Symbiotic Approaches to Addressing Noxious Markets - Shaira

By

In chapter 4, Debra Satz introduces noxious markets. She describes the problems behind noxious markets as those relating “to the standing of the parties before, during, and after the process of exchange” (93). Satz argues that noxious markets in which the parties of the exchange are not equal should be blocked or severely constrained. 

Noxious markets differentiate from other types of markets because of four parameters characterizing the consequences and sources of noxious markets. First, Satz argues that markets are considered noxious if its operations lead to “outcomes that are deleterious, either for the participants themselves or for third parties” (95). She presents an example that illustrates how markets can be extremely harmful to individuals because these outcomes leave basic interests unsatisfied. Basic interests are the universal features of a minimally decent human life, thus, any market that leaves these basic interests unsatisfied is considered noxious. Secondly, noxious markets are characterized as extremely harmful to society. Noxious markets are “extremely harmful” when the operations within the markets undermine the “social framework needed for people to interact as equals, as individuals with equal standing” (95). Contemporary economists assert that markets promote the notion of individuals interacting as equals. However, Satz argues that noxious markets actually condition people to become docile and accept the status quo passively. Thirdly, Satz states that noxious markets are characterized by a highly asymmetric agency on the part of the participants. Pareto markets assume that agencies are aware of their actions and have complete information about the exchanges. Thus, if a direct party lacks information on the material facts or future consequences of a contract, this can be a source of noxious markets. For example, markets that are based on deception are an example of a source of noxious markets. Lastly, Satz argues that noxious markets can reflect the “underlying extreme vulnerabilities of one of the transacting parties” (97). For instance, if one party possesses fewer resources and capabilities to contribute to the transaction, they may be at risk of exploitation; this can be seen in cases where a person enters contracts from positions of vulnerability. 

At the end of the chapter, Satz discusses the limits of her account of noxious markets. For example, she states that the parameters that she has appealed to can come into conflict with each other and other values. For example, she recognizes that priorities of either increasing agency or decreasing vulnerability may come into conflict (111). This reminds me of the last tutorial reading we did on symbiotic approaches. For instance, we should address problems within noxious markets through a symbiotic lens. Instead of viewing parameters as oppositional to one another, there are social policies that can be designed to increase agency while decreasing vulnerability. Rather than viewing the parameters as oppositional, we should explore how policies can interact with multiple parameters at once. 

Comments

  1. Luis Angel MendozaApril 27, 2023 at 11:20 AM

    I enjoyed reading your blog post Shaira; I like how you connected the reading to our tutorial. I wanted to add a couple more points to your blog that pertain to the first two parameters you wrote about and then add some of the symbiotic thinking I noticed in this section of Satz's book.

    One interesting point highlighted by Satz when discussing is that "Some markets produce extreme outcomes" is the role of welfare and agency interests (94). The idea behind the welfare and agency is that to rule a market as extremely harmful, we must go beyond the baseline, constituting a market "extremely harmful" if it leaves an individual destitute. The key differentiation of both interests is that welfare centers around a person's overall well-being/good. On the other hand, agency interest is the concern of "a person's ability to participate in deciding the matter that bears on that good [described in welfare interest]" (95). A second point in the section on "extremely harmful for society," Satz asserts that one element needed to add to contemporary economic thought is that some markets, like education, shape individuals to enable or hinder individuals' interactions as equals.

    Moving on, I noticed some symbiotic thinking in a couple of examples presented by Satz. I would argue that Satz agrees with your ending proposal, Shaira. On her last page in Chapter 4, she emphasizes that "Egalitarians should focus on more than the distribution of things, but also attend to the people who have those things and their relationships with one another" (112). Her assertion screams symbiotic thinking. While it could be viewed a little differently from individualistic vs systematic, it still holds the ground in looking at how propositions will have a significant effect in the future.

    A great example was her contentious emphasis on the importance of education when being an active citizen in a democracy. As she states, when an individual lacks education, it affects their political role in society. Then when seeing their relationship with those who had education, there is inequality, which the symbiotic approach exposes. In other words, an individual's lack of knowledge leads to a weaker democracy. In addition, the example of poor families placing their children into labor, given financial circumstances provides insight into how symbiotic thinking shows the weakness of decisions and makes better policies to address the issues that caused such actions. In the example, parents decided to place their children in the workforce. However, "when child labor is adopted as a widespread social practice it drives down adult wages," which leads to the cycle of having child laboring (101). This example shows that if there is equal consideration of how an action impacts a relationship with others through a one-on-one interaction of trading or a system or the workforce, then we can effectively see the root of an issue and provide some form of intervention.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more