The Principle of Gratuitousness: Opportunities and Challenges for Business in «Caritas in

Veritate»
Author(s): Dennis McCann
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100, Supplement 1: The Encyclical-Letter "Caritas
in Veritate": Ethical Challenges for Business (2011), pp. 55-66
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41475802
Accessed: 09-11-2016 22:22 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business
Ethics

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2011) 100:55-66
DOI 10.1007/S10551-01 1-1 187-0

The Principle of Gratuitousness: Opportunities and Challenges

for Business in «Caritas in Veritate»

Dennis McCann

Published online: 19 January 2012

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract One major theme in Pope Benedict XVI's Keywords Gratuitousness • Reciprocity • The logic of
encyclical Caritas in Veritate is the "Principle of Gratu- gift exchanges • Social capital • Social business • Intrinsic
itousness." The point of this essay is to begin a reflection and instrumental motivation in business • Catholic social
on what it actually means and its possible relevance. By teaching • Benedict XVI • Muhammad Yunus • Caritas in
comparing the "Principle of Gratuitousness" and its nor- Veritate

mative assumptions about "the logic of gift" with anthro-

pological studies focused on the same phenomenon, I hope
to show, not only the relevance of the encyclical's nor- Introduction
mative vision but also where and how it needs further

clarification. The findings of empirical anthropologyExpanding

pro- upon the theology outlined systematically in his
first encyclical, Deus caritas est (2005), Pope Benedict
vide qualified support for the encyclical's focus on gener-
XVI in Caritas in Veritate (2009) (CV) proposed to renew
ating and replenishing "social capital" in order to sustain
both markets and politics in an effort to "civilize Catholic
the social teaching (CST) by focusing on a new
economy." In order to put the "Principle of Gratuitous- theme, "the principle of gratuitousness" (CV 34), and its
practical implications for rethinking the role of "civil
ness" into more effective practice, the encyclical highlights
the creative role of "civil society" and calls for the creation
society" in creating and sustaining not only the common
social enterprises whose goals are broader and deepergood thanbut also normal economic activity. His thoughts on
maximizing profits. Assessing the realism of Benedict's this topic might readily be dismissed as so much "theol-
proposal will require further research and reflectionogy" on - literally as well as figuratively in the sense com-
innovative entrepreneurial ventures designed to address monly used by economists to disparage the theories of their
social problems on a commercial basis, for example, critics - were it not for the fact that the Pope insists on
Muhammad Yunus' concept of a "social business" and its
regarding changes that could result from the widespread
development in a series of joint business ventures involv-
acceptance of this principle as a crucial ingredient in any
ing the Grameen Bank and related organizations. real solution to the global economic crisis (CV 36). Given
the severity and protracted nature of that crisis, this Papal
attempt to "think outside the box" should not be airily
dismissed. Anyone concerned with the performance of the
economy and the health of the global business culture
would do well to give CV a serious reading.
It is the purpose of this article to facilitate, such a
reading by highlighting the meaning of the principle of
gratuitousness, and assessing its concrete implications for
D. McCann (Ë3)
how business is understood both in theory and in practice.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Religious Studies,
Agnes Scott College, Decatur, GA, USA My thesis is that the basic problem to which the principle
e-mail: dmccann@agnesscott.edu of gratuitousness may provide an answer is the evident

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 D. McCann
failure of either the market economy or government
agencies to generate the basic trust or "social capital"1
(CV 32) required to ensure the proper functioning of either
of these or both of them together. Benedict's solution
involves what he calls "civilizing the economy" (CV 37)
by enabling the principle of gratuitousness to become
dominant in civil society. The social capital generated by
the institutionalization of the principle of gratuitousness is
expected to spill over into all other areas of life. For this to
happen, however, the unsuspected potential that could be
unleashed by cultivating gratuitousness in all sectors of
society must be allowed to transform conventional thinking
about politics and markets.
In order to further discussion of Benedict's challenge to
economic theory and business practice, I will review some
basic points made in CV and use them to interpret the
principle of gratuitousness. By comparing Benedict's
theologically informed notion of "gift" with Marcel
Mauss' pioneering anthropological study of the same
phenomenon, I will clarify "the logic of gift" and why it is
crucial for understanding and participating successfully in
marketplace activity. Finally, I hope to suggest how and
why Benedict's analysis is relevant to business and busi-
ness ethics, by observing briefly how his expectations
regarding "hybrid forms of commercial behavior" (CV 38)
have been realized with the development of social enter-
prises - as in the "social business" concept now promoted
by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Muhammad Yunus.
Such social business experiments as described by Yunus
not only confirm the reasonableness of Benedict's hope for
civilizing the economy but also the challenges that remain
for any business that seeks to contribute to the common
good by following the principle of gratuitousness.
1 Caritas in veritate insightfully analyzes the "progressive erosion of
social capital" that has occurred as a result of the global economic
crisis. While there is no explicit reference to the social science
literature that has developed this concept, the encyclical's description
of social capital, that is, "the network of relationships of trust,
dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for
any form of civil coexistence," is consistent with the literature, which
is well reviewed in Paolo Vanin's article on "Capitale sociale"
(2009). It is clear from Benedict XVI' s use of the term that the
destruction of social capital is a symptom of certain pathological
tendencies operative in the processes of globalization, particularly the
increasing trend toward "social inequality" and the "massive increase
in relative poverty" that must be corrected if the economic crisis is to
be overcome successfully. A similar perspective on the erosion of
social capital is evident in "Globalization and economic develop-
ment: impact of social capital and institution building" (Cheng and
Mittelhammer 2008).
â Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Principle of Gratuitousness and its Application
in a "Civil Economy"
A careful reading of CV suggests that the meaning of the
principle of gratuitousness,2 while clearly grounded theo-
logically, is far from self-evident. Obviously it is an
abstract noun, related to "grace" and "gift," and yet it
challenges us to rethink the meaning of "gift" at least in
reference to social relations and economic activities.3
While "gratuitousness" is not a synonym for "charity"
classically understood, like charity it does suggest some-
thing freely given and received, a transaction that both
supports and transgresses our normal expectations about
"reciprocity." (Bruni 2009) What it might mean to act
consistently by this principle is hard to determine, for its
practical implications are developed within a triadic model
of social institutions, in which "civil society" is both dis-
tinguished and overlapped with the operations of the
"market" and the "State."
To appreciate the innovative potential of the principle of
gratuitousness, we must explore the unsuspected contri-
butions that a robust civil society might make to the
emergence of a "civil economy."4 Benedict urges us to
recognize that without the "fraternity" that emerges from
2 Latin: principium gratuitatis, Italian: principio di gratuità , German:
Prinzip der Unentgeltlichkeit. As is often the case with such
innovative proposals, the use of this term raises many questions.
One such is the precise relationship between "the logic of gift" (cited
in paragraphs 34 and 36) and "the principle of gratuitousness" (cited
in the same paragraphs). The logic of gift, it seems, is meant to be
descriptive and open to social scientific analysis, whereas the
principle of gratuitousness is a normative interpretation of this logic
intended to clarify a proper and fully developed understanding of it.
The encyclical thus claims that, while the logic of gift remains open to
a variety of interpretations, the full truth to be realized in it must
ultimately include a recognition of the theological or spiritual
principle operative in it.
3 The word, "gift," appears 22 times in CV which is nearly half again
as many as in any other encyclical in the tradition of CST. Previous
uses of the term tended to be focus on strictly religious and
theological issues, as in the phrase, "gifts of the Holy Spirit." The
only encyclical to use "gift" in terms that anticipate aspects of
Benedict's reflections on the "logic of gift" is John Paul II's
Centesimus annus (CA, 1991), which presents a theological perspec-
tive on alienation - in contrast to Marxism - in which the "gift of
self' features prominently as an alternative (CA 41).
4 CV speaks of both "civil society" and a "civil economy." While
"civil society" is acknowledged in several passages "as the most
natural setting for an economy of gratuitousness and fraternity," (CV
38), the term "civil economy" occurs only once, and in conjunction
with the "economy of communion" (CV 46) both of which are
commended as examples of the "hybrid forms of commercial
behavior" that Benedict hopes will emerge from the development
of an "economy of gratuitousness." "Economy of communion," of
course, is a direct reference to the Focolare movement founded after
World War II by Chiara Lubich and her disciples who sought to create
new forms of social enterprises expressive of their commitment to
love and solidarity. (Cf. Argiolas 2009).
 The Principle of Gratuitousness 57

