Catholicism - development resistant?

[Chancellare]

I came across a study entitled Culture Matters Research Project. Its findings include the observation that Protestant countries have better economic performance than Catholic countries. This is lead to the idea that there is something in the Catholic teachings that hampers economic success.
Here’s part of the analysis:
“The data roundly validate Max Weber’s thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: Protestant countries do better than Catholic countries in creating prosperity. To be sure, the averages for the Catholic countries are depressed by Latin America’s slow development, but even when one looks only at First World democratic-capitalist societies, Protestant countries do substantially better than Catholic countries with respect to prosperity, trust, and corruption.”
It went further:
“More broadly, the analysis of religions suggests that Protestant, Jewish, and Confucian societies do better than Catholic, Islamic, and Orthodox Christian societies because they substantially share the progress-prone Economic Behavior values of the typology whereas the lagging religions tend toward the progress-resistant values. Symbolic of this divide is the persistent ambivalence of the Catholic Church toward market economics, an issue underscored by Michael Novak in his book The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.”

My question is: Is this a proven theory or just an over-extended generalization?

The complete article is found in:
Moynihan and the Culture Matters Research Project
cato-unbound.org/2006/12/04/lawrence-e-harrison/culture-and-economic-development/

 

[manualman]

The question contains too many assumptions that shouldn’t be assumed.

1. Is a more luxurious standard of living and a higher level of consumption always better? When is it enough?
2. Is it corruption when a corporation exploits workers and pollutes the environment or is corruption only defined government bureaucrats on payolla?

Seems like each culture just produces DIFFERENT prevailing temptations into which people fall. In the protestant tradition, it seems to me that the tempation is towards robber baronism. In catholic cultures, it seems that humanity tends rather towards government corruption instead of capitalistic greed. Which is worse? Both are rotten - and why we need a savior.

 

[melensdad]

In catholic cultures, it seems that humanity tends rather towards government corruption instead of capitalistic greed.

While many here on CAF are clearly politically conservative, it is also clear that many in the Catholic Church are inclined to support many government social welfare programs, likely because they attempt to show compassion. The reality, I believe, is that these types of programs lead to exactly what you just wrote. A system of government corruption where systems become self perpetuating for their own sake.

 

[inthecloud]

True, one of the problems in Latinamerica and Southern Europe have been the populist/socialdemocratic policies of many in the church that hamper development. The main problem in Latinamerica always have been the weak property rights for most people. The Church social doctrine always make property rights weaker not stronger. In southern europe is the same problem but weaker. The protestants for most of their history practically removed themselves from economic politicy. That is a plus for them.

 

[rpp]

While many here on CAF are clearly politically conservative, it is also clear that many in the Catholic Church are inclined to support many government social welfare programs, likely because they attempt to show compassion. The reality, I believe, is that these types of programs lead to exactly what you just wrote. A system of government corruption where systems become self perpetuating for their own sake.

I would say this is essentially correct. Often there is too much emphasis on the social responsibility aspects, which is often rightly the concern of legitimate governments. The heightened focus comes at the expense of other portions of the faith and may lead to false charity, such as permitting abortion.

True, one of the problems in Latinamerica and Southern Europe have been the populist/socialdemocratic policies of many in the church that hamper development. The main problem in Latinamerica always have been the weak property rights for most people. The Church social doctrine always make property rights weaker not stronger. In southern europe is the same problem but weaker. The protestants for most of their history practically removed themselves from economic politicy. That is a plus for them.

I would disagree with the section in bold. The Church strongly promotes property rights. It is those practicing false charity and even the heresy of “liberation theology” which try to weaken property rights. The fact that they try to invoke the Church is belied by the fact that the Church has renounced liberation theology.

 

[rlg94086]

True, one of the problems in Latinamerica and Southern Europe have been the populist/socialdemocratic policies of many in the church that hamper development. The main problem in Latinamerica always have been the weak property rights for most people. The Church social doctrine always make property rights weaker not stronger. In southern europe is the same problem but weaker. The protestants for most of their history practically removed themselves from economic politicy. That is a plus for them.

How so? :ehh:

**2211 **The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

• the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
• the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
• the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
• the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
• in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
• the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.; - the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.

 

[Chancellare]

True, one of the problems in Latinamerica and Southern Europe have been the populist/socialdemocratic policies of many in the church that hamper development. The main problem in Latinamerica always have been the weak property rights for most people. The Church social doctrine always make property rights weaker not stronger. In southern europe is the same problem but weaker. The protestants for most of their history practically removed themselves from economic politicy. That is a plus for them.

