What happens when you bring theologians and economists together and let them share their thoughts on ‘community’? That’s what took place at the conference “Human Nature & Community: Dialogue Between Economics and Theology,” which our Institute of Leadership and Social Ethics co-organized with the Economic Humanists Group and the Erasmus Economics & Theology Institute, on June 19 and 20, at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
The attempt to have economists and theologians engage in conversation on the topic of community resulted in a vibrant conference with lively exchanges – more than thirty people joined, from a variety of backgrounds, and from various corners of the world.
After a meditative opening, the conference started off with a keynote lecture by economist and theologian Arttu Mäkipää on the challenges of defining community. He noted that there is a struggle to clarify the concept, as it is easily reduced to a single aspect that does not capture the richness of the phenomenon. To counter this danger of reductionism, Mäkipää argued that it might be wiser to leave the question open and agree on what a community is not. This approach, inspired by apophatic theology, has promise for economics, he argued.
The next keynote was given by the Australian economist Gordon Menzies, and focused on game theory, a major paradigm in economics. He argued that while game theory can provide a helpful perspective on people’s cooperation or lack thereof, it ultimately fails to capture it completely. It misses the full complexity of interhuman dynamics, as it can’t deal with matters of morality, and as it can’t fully appropriate all that goes on in human relationships. Furthermore, it fails to consider the noetic effects of sin, which distort our knowledge. Knowledge is one of the basic prerequisites for proper decision-making and one of the pillars of game theory. Therefore, Menzies argued, game theory cannot completely understand the dynamics of community – these ultimately remain a mystery.
Irene van Staveren, professor of pluralist development economics, presented the third keynote lecture. Being a Mennonite herself, she demonstrated how Mennonite communities have historically influenced the formation of firms. Mennonite communities have always been distinct in the way they deal with ownership, capital, and the market. However, she also noted that recent developments show that Mennonite-owned firms are beginning to adapt to market demands and practices, making them more similar to ordinary firms. Nevertheless, there is inspiration to be drawn from ‘Mennonite economics’.
Roel Jongeneel, senior scientist at Wageningen Economic Research, delivered the final keynote address of the conference. He shared insights from his background in agricultural economics and from his practice of advising on agricultural and food policy, in engagement with the dairy sector, and while taking into account environmental issues such as biodiversity. Influenced by the Christian philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd and of Bob Goudzwaard, Jongeneel developed a model for fruitfully engaging the sector that allows value judgements to be expressed in a way that is sensitive to the context.
Apart from these four keynote lectures, there were over twenty paper presentations in parallel sessions. These contributions varied from historical insights in economics to economic modeling and also included interdisciplinary discussions on how to define concepts such as community, work, and reciprocity.
During the concluding plenary session, the group discussion – which involved all participants – emphasized the importance of continuing to organize dialogue between economics and theology on specific themes. As one participant expressed, what matters is not just to talk about dialogue, but that this dialogue should actually take place, between economists and theologians, being in the same room with each other. That was identified as one of the unique and valuable characteristics of this conference: the fact that economists and theologians are in the same room, trying to find a common language. To facilitate such a dialogue, it was identified that it is necessary to collaborate on defining key concepts, like ‘community’, which this conference centered on. Furthermore, there is a broad recognition that economic modeling should remain capable of expressing in ordinary language what its mathematics expresses.
Historically, economics has its roots in theology. It is fitting that, after so long, economics is catching up with theology again, like a meeting between old friends.