developing habits
one's of mind
profit expectations, Benedict and heart
insists, without going
ple, neither the market nor
into details, that there are the
many "religious and lay State
initia-
distinctive purposes. Thus,
tives" - presumably, for example, thethough
network of Focolare- th
itousness is inspired enterprises
centrally identified with the "Economy
important to of th
social order, it does
Communion" not entail
- which "demonstrate that this is the
concretely sus
ciples possible."
of justice - commutative, distr
but their renewalGeneralizing
through a signs,
on the basis of such promising deepening
Ben-
theological significance, call
edict urges his readers to go beyond conventionalit,
assump- if you
hope of thinking and
tions about business acting
focused exclusively on making a profit. in "so
God's creatures.Nevertheless,
CV is
we would especially
miss his point entirely if we were to cha
ing, even in somewhat sketchy
assume that this is just another priestly sermon protesting terms
might transformthe evils of profit-maximization. "Without rejecting
our thinking and a
place, such that a genuinely
profit... civil
charity in truth, requires that shape and structure be econ
there. given to those types of economic initiative which. . . aim at a
In order to understand the normative significance of the higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of equiva-
civil economy, one must first appreciate how Benedict's lents, of profit as an end in itself' (CV 38). While envi-
interpretation of the principle of gratuitousness and the sioning an "economy of gratuitousness and fraternity" is
logic of gift can challenge conventional thinking about clearly his attempt to prod us toward that "higher goal,"
business and the ways it is usually organized and managed. how are we to understand that goal, let alone create busi-
Though CV hardly provides a blueprint, it clearly goes nesses that would respond affirmatively toward it?
beyond advocating corporate social responsibility or phi- In CV's perspective, "civil economy" suggests an
lanthropy, as conventionally understood, or even the interrelated set of entrepreneurial ventures that seek to test
expansion of not-for-profit organizations, such as producer the limits and possibilities of the principle of gratuitous-
and consumer cooperatives, as important as these may be. ness. The resulting "hybrid forms of commercial behavior"
When he insists that the principle of gratuitousness is rel- must be economically viable and yet they must also be
evant "even in 4 commercial relationships ,'" he rests his "based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends"
case on two points: First, that among the greatest losses (CV 38). To achieve the expected positive impact, they
sustained as a result of the recent and ongoing financial must outperform conventional businesses oriented toward
crisis is the massive destruction of social capital required profit-maximization, while also fulfilling "social ends"
for an economic system to function at all; and second, that more efficiently than the welfare agencies established by
the only sure way to restore this social capital is to allow the government. These higher goals can be achieved,
"the principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift" to Benedict insists, if the enterprises are "based on mutualist
"find their place within normal economic activity " (CV 36). principles," that is, principles that embody "the logic of
Apart from the principle of gratuitousness embodying gift." Given the fact that in a genuinely free market - that
the logic of gift, those seeking to overcome the economic is, one that institutionalizes competition under "conditions
and financial crisis remain in a "catch-22" situation rela-
of equal opportunity" - successful innovations are likely to
tive to the problem of restoring basic trust. Though some
be adopted and adapted by one's competitors, Benedict
business and political leaders may have come to realize the
believes that our best hope for civilizing the economy rests
need for acquiring, preserving, and enhancing our socialon creating such enterprises whose success will lead others
capital,5 they cannot obtain it without abandoning the false
to integrate the principle of gratuitousness into their own
businesses.
theories that stunt and disfigure what they regard as busi-
ness as usual. As CV observes, "Space also needs to be If the problem that prompted CV's publication is the
created within the market for economic activity carried out
abysmal decline in social capital required for the institu-
by subjects who freely choose to act according to principles
tions of both business and government to function effec-
other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing thetively, how can we solve it by developing enterprises
production of economic value in the process" (CV 37).oriented toward the principle of gratuitousness? In order to
Though even sympathetic readers may well wonder how it
see the plausibility of CV's answer, we must step back for a
is possible to embrace such principles without lowering
moment to consider Benedict's assumptions regarding how
society operates as a whole. Does CST advance a distinc-
tive view of the social ecology in which we live our daily
5 Francis Fukuyama' book, Trust: Prosperity and the Social Virtues
lives? Apparently, it does. Following up on the teachings of
(1995), ought to have been sufficient to persuade all observers just
his predecessor, John Paul II, CV understands the social
how important a role basic trust plays in economic and social
development. See also Vanin (2009). order as "a system with three subjects: the market , the

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 D. McCann

State , and civil society ." (CV 38) As we have seen, while than the model allows. While Benedict's triadic model, by
civil society is identified as "the most natural setting for an the same token, may also turn out to be insufficiently
economy of gratuitousness and fraternity," it is not gov- diverse, it does highlight the fact that institutional plural-
erned by the logic of either the market or the State. Instead, ism - even and especially within the marketplace - affords
it has its own logic - what Benedict describes as "the logic greater scope to the creativity of entrepreneurs, some of
of gift" - which as such generates, refines, and renews the whom may wish to try developing enterprises oriented
values that constitute our social capital, resulting in "the toward values and goals higher and other than profit-
network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect maximization. The question remains, however, as to why
for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of and how encouraging the spread of such "hybrid forms of
civil coexistence" (CV 32). commercial behavior" might actually be the key to
The "logic of gift," then, contrasts with "the logic of overcoming both our deficit in social capital and the global
exchange" that governs market morality and "the logic of economic crisis that has ensued from it.
public obligation, imposed by State law" (CV 39). While
both of these can be understood as involving some form of
giving - market transactions as forms of " giving in order to An "Anthropological Turn" in Catholic Social
acquire " and government mandates as forms of "giving Teaching?
through duty " - the form of giving specific to "the logic of
gift" operative in the institutions of civil society, embodies While Benedict is not the first theorist either to note the
the principle of " gratuitousness and communion " without inadequacies of the binary model or to offer an alternative,
which social solidarity and participation at best remain the triadic model that he proposes is of interest here insofar
anemic and at worst disappear altogether. The devaluation as it identifies an institutional "subject" in which the
of social capital that has occurred is not simply a practical principle of gratuitousness can and ought to flourish. It is
problem. It is also the result of a grave theoretical error. the inner logic of action within this sphere of civil society
Conventional thinking adheres to an "exclusively binary that begs for further development. It requires us to address
model of market-plus-State [that] is corrosive of society" what Stefano Zamagni has described as an "anthropolog-
(CV 39). Here is Benedict's perspective on the impover- ical turn" in CST,6 one that, if taken seriously, might
ishing effect this error has on the way society views contribute to a paradigm shift away from utilitarianism as
business and business people view themselves: the conventional explanation for why and how people think
and act in the marketplace. Recovering the economic sig-
The continuing hegemony of the binary model of
nificance of the logic of gift, in short, allows us to dissolve
market-plus-State has accustomed us to think only in
yet another binary model, namely, the modernist dichot-
terms of the private business leader of a capitalistic
omy of self-interest and altruism, in favor of an anthro-
bent on the one hand, and the State director on the
pology that is both social and pluralistic in its interpretation
other. In reality, business has to be understood in an
of human motivation and choice.7
articulated way. There are a number of reasons, of a
meta-economic kind, for saying this. Business activ-
ity has a human significance, prior to its professional
one. It is present in all work, understood as a personal 6 Prof. Stefano Zamagni (2010), was first to use this term to describe
action, an " actus personae ," which is why every the specific contribution that Caritas in veritate makes to Catholic
worker should have the chance to make his contri- social teaching. Based on his intimate knowledge of the encyclical's
drafting process, he persuasively detailed Benedict's "anthropolog-
bution knowing that in some way "he is working 'for
ical turn" in a presentation made to the conference on "Civilizing the
himself." With good reason, Paul VI taught that Economy" sponsored and organized by the Faith and Work Initiative
"everyone who works is a creator." It is in response of Princeton University, April 8-9, 2010. An "anthropological turn"
to the needs and the dignity of the worker, as well as involves shifting the discussion from questions of social policy to a
deeper consideration of the philosophical assumptions about human
the needs of society, that there exist various types of
nature - for example, the validity of the model of "homo econom-
business enterprise, over and above the simple dis- icus" and conceptions of self-interest based upon it, including
tinction between "private" and "public." Each of marginal utility theory - for explaining economic behavior. The
them requires and expresses a specific business principle of gratuitousness thus is not simply a moral exhortation but
a reflection of an account of human nature that diverges significantly
capacity. (CV 41) from what has been assumed by most economists about how and why
people act the ways they do in the marketplace.
The binary model of private and public, either for-profit
7 Benedict is not alone in seeking to break the conceptual tyranny of
businesses or not-for-profit charities and government
utilitarian thinking in economics, as in the works of Amartya Sen. My
agencies, dissolves in the face of economic and social
own attempt to assess the relevance of Sen's work for CST is
available in McCann (2005).
developments that exhibit a far greater diversity of forms

â Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Principle of Gratuitousness 59

So what, then, considerable

are the anthropolog
resistance. For in conventional English usage,
informing Benedict's
as in Italian, interpretation
gratuitousness carries a certain ambiguity.of
On
С V' s description the
of the
one hand, it can principle
refer to something "givenof
withoutgra
an
logically equivalent
grounded, recompense;
since it conferred
is without valuable con-
an expres
in human relationships." Nevertheless,
sideration; granted without pay, or without claim or merit;
are characteristic not
of "the
required by justice." earthly city"
On the other hand, gratuitousness
sense classically defined by
may mean "not called for by Augustine
the circumstances; without o
De civitate Dei), where
reason, cause, or"gratuitousness,
proof; adopted or asserted without any
munion" are justgood
as ground; as, a gratuitous assumption."9 as
constitutive Thus, to
ar
rights and duties"describe
(CV 6),
an action and
as gratuitous one
may not be to might
praise it, but
based on utility. to mark its apparent randomness.
Benedict's appeal Obviously,
to the Aug
latter
warrant his claim associations
to the are hardly what Benedict meant to
practical convey.
releva
this world. If The ambiguity inherent in gratuitousness
"gratuitousness, mercy, may be a
already operative resolved
in "theby tracking another crucial concept
earthly city,"with whichth
it
totally depraved or closed
is related, to the
namely, "reciprocity." While it is transf
found only
love. Cynicism about
four times this world
in CV (as opposed to the dozen and its
times in which
including those of the market
"gratuitousness" appears), reciprocityand the
serves to define both S
human error, a a presupposition as well as a consequence
self-fulfilling of gratuitousness
prophecy
capacity for achieving theCharity,
in human social relationships. commononce again, "illu- g
justice is realizable minedinby the light of reason
this and faith," enables the
world.
Benedict's invocation of God's love in human rela- "sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic
tionships is not the cry of an otherworldly asceticdevelopment
who has proceeds." One of the consequences of such
given up on "the earthly city," but a sign of hope. The
development is an "opening up the path toward reciprocity
association with "mercy" and "communion" establishesof consciences
a and liberties" (CV 9). Here, reciprocity
seems to be a disposition to interact in an open and
semantic field for "gratuitousness" in which it is identified
with "fraternity" (CV 34), as well as "solidarity and
mutually respectful way, more or less synonymous with
responsibility for justice and the common good" (CV recognizing
38). "a more humane and humanizing value."
Further on, in the core paragraphs devoted to the civil
Gratuitousness, then, is intended as a realistic possibility
for engagement with this world and its affairs and economy,
not as an reciprocity is listed along with friendship and
solidarity among the "authentically social relationships"
escape or exit strategy from them. This is clear throughout
CV whenever Benedict invokes gratuitousness as a prac-
that can and must unfold within economic activity and not
fallin"outside
tical principle for guiding social policy. For example, his it or 'after' it" (CV 36). One further indica-
discussion of economic and social "underdevelopment,"
tion of the importance of reciprocity comes in Benedict's
along with "improving exchange-based transactions and of CST's principle of subsidiarity as the most
invocation
implanting public welfare," he advocates "above all... "guiding criterion" for "managing globalization"
effective
gradually increasing openness , in a world context, and "directing it toward authentic human development"10
to forms
(CV 57).
of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness
and communion " (CV 39). To be sure, there are some
instances where his perspective appears to be less 9realistic
These are the meanings of gratuitousness given in the 1913 Edition
than Utopian, such as when he identifies gratuitousness with Dictionary , accessible online at http://onlinedictionary.
of Webster's
datasegment.com/word/gratuitousness. In Italian, "gratuita" appears
"a specific and profound form of economic democracy"
to have the same range of meanings, with an emphasis either on
(CV 38).8 But even in such passages, his point is that
something "free" as in a "free clinic" ("clinica gratuita"), or
gratuitousness is not to be understood as an alternative to without justification. The use of "gratuita" as an abstract
something
economic and social justice, but in our day and agenoun
as the
as in С V' s " principio di gratuità appears to be as innovative
most promising path to it. and challenging in Italian as it is in English. Cf. the Italian meanings
available online at http://www.wordreference.com/iten/gratuita.
Benedict's attempt to defend the realism of the principle
1 CST's "principle of subsidiarity" is widely invoked but often
of gratuitousness, however, is bound to meet with
misunderstood. It was first invoked in Pius XV s Quadragesimo anno
(QA, 1931) in order to define the moral conditions under which State
8 The term, "economic democracy," is used twice in CV (38 and 66). in the other primary and secondary institutions of society
intervention
was both
In both instances Benedict seems to be advocating the development ofpossible and necessary. At issue in 1931 was the Church's
producer and consumer cooperatives, private voluntary organizations
struggle to preserve its own role in educating the youth of Italy. The
whose efforts are consistent with his hope of civilizing theState
economy.
was not to usurp the functions of other institutions under the
Obviously, this is not what most readers will assume when they see
pretense of assisting them. Benedict's thoughts on subsidiarity echo
the term, "economic democracy." QA, while also grounding the principle in his anthropological

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 D. McCann

If authentic human development - which surely operative in Benedict's truth is robustly theological and
involves civilizing the economy - is premised on recog- specifically Christian. As such, it may not readily be
nizing the centrality of reciprocity in human social rela- embraced by those who have not already committed
tionships, the crucial question is how is reciprocity itself themselves to it.

established? Benedict's answer asserts the claim of a spe- Could Benedict's anthropological turn in Catholic social
cifically Christian view of what stands at "the heart of what teaching be enriched by a consideration of other anthro-
it is to be a human being." His claim is that reciprocity is pologies? Theological anthropologies, by definition, have a
not well established - it remains unstable or precarious, normative intent. They start from an acknowledgement of
even when we succeed in achieving it - apart from faithful the reality of God, in this instance, the God disclosed
acceptance of the unmerited gift of God's love for throughout the Bible, who is manifest definitively in the
humanity. The problem is that the basic trust that enables person, mission, and ministry of Jesus Christ. This Biblical
us to enter into relationships of reciprocity is not self- theology becomes an anthropology as soon as it is inter-
sustaining. Someone or something is needed to initiate the preted as signifying the patterns of human interaction, the
virtuous circle by which the gift offered by the one party dynamics of personal and social transformation, that open
can be accepted and returned by his or her partner. The the way toward human fulfillment or, if you will, "salva-
process of reciprocity, once initiated, may be rational, as in tion." The substance of this Christian anthropology
a game of "Tit for Tat," but as the so-called "Prisoners' involves faith, or personal identification with the Biblical
Dilemma" discussed in Games Theory makes clear, mak- narrative that enables believers to discern the "image of
ing that first move toward cooperation is hard to justify on God" in humanity, how it has been obscured though hardly
the basis of rational self-interest, narrowly construed (see, obliterated by sin, and how it has been restored through
e.g., Zarri 2009; Ross 2010). On what basis, then, can one Jesus Christ, who as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"
respond cooperatively to that first move? How can a vir- (The Holy Bible (2007), John 14:6) is accepted as the
tuous circle of reciprocity be initiated? Benedict's response ultimate installment in God's great gift to us all. Faith in
to the Prisoner's Dilemma is simply to trust in God, who the Biblical narrative transforms the believers' self-under-
has already made the first move, in creating and sustaining standing, thus restoring basic trust in ourselves as well as
all possible participants, as it were, in the great game of others, while also providing a normative guide to human
life. This is the truth that must be recognized, if human existence, both personal and social. Obviously, this is
attempts to love one another are to achieve their end. By anthropology, but from the top down. From God's own gift
recognizing this truth as indispensable to a proper under- of love, it develops a normative understanding of who we
standing of economic life and its own authentic morality, are - where we come from and where we are going - and
Benedict is placing theological anthropology in the fore- what we are here to do. There is nothing inherently wrong
ground of CST.11 But note well, the "anthropology" or wrong-headed about projecting a normative anthropol-
ogy. Such a project is implicit in virtually every worldview,
Footnote 10 continued religion, and/or comprehensive philosophy of life.
assumptions about reciprocity: "Subsidiarity respects personal dignityBut what if the normative Christian anthropology - such
by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable as
of Benedict, and all Christian theologians who have
giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heartlabored
of in the shadow of Augustine - were enriched by a
what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective
descriptive or, if you will, an empirical anthropology? If
antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state". (CV
theological
57) Lest libertarians and neoconservati ves mistake the Pope's anthropology is usefully understood as
anthropology from the top down, empirical anthropology -
meaning here, let me point out that he is not repudiating the State's
responsibility for public welfare as such, or endorsing their mistaken
the kind of inquiry done by our colleagues in academic
ideas about a minimalist or "watchman" state, but drawing a line
departments of anthropology and the social sciences - may
against totalitarian forms of "Statism," because of its fundamental
error concerning human nature. Any assistance must seek to empower be characterized as proceeding from the bottom up. Would
the logic of gift invoked by Benedict to establish his
persons and groups so that they, too, can fully participate in the work
of human development; it must not preempt or usurp their opportu- principle of gratuitousness look any different when viewed
nities or capacities for reciprocity, regardless of how weak or corrupt
from the top down as well as from the bottom up? Based on
these may have become under the corrosive pressures of modernity.
my reading of pioneering anthropologists like Marcel
11 The importance of the underlying "anthropological vision" in
CST, for Benedict, can hardly be underestimated. It involves an
assertion of "the unconditional value of the human person and the Footnote 1 1 continued
meaning of his growth" (CV 18), an interpretation of the positive the "social question" perennially addressed by CST. While all of
dynamics of "globalization" (CV 42), the continuing relevance these of issues have been discussed at various points in the history of
"duties" as well as "rights" in public morality (CV 43), the properCST in various ways, Benedict's "anthropological turn" relates them
role of social communications media (CV 73), and the urgent to one another in a normative vision of "integral human develop-
relevance of bioethical issues ranging from abortion to euthanasia to
ment" that is systematic, profound, and difficult to gerrymander.

Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Principle of Gratuitousness 61

Mauss (1990[1925]), Mary

nature of generosity Douglas
and the sheer irrationality of refusingand
(1996[1979]), and Mayfair
to be Mei-hui
generous - which among other things is uncannily Ya
to answer unequivocally
similar to the practicalyes.
outcome of Benedict's theological
What one learns anthropology.
in such studies
If one refuses is into
to enter wholeheartedly how
procity is established through
the exchange one the
risks the wrath of one's own ancestorsprac
or
The logic of gift, gods,
in as well
theiras those of the others with whom you are
perspective, i
at least not in relating,
the sense however, their
ofsacred power is specifically
something t
tivated, or impossible
understood. On this for human
assumption, one has no choice but to bei
logic of gift
involves social
reciprocate, and often must do sopractices
asymmetrically, as the th
moral communitygift exchange
among becomes a contest
people,to see which group
groupcan
viduals, who are outdo the other
not in generosity. Mauss
already also observes the
established
with one another.logical
Usually, they
priority of making a "contract involve
with the spirits of
exchange of goods
both the- dead including
and the gods." For, "indeed, it ispeople
they who
effect of which is to
are the expand
true owners of the things andthe
possessions circle
of this
nized obligations, world"
particularly, the
( 1 990[ 1 925], p. 16). Rituals of "sacrifice" oblig
in which
in the expectation that
the gifts offered to they willdestroyed
the spirits are deliberately help
help. The ritualsthus
ofmake sense in this context, insofar as such destruction
gift-giving in so
societies, as described and
confirms that the spirits have analyzed
truly received them, and thusby
ple, are like Roman Catholic
the participants sacrament
are assured that their act of giving will be
they signify. Thereciprocated
rituals (Ibid.). Unless
of the spirits
gift becomeexchan
favorably
procity without which further
disposed, they will not exchan
complete the gift exchange, and the
impossible. Failure to
people reciprocate,
and groups seeking their favor will continuenot
to lack o
the ritual itself, but also
the things as that
and possessions expected in
they need in order to live.12 th
a breach in the social
Just as therelationship,
gift exchange between the spirits and whic
the
to violence and chaos. people seeking their favor is an attempt to create an
Viewed from the bottom up, the logic of gift is inti-obligatory framework of reciprocity, so must be the logic
mately related to the logic of exchange and the develop-
of gift exchange among different groups of people. Just as
ment of market institutions. Indeed, apart from the rituals
gift exchanges with the spirits are expected to yield far
of gift-giving, market exchanges are relatively trivial and
more than what is given, so in gift exchanges with other
marginal to the life of the so-called "primitive" commu-
people generosity is expected to yield a return far greater
nities observed by anthropologists. The logic of exchange
than what is given in order to get it. Nevertheless, in light
relationships, in most of the societies analyzed by Mauss,
of is
Mauss' pioneering work, Benedict's principle of gratu-
derivative from the logic of gift, for it is clear that ritual-
itousness receives only partial support for its assumptions
ized gift-giving is usually the indispensable precondition
regarding the underlying logic of gift. On the one hand, the
for market-like exchanges of goods and services where unconditionality of Divine love that Benedict makes the
bargaining over price, quality and quantity is basedmajoron premise of his theological anthropology appears here
what modern observers may regard as economic consid- as something of an anomaly. Biblical faith in a God beyond
gods and ancestral spirits whose transcendence is so
erations. What primarily motivates gift-giving in the soci-
eties analyzed by Mauss is a community's fear of its ownincalculably great as to escape the constraints imposed by
vulnerabilities or impoverishing isolation, and a desirethe
to logic of gift, with the resulting paradigm of God's
incomparable generosity - a Divine love which can never
achieve a greater degree of security by expanding the circle
of social relationships in which reciprocity not only
be is
fully reciprocated - may not be the most appropriate
expected but actually relied upon for mutual support.
While the analysis offered by Mauss asserts no neces-
12 Mauss is explicit in making a direct connection between religious
sary connection between the logic of gift and any particular
ritual and economic exchange in his discussion of the phenomenon of
"contract sacrifice": "Contract sacrifice supposes institutions of the
set of religious doctrines - such as those informing Bene-
kind we have described and, conversely, contract sacrifice realizes
dict's theological anthropology - it does indicate that the
them to the full, because those gods who give and return gifts are
exchange of gifts that establishes an expectation of reci-
there to give a considerable thing in the place of a small one.. .It is
procity, thus enabling economic and other social relation-
perhaps not a result of pure chance that the two solemn formulas of
ships, is rooted in certain basic assumptions about the
thecontract - in Latin, do ut des , in Sanskrit, dadami se, dehi me -
also have been preserved in religious texts." ( 1 990[ 1925], p. 17)
sacredness of the moral obligations enacted as well as the
"Contract sacrifice" and its constitutive role in establishing exchange
rituals in which they are enacted. The exchange of gifts is
relationships finds an uncanny echo in what is conveyed by
usually premised upon a prior recognition of the obligatory
Benedict's principle of gratuitousness.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 D. McCann

model for
certainly would agree with Benedict's assessment of the t
among peopl
damage done by "a purely consumerist and utilitarian view
other hand,
of life," and probably would not quibble over "the aston-
the sheer
ishing experience of gift." After all, if it were not aston- n
strangers hav
ishing, they would not have devoted a significant portion of
the initiativ
their careers studying it. But the astonishment that Mauss
recognizes seems linked
ficient toirrevocably to rituals of
ov gift
such exchange
recipro and their performance. A postmodern society
In may hope to civilize its economy,
any case, if it recovers the
meaning of such rituals and finds ways to institutionalize
anthropology
as a complete repudiation of Benedict's theological them anew. Paradoxically, as the Pontife x Maximus of a
anthropology from the top down. But it does challenge church that still insists upon the efficacy of its own rituals
anyone interested in the principle of gratuitousness to for grace and salvation, Benedict implies that rituals of gift
attempt more precisely to determine where and how the exchange cannot be made efficacious simply by performing
trajectories from the bottom up and the top down might them. The performance must be suffused with awareness of
intersect and mutually support each other. Where Benedict their ultimate meaning and value. This is what he seeks to
and the empirical anthropologists are deeply in agreement convey with his innovative interpretation of the principle of
is on the necessity of creating and enhancing social capital. gratuitousness. This principle contains the Word without
Call it basic trust or - as in Benedict's own words - call it which the deed remains inefficacious. We are thus con-
fronted with a truth claim that cannot be evaded: If the
"fraternity" or "solidarity," without such social capital
neither markets nor government can function effectively. logic
It of gift is to be restored to its rightful place in the
is also clear that the empirical anthropologists generally
system of social logics by which integral human develop-
share Benedict's assumption that social capital, in this
ment proceeds, it must be informed by the principle of
gratuitousness. The empirical anthropology from "the
world, remains unstable and precarious, and must be gen-
erated and replenished through social practices oriented
bottom up" so brilliantly explored by Mauss and others
toward the logic of gift, in short, in the rituals operativewill
in not fulfill its promise of social transformation unless it
is anchored in a theological anthropology from "the top
the institutions of a civil society. Such rituals, establishing
a sacred context that is trustworthy and supportivedown."
of
human social interaction, channel our social impulses into
mutually acknowledged obligations that allow us to enter
Naming and Building the Civil Economy
with confidence into stable and ongoing relationships of
trust with one another. Given Mauss' own expectations for
an expansion of civil society broadly resonant with the
So where are we with the principle of gratuitousness and
the prospect of a "civil economy"? What's in it for our
logic of gift (1990[1925], p. 82), there seems to be agree-
ment as to the end in view, but lingering disagreement understanding of business and society? The analysis pre-
perhaps about the means to get there. sented here confirms the importance of CV's conceptual
breakthrough, but it also shows that the principle of gra-
Benedict's theological anthropology, if you will, begins
tuitousness needs further development. One promising
with the Word and not with the deed. This is perhaps the
point where his differences with the anthropologists cited
place to begin that development is theoretical, the other is
here is most dramatically revealed.13 Mauss and the others

13 The differences between the two perspectives could be reduced

considerably were Benedict and his advisors to focus, as particularly
the Reformed tradition of Protestant Christianity has, on the
significance of covenantal institutions inspired by the Biblical Footnote 13 continued
narratives of history of Ancient Israel. G. Mendenhall's pioneering rituals that provide the basis for the doctrines informing CST's
study, "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East" principle of gratuitousness. The theme of covenant, while common in
contemporary Christian social ethics in the Reformed tradition,
(1954), an interpretation of the rituals through which covenants were
recently has been making an impact on CST, which is strikingly
established, tracks very well with Mauss* general analysis of the logic
of gift exchange. Mendenhall's work has the additional meritevident of in the American Catholic bishops pastoral letter, "Economic
providing a model for understanding the development of such a bond Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the US Economy"
(N.C.C.B. 1986). There are several essays exploring the meaning of
when the parties are so grossly unequal, as in the relationship of God
covenant for business ethics in the anthology edited by Stackhouse
and Israel, namely, the suzerainty treaties of the Ancient Near East.
et al. (1995). More detailed expositions which provide concrete rec-
Insofar as religious institutions, like the Church, carry out crucially
important functions within civil society, with a direct bearing on ommendations
the for developing the covenantal model have been given
formation and renewal of social capital, we thus have access to the by Herman (1998) and Nash (1990).

â Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Principle of Gratuitousness 63

practical: We need Besidesboth

the Grameen Bank14
a itself,
more which has been self-
detaile
logic of gift is already sustaining for the past fifteen years, Yunusin
operative and hisbusi
and we need concrete case studies of how businesses ani- associates have diversified into other social businesses,
mated by "the spirit of gift" have actually performedpartnering
as with companies like Groupe Danone, the makers
businesses. of Dannon yogurt products, to market a fortified yogurt
One promising case study for showing the potential ofsnack designed to address the nutritional deficiencies of
"hybrid forms of commercial behavior" for civilizing thepoor children, at a price they and their families can afford.
economy stems not from Catholic circles that may have Yunus (2010, pp. 33-56) used the Grameen Bank's
been influenced by CST, but from the work of a Ban-expertise in social networking among the rural poor, to
gladeshi Muslim, the Nobel prize-winning economist,develop Grameen-Danone, an independent social business.
Muhammad Yunus, whose development of the Grameen With the social business concept Yunus has demon-
Bank and related enterprises seems tailor-made for testingstrated how it is possible to go beyond conventional
the principle of gratuitousness. Based on over 35 yearsthinking about both corporate philanthropy and corporate
experience in microbanking intended to help the poorsocial responsibility (CSR). Groupe Danone is not a donor,
overcome poverty through enterprise development, Yunus nor is Grameen-Danone simply a CSR dimension of the
has recently proposed the ideal of a "social business" asGroupe. The new company is independent and autono-
the most effective way to address social problems caused mous, but with significant investment as well as expertise
or at least exacerbated by the poor's lack of access toprovided by Groupe Danone. The partnership is possible
finance capital. In an appendix to his book, Banker to thebecause Yunus persuaded Group Danone' s management
Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle against World Pov-that they cannot participate in solving social problems
erty, Yunus defines a social business as "a non-loss, non- effectively within the framework of a conventional PMB.
dividend enterprise, created with the intention to do goodAs an economist, Yunus argues for a "total delinking from
the old framework" of profit-maximization, for "in a time
to people, to bring positive changes to the world, without
any short-term expectation of making money out of it" of stress, profit will always trump all other 'bottom lines'"
(2007, pp. 265-266). Such a business clearly qualifies as (Yunus
a 2010, p. 14). Anyone conversant with the diffi-
hybrid form because it can only grow and develop as aculties of doing any CSR projects with potentially negative
impacts on a given PMB' s bottom line has to admit the
commercial enterprise, that is, though it is not intended to
truth of Yunus' observation.
make a profit for its investors, it must be generate sufficient
income to cover its expenses, including adequate com- What Yunus offers potential investors, who may recoup
pensation to its managers and employees. Yunus explains: the funds invested while foregoing any ROI, is an oppor-
tunity to participate in what Benedict describes as "the
In its organizational structure, this new business is astonishing experience of gift." Yunus believes, and now
basically the same as the existing PMB [profit-max- has considerable evidence to support the belief, that people
imizing business]. But it differs in its objectives. Like who are interested in becoming part of the solution to
other businesses, it employs workers, creates goods social problems (rather than remaining part of the problem
or services, and provides these to customers for a itself), that is, people who otherwise would be donors to
various charities or supporters of CSR policies, will be
price consistent with its objective. But its underlying
objective - and the criterion by which it should be attracted to the prospect of investing in a social business,
evaluated - is to create social benefits for those provided that it is sufficiently well designed and managed
whose lives it touches. to produce and distribute social benefits more efficiently
than conventional alternatives. In order to appreciate the
The means by which a social business achieves this
significance of Yunus' practical success, we need to return
objective is just as important as the objective itself.
once more to the logic of gift and draw a more detailed
Profits - in the sense of generating a surplus of revenues
map of its economic dimensions.
over expenses - are expected; but these are not returned to
investors in the form of dividends. Yunus further explains:

The company itself may earn a profit, but the inves-

14 The Grameen Bank, though it returns dividends to its members -
tors who support it do not take any profits out of the that is, to the poor who qualify for loans through its programs, which
company, except recouping an amount equivalent to include various requirements for maintaining savings accounts -
their original investment, over a period of time. A remains the model for Yunus' understanding of social businesses. The

social business is a company that is cause-driven Bank's objective is clearly social, and the "hybrid" structure for
distributing the surplus or "profits" generated by its business
rather than profit-driven, with the potential to act as a activities, clearly illustrate the concept of social business, as well as
change agent for the world. (2007, pp. 266-267) it potentially diverse applications in other settings.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 D. McCann

Pieropaolo Donati has outlined such a map. Building infants, whose interactions seem unmotivated by any aim
upon Mauss' insights, Donati (2009) recognizes the other than the sheer joy of playing. Such playfulness is
diversity of meanings and motivations that may be Bruni's example of the "necessary" condition of gratu-
involved in contemporary gift-giving practices. In each of itousness. The "sufficient" condition - that is, a basic ori-
the major "systems" of society, gifts are routinely given entation toward the good as such - in their innocence, may
and received: Even in "the economic system," conven- yet lie beyond the infants' reach. The coincidence of both
tional businesses use gifts to attract customers with the dimensions can be seen even in the economic activities of
intent of maximizing profits. While there may be nothing adults who have grown up without losing some of their
wrong with such practices, they do define a strictly childlike playfulness. We all admire professional artists
instrumental relationship: Gifts are used as a means to and athletes, as Bruni does, who are intrinsically motivated,
other ends (Donati 2009, p. 282). The other extreme of the that is, who make art for art's sake (" ars gratia artis ") or
spectrum analyzed by Donati is evident in the practices of participate in sport simply because of their love of the
"voluntary associations of private social [organizations] or game. Their orientation toward the good is confirmed in
the third sector" system. In these, "gift is the prime mover their loyalty as well as in their refusal to cheat when
{primum movens) of action," which arises "from disinter- opportunities present themselves.
ested motives." Given the ways in which both art and sports, in our
This sphere, of course, is virtually coextensive with С V'world,
s have become professionalized - such that movie
"civil society." Donati's identification of "gift" with
stars, celebrated painters, and world-class football players
"disinterested motives" appears to confirm Benedict's can become not only famous but fabulously wealthy - the
question remains whether the astonishing experience of gift
understanding of the principle of gratuitousness. The logic
that they represent to us and for us rightly can and ought to
of gift is fully realized in personal acts of self-donation that
be commercialized. Is sport somehow cheapened as soon as
create a relationship in which further exchanges of various
the athletes turn professional? Would my daughter - a
kinds become possible. For example, many people regularly
struggling young singer/songwriter - cease to exhibit the
participate in blood drives organized by the Red Cross,
principle of gratuitousness were she to land a major
where the donation not only is intimately personal, but also
recording contract with Sony or one of its global compet-
given with no other object than to help the Red Cross help
itors? Is there an essential incompatibility between instru-
others in need. Others may send a check to Caritas Inter-
mental and intrinsic forms of motivation, such that trying
nationalis or Misereor in order to assist victims of, say, an
to honor both of these inevitably corrupts them both?15 If
earthquake in Haiti. Common experiences like these not
such is inevitably the case, then not only is Yunus' theory
only are channeled through initiatives emerging from the
institutions of the civil society, but they may also helpand practice of social business a fraud, but Benedict's
create a cultural climate in which ventures like Grameen- principle of gratuitousness at best is wishful thinking, and
Danone will be generally appreciated and supported. at worst a betrayal of CST's longstanding commitment to
Such examples may suggest just how abundant areintegral human development. Bruni, for one, thinks they
can be integrated, but he is well aware of the risks involved
opportunities to have "the astonishing experience of gift"
to which the principle of gratuitousness invites us. Our in doing so.
challenge, here, however, is to probe more deeply into how The risk that Bruni identifies is what he and others
describe as "the paradox of business ethics." "Ethics in
such activities can civilize the economy. Luigino Bruni
(2009) offers still further insight into what is involved inbusiness functions, that is, produces good results, on con-
creating a social business. Although disinterested - in dition that it be adhered to as a value in itself and not for
Bruni's terminology, "intrinsic" - motivation is necessary,the good results that it may bring" (Bruni 2009, p. 487). He
it is not sufficient. In addition, there must be a basic ori-
cites as evidence the example of a door-to-door encyclo-
entation toward the good. It is only when both character-pedia salesman, who tries to create a sale by feigning
istics are present that we can verify gratuitousness (Bruniconcern for his prospective customer and her children's
2009, p. 485). With these dual criteria in mind, one can education. The economic value of his projected sincerity
diminishes considerably as soon as his customer realizes
readily see why Donati (2009, p. 283) locates gift giving in
its pure form primarily in "the system of voluntary asso- that he really cares only for the commission he'll make on
ciations of private social [organizations] or the third sec- the sale. This paradox, however, is not unique to marketing
tor." Nevertheless, Bruni also gives us reason to expect
that gratuitousness may often be found outside the sphere15 One attempt to address the relationship between intrinsic and
instrumental motivations in business is the essay by Brownsberger
of civil society.
and McCann (1990, reprinted in 1995). Maclntyre's skepticism about
On the one hand, within Donati's "system of family andbusiness ethics is addressed by interpreting Peter Drucker' s thinking
informal networks," one may observe the free play of on the purpose of a business.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Principle of Gratuitousness 65

