching for each.” In particular, he argues for the need to strengthen international organisations such as the United Nations. He also discusses the significance of multilateral agreements, claiming that “preference should be given to multilateral agreements between states because, more than bilateral agreements, they guarantee the promotion of a truly universal common good and the protection of weaker states.”

The emphasis on internationalism is something the left should not neglect. There has been a pronounced inward turn in leftist thinking, as evidenced by the recent election in Denmark of what has now become the (largely) anti-immigrant Social Democratic Party, along with the British Labour Party’s tepid support for remaining in the European Union. The left must avoid, as a response to globalisation, a reversion to a petty nationalism that polarises and divides. Not only does a petty nationalism lead to conflict between nations as they disengage and erect potentially harmful economic barriers, it also divides nations internally as cultural differences are emphasised and residents are encouraged to view one another as competitors, not partners in a common project.

Although Pope Francis supports immigration and believes, quite rightly, that immigrants enhance the diversity and depth of community, he also recognises that “unnecessary migration ought to be avoided.” This is an important distinction, particularly in the Australian context. Wages have stagnated in Australia and one likely culprit (among others) is the super-charged immigration of skilled workers — prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, upwards of 200,000 a year, both temporary and permanent. This has enabled businesses to reduce wages as a result of an increased supply of labour. This situation does not militate against immigration per se, but rather demands a sustainable approach that would enable Australia to continue to support and increase its intake of refugees, even as it reduces the number of skilled workers and ensures better wages for its residents. Importantly, therefore, Francis offers a way of moving beyond the simplistic pro-/anti-immigration rhetoric and create the breathing space necessary to develop a fair immigration policy that supports the community and benefits all.

The left also needs to focus its efforts on developing cooperative economic policies and projects that support both the domestic and global community. This type of internationalism is certainly consistent with the left’s historical focus on global labour solidarity. More concretely, the left needs to forcefully support multi-lateral tax agreements and information sharing mechanisms that help to prevent offshoring and capital flight, while still allowing fair trade and the sensible movement of peoples. In the long term, it may be beneficial to move toward a form of what Carol Gould and economist Thomas Piketty have termed “transnational democracy”, in which nations create international assemblies that decide on development projects and fair taxes on globalised corporations.

All of this will, of course, require substantial collaboration, but it can be built out gradually, and it is consistent with Pope Francis’s call for “a new network of international relations” that respects “the fundamental right of peoples to subsistence and progress.”

Parties representing whom?

Consistent with the long history of Catholic Social Teaching, Francis demands a focus on improving the situation of the poor and marginalised. And even though Francis acknowledges the importance of charity, he has re-emphasised the role of justice and the need to make structural economic changes. In describing solidarity, Francis states that “it means combatting the structural causes of poverty, inequality, the lack of work, land and housing, the denial of social and labour rights” (italics mine). His emphasis on reorganising the economy and ensuring that social policies constructively address the causes of poverty must take on renewed importance for the left.

Although it would seem that the left — because it has traditionally supported comparatively robust social welfare and educational policies — would not need reminding of the importance of assisting the poor and working class, there is good evidence suggesting that the left has been neglecting this moral requirement, or at least failing to develop appropriate policies.

Reasons for this failure are multi-faceted, but it most likely is the result of the change in the demographic composition of the major left parties. After examining the composition of political parties in a range of democratic countries, including the United States, UK, France, and Denmark, Thomas Piketty has shown, quite conclusively, that the left parties have moved away from being the parties of the working class, to being the parties of the highly educated. This has led to a demonstrable decrease in voter turnout among the working class because their interests are not being appropriately represented — and this, in turn, has led to their further marginalisation. Piketty’s analysis also provides a likely explanation for the poor’s increasing susceptibility to crude populist ideology.

For the left to remain relevant, it must address this issue. It cannot primarily become the party of the highly educated — this would relegate the left to long-term minority status. The left must double-down on efforts to reclaim the support of the poor and working class. Helpfully, Francis provides some clues about how to proceed.

