ETS 1: Wayne Grudem on Poverty and Wealth
November 16, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
I’m at ETS this week- the annual convention for the Evangelical Theological Society in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. I think there’s some 900 papers being read, and my guess is about 1,500 attendees (at least). Ultimately I will probably only be able to make it to 12 or so. The first paper I went to this morning was Wayne Grudem’s “Why do poor nations remain poor? Economic causes and Biblical solutions.”
I haven’t heard or read anything by Grudem on economics before, so his depth of insight in and knowledge of the subject at hand surprised me. Many things brought us to our current state of division between wealthy and poor countries.
Wealthy nations became wealthy because of the Industrial Revolution (technological advancement) and the “Protestant work ethic” which includes viewing secular work as a calling from God, the command to subdue the earth, viewing time as linear and valuable, valuing knowledge and sharing it, and personal virtue.
Poor nations remained poor due to a lack of private property, viewing government as master rather than servant to the people, the use of the law to protect those in power instead of enforcing justice, use of non-capitalist economic systems in that they lack free markets for goods, produce wealth by taking rather than making, high taxes and government control, and the embrace of cultural attitudes and values that work against poverty (i.e. a lack of the Protestant work ethic).
So what can be done to help poor countries (while we are also helping poor individuals)? Short term aid and relief of debt helps temporarily, but it doesn’t help long term because it doesn’t provide a productive economic system and thus solve the problems that led to their poverty. What has worked is the influence of Biblical views of work, poverty, government, wealth, equality of all people, and learning from other nations. In other words, we need to help change the systems these countries operate under in addition to providing monetary assistance.
My question, which I didn’t have time to ask: The Industrial Revolution is viewed as economically good but it also forced men out of the home and helped unravel good family structures. Is there a danger of the same conflict of goods occurring assuming we are successful in changing the economic systems of the poorer countries?
Related posts:
- The Inspirational Wayne Grudem
- For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!
- Book Review: Beyond the Shadowlands by Wayne Martindale
- ETS 2006 in Washington D.C.
- True Compassion
- Envy, Equality, and Economic Destruction
Posted in Culture, Ethics, Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts
content rss
November 16th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Is there a danger of the same conflict of goods occurring assuming we are successful in changing the economic systems of the poorer countries?
In a word, YES.
November 16th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
The question then, which I meant to include, is if it is a danger how do we avoid it?
November 17th, 2005 at 1:56 am
“The Industrial Revolution is viewed as economically good but it also forced men out of the home and helped unravel good family structures.”
I think the connection between IR and the unravelling of good family structures is a bit overstated. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that there are too many other factors during that time period that helped to unravel good family structures.
“Is there a danger of the same conflict of goods occurring assuming we are successful in changing the economic systems of the poorer countries?”
I believe that a change in the economic system without a change in the heart and mind can only lead back to the failed system that it first started with. As you said:
“Wealthy nations became wealthy because of the Industrial Revolution (technological advancement) and the
November 18th, 2005 at 11:12 am
I think Grudem's analysis of poor nations is good. But perhaps the greatest of the secular forces keeping the poorest people poor is government corruption, not simply control and high taxes.
Too often, governments rob the people of whatever they have produced, creating a disincentive to work hard and a culture of dishonesty and hopelessness.
If governments will allow laborers to keep more of what they create, they will work harder to provide more for themselves and their families. At that point, the question becomes one of global markets. Can a small family of coffee farmers find a market for their product and earn enough to give them a decent standard of living?
Too often, the answer is no. Markets are controlled by the wealthy nations, because we are the consumers of the world's goods.
We can best encourage poor countries by pressuring their governments to act justly. We can reward such countries with markets for their goods and capital for business expansion.
To me, this implies a duty on the part of wealthy nations to be willing to pay higher prices (support levels) for manufactured goods and commodities so as to make it possible for poor people to work their way out of poverty.
If we are always searching the globe for the lowest-cost goods, we keep those poorest nations stuck in poverty. Or, we force families out of traditional means of supporting themselves into… what, exactly?
November 18th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
“Or, we force families out of traditional means of supporting themselves into… what, exactly?”
Your question made me realize that my question assumes people we'd be “converting” to more capitalist economic systems are much like the West was prior to the Industrial Revolution. While there are some similarities, it's not necessarily the case the that traditional family structure that was in place in the West is currently in place in Third World countries. It's likely not the case they are in place, so I again wonder if there is a danger. Do they really have anything to lose?
Some of your comments, Charlie, I think are addressed by the “Protestant work ethic.” Lacking such a Biblical ethic, corruption is the rule and of course is devastating. I'm not sure paying higher prices for goods solves anything, since there's no assurance that corrupt governments won't raise their taxes to take a part (or all) of that income which results in no real effect.
November 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
I'm not sure paying higher prices for goods solves anything, since there's no assurance that corrupt governments won't raise their taxes to take a part (or all) of that income which results in no real effect.
No disagreement here. But it is absolutely certain that seeking the lowest prices will close market opportunities that some of the world's poor rely on. The principle reason Mexican coffee growers are coming to the US for work, for instance, is that Viet Nam has undercut their prices, making the formerly profitable coffee market a losing proposition for small producers in Mexico.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Has anyone read “The Word is Flat” by Thomas L. Friedman? If so, did you find it helpful for understanding these issues?
Thanks!
AC
November 25th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
I have read The World is Flat and thought it quite good. I do not know if it will change my view or not, but here it goes.
Charlie, you really sound like a Socialist. I do not mean that in a name calling sense, just in that is the way socialist governments would think. Free market economics is a priviledge and part of that is having the ability to look for the lowest price.
Here is Friedman thought and it is simple economics. If a country can not compete in a given endeavor due to market conditions, geographic or otherwise then it provides incintive to go to a new harvest. This is usally the best way to move an economy from being locked into “how we have always done things” to “lets try something new and be more competitive”. India is a prime example of that right now.