I have some misgivings on the following:

1. “populist/social democratic policies if many in the church” - this does not sound coherent since we are talking about national government’s economic policies, not the church’s policies.
2. “weak property rights” - these are not due to catholic church influence, is it?
   So far I have not seen any response that explains what in the Catholic teachings actually retard or resist economic development in countries where catholicism is regarded as influential. ( except population control issue, which might be a separate thread).

 

[puzzleannie]

I “The data roundly validate Max Weber’s thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: Protestant countries do better than Catholic countries in creating prosperity. To be sure, the averages for the Catholic countries are depressed by Latin America’s slow development, but even when one looks only at First World democratic-capitalist societies, Protestant countries do substantially better than Catholic countries with respect to prosperity, trust, and corruption.”
It/

there is a basic fallacy in the underlying assumptions of this research that invalidates this conclusion. That flaw is the assumption that because the majority of residents of a given country profess a certain religion, the tenets and practice of that religion necessarily dominate and influence the thinking, actions and policy of the leadership of that country–political, financial and business. In actual fact, that is not the case. In many countries–Italy, much of Latin America being examples–while the people in general profess the Catholic faith, in actual practice for much of recent history the government and members of the power structure are in fact anti-Catholic, anti-clerical and as a matter of deliberate policy act and react against Catholic teaching, practice and values.

For this thesis to stand up, the researchers would have to demonstrate it in a country that is predominantly Catholic in profession and actual practice at all levels of population and ruling elites.

 

[Chancellare]

there is a basic fallacy in the underlying assumptions of this research that invalidates this conclusion. That flaw is the assumption that because the majority of residents of a given country profess a certain religion, the tenets and practice of that religion necessarily dominate and influence the thinking, actions and policy of the leadership of that country–political, financial and business. In actual fact, that is not the case. In many countries–Italy, much of Latin America being examples–while the people in general profess the Catholic faith, in actual practice for much of recent history the government and members of the power structure are in fact anti-Catholic, anti-clerical and as a matter of deliberate policy act and react against Catholic teaching, practice and values.

For this thesis to stand up, the researchers would have to demonstrate it in a country that is predominantly Catholic in profession and actual practice at all levels of population and ruling elites.

I’m also looking for loop holes in the said study. But if you read the details, the findings point to a particular set of behaviors that are observed in countries whose culture has been influenced by Catholicism:

• Being poor is ok, while getting rich is sinful
• Work in order to live as opposed to live to work
  The study tries to correlate these bahaviors with Catholic influence.
  This is where I ask the question: What is it in Catholic teachings that encourage such behaviors?

 

[Maxply]

I"m tempted to laugh; I can’t take this too seriously, even though the author is making a sincere effort. Different nations have different geographical and natural resources. I’d first look to that.

With respect to social institutions, in Europe the rise of the nation-state and the monarchy came at the expense of the clergy. It may be the case that those nations that first adopted so-called “Protestant” values have an early advantage in building economic institutions supporting raw capitalism.

I guess I’m a skeptic: I’ve seen professional economists speak up for all sides of various issues. It’s less a science than they’d have you believe.

 

[steveandersen]

I regard “the Protestant work ethic” as just thinly veiled bigotry.

As Maxply said nations succeed economically for many reasons. Geography and luck on the natural resources prize wheel contribute a lot.

That relative prosperity waxes and wanes compared to other nations over time.

Catholic Spain a Portugal had world spanning empires 100 years before the first permanent settlements in the New World by Protestant England.

If that survey was taken say in the 9th or 10th century then an economist might predict that Moslem culture brought more prosperity than a Christian one.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m also looking for loop holes in the said study. But if you read the details, the findings point to a particular set of behaviors that are observed in countries whose culture has been influenced by Catholicism:

• Being poor is ok, while getting rich is sinful
• Work in order to live as opposed to live to work
  The study tries to correlate these bahaviors with Catholic influence.
  This is where I ask the question: What is it in Catholic teachings that encourage such behaviors?

yes I have read it in some detail, and I question seriously whether the authors have proven that in fact, those mentalities are operative or dominant in the countries surveyed, or if they do, they result from the influence of Catholic teaching. IMO the authors have failed to demonstrate these assertions.