First, the left parties must identify with the working class and, to use the Pope’s own words, create policies that are “with the poor” and “of the poor.” Concretely, this commitment would entail that the parties consciously recruit from the poor and working class and develop policy with their insight. This would help to avoid the sense of paternalism that has arisen in some contexts. It should also be recognised that formal educational attainment does not equate with capacity or ability to serve effectively — especially since, as Francis clearly notes, “the more vulnerable members of society are the victims of unfair generalisations” that limit their social participation.

Second, the left must re-focus on class. There must be concerted effort to develop a broad-based, diverse coalition devoted to overturning inequality and economic injustice. As Francis states:

what is needed is a model of social, political, and economic participation that can include popular movements and invigorate local, national and international governing structures with a torrent of moral energy that springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny.

Although the left must not neglect the call for racial, sexual, and cultural justice, it must remember that economic injustice is experienced by anyone that lacks access to a stable, well-paid job, adequate housing or subsistence, and meaningful autonomy. Since the poor lack the influence that flows from wealth, their viewpoints and interests are easily ignored, regardless of their cultural and racial background. But when bound together in broad-based associations and coalitions, it is much more difficult to turn a blind eye to the claims of the poor or to dismiss their issues as minor on the ground that those issues only effect a small minority. Practically, such recognition entails two things:

• That the left needs to develop policies that make it easier for unions and other broad-based civic associations to form and recruit members. These types of associations can serve as valuable counterweights to moneyed and corporate interests. They also help to create that sense of mutual commitment vitally important to community and personal development.
• That the left must support broad-based or universal social programs such as free childcare, free education across all levels and sectors, and affordable quality housing and basic job guarantees. These types of programs are capable of meaningfully benefiting the life of the poor and can enjoy the support of a diverse coalition of persons. Smaller, targeted programs simply do not have the same effect and do not generate the same, wide-spread level of support.

Third, there must be an honest assessment of whether the platforms of the left are truly providing the poor and working class with opportunities and jobs, especially given automation and artificial intelligence. As Francis argues, “Since production systems may change, political systems must keep working to structure society in such a way that everyone has a change to contribute his or her own talents and efforts.” The left therefore needs to concentrate on generating full employment through government programs and it must be willing to allow workers to take greater control of their work life through cooperative ventures and union action.

The left should also ensure that its educational policies and funding mechanisms are fair and that they do not disproportionately benefit the already well-off. As Piketty has demonstrated, across the developed nations funding for education has stagnated since roughly the 1980s. This statistic, combined with the well-documented fact that schools serving the relatively prosperous receive the lion’s share of public funding, has meant that many students from lower class backgrounds have not been able to access the benefits provided by a robust education. This lack of funding and inequality must be corrected.

Moreover, there must be further investment in trade and other occupational institutions that stand outside the classification of a traditional university. The key point to remember is that community should be constructed so that all can flourish regardless of career or educational path. In short, the left must make it clear that our politics and policies will no longer, in Francis words, “be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-drive paradigm of technocracy.” Instead, following Pope Francis, the left should acknowledge that “what are needed are new pathways of self-expression and participation in society. Education serves these by making it possible for each human being to shape his or her own future.”

A new vision for the left

The left stands at an important crossroad on matters of political economy. It has allowed itself to be taken in by the false promise that economic growth is the best solution to social ills, and it has neglected policies that would nurture a deep sense of community. But Pope Francis offers a blueprint for a new approach on matters of political economy — one that encourages solidarity through cooperative firms and public investment in greening the economy; one that is open and inclusive because it is international in scope; and one that responds meaningfully to those in our societies that are too often relegated to the margins and neglected.

This would be a transformative platform that could bring people together and dissipate the economic anxiety that has led to the present sense of conflict and demagoguery. All that remains is for the political leadership of the left to take up the call for action so ably articulated by Pope Francis.

Stewart Braun is Senior Lecturer and Head of the School of Philosophy at the Australian Catholic University, where he is also Research Associate in the Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry.