Skip to content
IEA InfoIEA Info
  • About Us
    • Who we are
      • Staff
      • Trustees
      • Advisory Council
      • Academic Advisory Council
      • Fellows and Academic Advisors
      • Nobel Prize Winning Economists
      • IEA Award Winners
    • What We Do
    • FAQs
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
      • Jobs
  • Digital
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Shadow Monetary Policy Committee
    • Peer Review Protocol
  • Blog
  • Media
    • Press Releases
    • In The Media
    • Media Enquiries
  • Students
  • International
    • Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity
    • EPICENTER
    • Translations
    • IEA Primers
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Corporate Partnerships
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • IEA Book Club
    • Patreon
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Events
    • Past Events
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us

The Bishop of Brentwood part one

Philip Booth
5 May 2011

SUGGESTED

previous
Uncategorized

John Blundell - Waging the War of Ideas

7 March 2007
next
Uncategorized

John Meadowcroft - Prohibitions

4 March 2008
latest
Economic Theory

Book review: “Slavery, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution” by Maxine Berg and Pat Hudson (Part 2)

29 November 2023
The Bishop of Brentwood made the headlines yesterday for saying in a homily at a Mass that it was a scandal the migrants were exploited by being required to work for low levels of pay and that ‘the Market (sic) always focuses on profit and how to maximise gain’. The first point raises some interesting and difficult issues; the second point will be dealt with in another post.

Firstly, the exploitation issue. Bishop McMahon invoked both Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII’s renowned social encyclical Rerum novarum arguing that it is a scandal that migrants are paid below a living wage. The Bishop himself declared that he was proud to be part of the living wage campaign and then took part in a march. It should be added that he was calling on employers to pay the living wage and not necessarily for it to be legislated. This raises two obvious questions:

  • Does it follow that just because Pope Leo and Cardinal Manning called for a ‘living wage’ that the particular level of the living wage that today’s living wage campaign fights for is the level that Pope Leo and Cardinal Manning had in mind? To believe that all employers should pay a ‘living wage’ as a matter of principle is one thing, to attach oneself to a particular campaign fighting for a particular level of that wage is something else.

  • What would happen to the employment prospects of migrants if all employers decided to pay a living wage of the level the Bishop supports? The Bishop may give this issue serious thought and decide he is still in favour of employers paying a living wage, but he should indeed give this issue serious thought. The likely effect of asking employers to pay a higher level of wages is that people would be replaced by capital equipment and fewer employers would employ migrants. Broadly, this is what happens in France: the economy is more capital intensive, workers are more productive, but the labour market is more or less closed to those who are least productive. Sadly, we are moving in this direction in the UK too.


This second point is crucial because the decision by employers to employ fewer people (either by not expanding their businesses or by employing more capital) is obviously implicit and not overt. It leads to much worse conditions for migrants (who either choose not to leave the countries of origin and have to endure much worse conditions or who come to the UK and are then unemployed) and those employers who pay higher wages to fewer people are then exempt from criticism by the Bishop. At the same time, those employers who decide to take on as much labour as is available but pay lower wages are widely criticised. It is the latter who are probably giving the new migrants a step onto the ladder. There is, of course, provision made in Catholic social teaching for companies not paying a living wage if it endangers the enterprise though the Bishop did not mention this.

There are other issues that could have been mentioned by the Bishop which I think are less difficult. I think it is immoral for an employer to deliberately exploit migrants’ ignorance or lack of knowledge of English and so on, but this is a somewhat different question to that of whether migrants should be paid a given level of wages regardless of their productivity.

Let us finish with a specific example – which is probably not far from the reality. A good Christian person owns an apple orchard and is faced with ten Polish people who would be willing to pick apples for £7 an hour and the Bishop believes the living wage is £8 an hour. The owner can employ machines that cost £7.10 an hour and the orchard is not profitable at a level of pay above £7.50 an hour. There are three possibilities:

  • Employ the Poles at £7.10 an hour – this is highly likely to be a first and useful step on the UK employment ladder for some of them and, presumably, better than the opportunities back at home.

  • Close the orchard so that the Poles remain unemployed and apples are imported.

  • Employ machines.


In the latter two scenarios the orchard owner escapes the criticism of the Bishop, in the first he does not.

I admit that this is not an ‘open and shut case’ – certainly in the context of Catholic social teaching. However, I wonder if the Bishop really has thought about the effects on human flourishing of restricting employment opportunities for migrants. Unlike with regard to the Bishop’s comment on markets, there is much to argue about here, and I do wonder how deeply the Bishop has considered the effect of the chain of events he might set in place. If the Bishop were to think further about the issue, he might turn his attention instead to the planning controls in the south east (including his own diocese), to the Common Agricultural Policy and to the measures the government has taken to raise the cost of fuel, which raise the cost of housing, food and energy. There are two ways to ensure a living wage – the first is to raise wages (with the consequent effect on employment); the second is to remove regulations that raise living costs. In Manning’s time housing costs were much lower relative to incomes. It is clear from his comments on markets (see next blog post) that there is little sign that the Bishop is giving these issues deep thought.

Philip Booth
Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


1 thought on “The Bishop of Brentwood part one”

  1. Anonymous
    Posted 05/05/2011 at 15:08 | Permalink

    I agree with the analysis here of the bishop’s homily. I am a theologian and not an economist but recently I have been reading the work of the American Catholic ‘theologian of economics’, Michael Novak whose work I would recommend highly. His book ‘The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism’ is worth the effort in my opinion.
    Novak claims that bishops and theologians do not understanding economics and I fear he is correct.

Comments are closed.


SHARE

Follow IEA on Twitter Like IEA on Facebook Connect with IEA on LinkedIn

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS


The IEA is an educational charity and free market think tank.

Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of the markets in solving economic and social problems. Given the current economic challenges facing Britain and the wider global environment, it is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare and lower levels of regulation.

About the IEA Donate
  • About Us
  • Staff
  • What We Do
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Donate Now
  • Publications
  • In The Media
  • Press Release
  • Media Enquiries
Newsletter signup
Keep in touch with the IEA
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch
  • Follow

Copyright © Institute of Economic Affairs | REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

XWe use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Read More
REJECTCookie settings
ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
Powered by CookieYes