 

[inthecloud]

Two observations:

1. The study fails to test Catholics from the same culture vs Protestant from the same culture. I had a friend who studied economics in Germany and he saw a study comparing the work habits of Dutch and Geman Catholics vs their protestant neighbors and there was no difference. Also my friend pointed out that the most capitalistics and culturaly developed areas of Germany where the Catholic areas, that the fact that the Lutheran Prusians beat the Catholic Austrians when Germany was unified was a tragedy.
2. The problem with Latinamerica is that the Church in fact act as a political institution, is a big social mediator, to the expense of her real role, saving souls, leaving that part to the pentecostals. Even when the Vatican with two great Popes have renounced Liberation theology, some of their anticapitalistic attitudes remain in the Latinamerican Church. You just have to hear Cardinal Madariaga speak or some brazilian bishop to see that. You see a latin american catholic newpaper and is full of articles on saving the world but none of church history, lectio divina, the life of saints, church art and other thing that make Catholicism unique.
   No wonder why pentecostals and secularists have such a wide playing field. We need more people like the Opus Dei. Fast.

 

[Maxply]

Just as a personal lacunae: I’m myself resistant to capitalism, just as I’m resistant to socialism. Both are morally problematic. I’m happy the Catholic Church and recent popes have agreed that capitalism is not a simon-pure system, but needs constant vigilance to hold and secure human rights and keep open private economic opportunity.

I see the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the End of Communism as stimulating a lot of giddy, pro-capitalism blather. Capitalism is not the Savior of mankind, and neither is it a grand guide to a good social life. (Gee, I sound pretty harsh there).

 

[rlg94086]

Just as a personal lacunae: I’m myself resistant to capitalism, just as I’m resistant to socialism. Both are morally problematic. I’m happy the Catholic Church and recent popes have agreed that capitalism is not a simon-pure system, but needs constant vigilance to hold and secure human rights and keep open private economic opportunity.

I see the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the End of Communism as stimulating a lot of giddy, pro-capitalism blather. Capitalism is not the Savior of mankind, and neither is it a grand guide to a good social life. (Gee, I sound pretty harsh there).

I think the important thing is not the economic system. Rather, it is freedom - ability to own private property, emigrate, obtain work, etc. It just so happens, that Capitalism is more compatible with freedom than Socialism. By its very nature, Socialism restricts freedom.

 

[Maxply]

Agreed!

At least I think so. . . with socialism, you have Big Brother (or, at least here in Illinois, which is horribly mismanaged), Inept Cousins, checking out and regulating the extent of your freedoms. A centralized power looking into your situation.

With capitalism, you have similar restraints on personal freedoms, but the exercise of power is much, much more oblique. This said, I think there is a huge audience out there that needs to learn about the value of private property, as a personal human right.

The libertarians strike me as a box of rocks and loose bits, but the general notion that property is good for you is right, and not just for selfish reasons (creative reasons, stewardship reasons, etc., etc., are there).

 

[zagjames]

Hey have any of you guys heard of distributism? It was originally formulated by Pope Leo XIII (i think) and then further developed and argued by GK Chesterton.

From what I understand it embraces Catholic Social Justice and is adament that true freedom comes from the aquisition of private property. It seems to be a decent idea, i honestly havn’t read that much on it, but it seems like such an idea would do alot more good then Liberation Theology or Capitalism. but I dunno

 

[zagjames]

Here is what I was talking about. Search distributism on google, i would stick mostly to what Pope Leo and Chesterton wrote to get their basic idea before you go off reading some guys interp.

From the great encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII, 1891:

“If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another.”

A further consequence will result in the greater abundance of the fruits of the earth."

“Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which belongs to them, nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.”

“That such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self-evident.”

“And a third advantage would spring from this: men would cling to the country in which they were born; for no one would exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of living a decent and happy life. . .”

 

[rlg94086]

Here is what I was talking about. Search distributism on google, i would stick mostly to what Pope Leo and Chesterton wrote to get their basic idea before you go off reading some guys interp.

There is a lot of problems with the idea at first glance.

1. Who determines the “equal” distribution of property?
2. How do you handle population growth?
3. How do you handle competition and innovation? Some people are going to do better with the property they own. Do you restrict their efforts?

It sounds really simple, if you limit it to simple functions (i.e. farmer, plumber, etc.). It gets more complicated when you look at the growth of new technologies.

It also sounds pretty close to the ideal of Communism (the level never attained by any “Communist” state, where the state ceases to exist). This relies on everyone working for the common good. It may work in a closed community (think Amish).

 

[zagjames]

Like I said I don’t understand it that well, and what I have said seems to be oversimplified. But, I figure its worth looking at if two great minds like Pope Leo XIII and GK Chesterton wrote on it. And its advicacy of universal private property ownership is not a bad thing. Moreover the idea of land being a comadity prevents the unoccupied land from being used by those without land thus forcing them to be either homeless or to be bound to another with a rent or the like.

I dunno, the basic ideas seem okay, I think I am going to read more on it, in many ways it seems like a Godly alternative to capitalism and socialism. And in other ways it seems unrealistic. So idk.