and selling. People whose businesses

fessional services, ranging from finan
attendants to one's personal physician
through trial and error - the perils i
relationship that customers and clien
intrinsic value to deteriorate into
instrumental. In relating the history
and the Grameen-Danone yogurt b
acutely aware of this paradox. His ren
maximization while also managing an
cover its own costs in order to surv
resolve or at least mitigate it.
Does this mean that the only way to
ciple of gratuitousness is to follow Y
going profit when commercializing
services in a social business? Not even Yunus would rec-

ommend that all firms must be organized in this way (2007,

p. 266). But his warnings about the seductive power of
profit-making, once it is included among the firm's goals,
does reinforce Bruni' s advice about how easy it is to upset
the balance of mixed motives that otherwise might inform
social enterprises. He emphasizes the ever-present risk of
corruption in which the instrumental, left unchecked, is
likely to "colonize" the intrinsic motivation that animated
the project in thsy it O
 66 D. McCann

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben- Mendenhall, G. (1954). Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient
xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html. Accessed 1 1 March Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist, 17 (2-3). Available
2010. online at http://home.earthlink.net/ ~ cadman777/Law_Cov_
Brownsberger, M. L., & McCann, D. (1990). Management as a social Mendenhall_TITLE.htm. Accessed 20 April 2010.
practice: Rethinking Business Ethics after Maclntyre. In D. Nash, L. (1990). Good intentions aside: A manager's guide to
M. Yeager (Ed.), The annual : Society of christian ethics. resolving ethical problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Reprinted in Press.
M. Stackhouse, D. McCann & S. Roels (Eds.). 1995, On moral N.C.C.B. (1986). Economic justice for all : Pastoral letter on catholic
business : classical and contemporary resources for ethics in social teaching and the US economy. United States Catholic
economic life (pp. 508-513). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerd- Conference, Washington, DC. Available online at http://usccb.
mans Publishing Co]. org/sdwp/international/EconomicJusticeforAll.pdf. Accessed 20
Bruni, L. (2009). Gratuita. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), April 2010.
Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 484-488). Rome: Citta Nuova Pius XI. (1931). Encyclical letter quadragessimo anno. Available at
Editrice. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/
Cheng, M. Y., & Mittelhammer, R. (2008). Globalization and hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html. Accessed 27
economic development: Impact of social capital and institution July 2011.
building. In American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The / Ross, D. (2010). Game theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
Nov, 2008. Available online at http://findarticles.c0m/p/articles/ encyclopedia of philosophy. Available online at http://plato.
mi_m0254/is_5_67/ai_n3 1 2037 1 61. Accessed 12 Sept 2011. stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/. Accessed 7 July 2011.
Donati, P. (2009). Dono. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Dizionario Stackhouse, M., McCann, D., & Roels, S. (Eds.). (1995). On moral
di economia civile (pp. 279-291). Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice. business: Classical and contemporary resources for ethics in
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, В. (1996[1979]). The world of goods: economic life. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Toward an Anthropology of consumption. New York: Routledge. Co.
The Holy Bible , English Standard Version. (2007). Wheaton, Illinois:
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust : Prosperity and the social virtues. New
York: The Free Press. Crossway Bibles, Kindle Edition, Good News Publishers.
Vanin, P. (2009). Capitale sociale. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.),
Herman, S. (1998). Durable goods: A covenantal ethic for manage-
ments and employees. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 146-151). Rome: Citta Nuova
Dame Press. Editrice.
John Paul II. (1991). 100th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum:Yang, M. M.-H. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social
Centesimus annus. London: Catholic Truth Society. Available relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Yunus, M. (2007). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle
online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encycli
cals/documents/hfjp-ii_enc_0 1 05 1 99 l_centesimus-annus_en.html. against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs Books.
Accessed 1 1 March 2010. Yunus, M. (2010). Building a social business: The new kind of
Mauss, M. (1990[1925]). The gift: The form and reason for exchange capitalism that serves humanity's most pressing needs. New
in archaic societies. New York: W. W. Norton. York: Public Affairs Books.
Zamagni,
McCann, D. (2005). Inequality in income and wealth: When does it S. (2010). Caritas in Veritate : Observations' presented at
become a moral issue, and why? In H. Alford, C. Clark, S.the conference Civilizing the Economy, Faith and Work Initiative
Cortright, & M. Naughton (Eds.), Rediscovering abundance: of Princeton University.
Zarri, L. (2009). Dilemma di prigionero. In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni
Interdisciplinary essays on wealth, income and their distribution
in the catholic social tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile (pp. 271-278). Roma: Citta
Notre Dame Press. Nuova Editrice.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 202.94.83.106 on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 22:22:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms