Transcript Professor Shionoya`s works around and after the `No Wealth but Life`

Workshop 2016
Yuichi Shionoya,
focusing on Welfare
Economics and the Welfare
State
1
2
Professor Yuichi Shionoya passed away of lung cancer at
the age of 83, last year on 25th August, 2015 in Tokyo. He
was Emeritus Professor and former President of
Hitotsubashi University (1989-1992) (also a vice president
of the state universities association, 1991-1992), then
served as Director of the National Institute for Social
Security and Population Problems (1995-2000). Yuichi
Shionoya was a well-known scholar of Joseph Schumpeter
and the German historical school.
3
His important works includes Schumpeter and the Idea
of Social Science: A Metatheoretical Study (Cambridge
University Press, 1997), The Soul of the German
Historical School. Methodological Essays on Schmoller,
Weber, and Schumpeter (Springer, 2005), Economy and
Morality. The Philosophy of the Welfare State (Edward
Elgar,
2005),
and
Economic
Philosophy:
A
Hermeneutical Approach (2009, in Japanese).
4
He was awarded the Japan Academy Prize (in 1991) for
his economic philosophical works, in particular,
Structure of Ideas of Value: Utility vs Right (1984, in
Japanese); he was also elected as person of cultural
merits (in 2002) and he left his posthumous book
Economic Thought of Romanticism: Arts, Ethics, and
History (2012, in Japanese), a part of which was lately
published as “Ruskin’s Romantic Triangle: Neither
Wealth Nor Beauty But Life ” in The History of
Economic Ideas, 2014.
5
We would like to evaluate Shionoya’s contributions in the
history of economic thought and pay a tribute to him as an
eminent scholar and man, focusing on his works relating
to ‘welfare economics and the welfare state’.
The first paper will be, “Shionoya on the normative
economics and the non-utilitarian perspective of welfare
economics”; then the second paper will be, “Shionoya’s
works around and after the ‘No Wealth But Life’.
6
Professor Shionoya’s
works around and after
the ‘No Wealth but Life’
Tamotsu Nishizawa
(Teikyo University:
Emeritus, Hitotsubashi University)
7
1. Introduction ― Professor Shionoya’s works in his later years
My memory of Professor Shionoya is fairly based on my experience
from the workshops here at Hitotsubashi University; which we have
been doing since 2002 and one of the main issues was on ‘Welfare
economics and the welfare state in historical perspective’; the
workshops have been done with the good great help of Shionoya.
8
Shionoya’s last book, Economic Thought of Romanticism: Arts,
Ethics. History (2012, in Japanese);
last article in English was “Ruskin’s romantic triangle: neither
wealth nor beauty but life” (2014);
also lately “The Oxford approach to the philosophical foundations
of the welfare state”, focusing on T.H. Green, Ruskin, Hobson in
the volume (No Wealth but Life; Welfare economics and the
welfare state in Britain, ed. by Backhouse and Nishizawa, 2010).
9
Ruskin’s arts, Green’s virtue ethics (excellence) and the
Oxford Approach (compared with the Cambridge based on
utility), seem explicitly characterize Shionoya’s works in later
years, in view of romanticism vs enlightenment
(utilitarianism).
[Last unfinished paper on Keynes, “Philosophy, arts,
economics of Keynes”(forthcoming, 2016), even seems to be a
shift of his importance from Sidgwick-Moore-Keynes to GreenMoore-Keynes]
10
Both of recent papers on Ruskin’s triangle and on the Oxford
approach, composed the core chapters of Economic Thought of
Romanticism;
ch.2 ‘Ruskin and romanticism of artistic ‘life’’,
ch.3 ‘Green and romanticism of ethical ‘life’’;
ch.4 “Schumpeter and romanticism of historical ‘life’’:
‘Life’ is vital.
[As well-known, Shionoya had written on Schumpeter, GHS,
Schmoller’s historical and ethical economics, and he argued that the
Oxford approach represented the ‘Sozialpolitik and the Historical
method’ (Schumpeter, 1954) in Britain and it was British version of the
historical-ethical approach.]
11
12
‘Economic thought of romanticism’ starts from the inceptive position
of arts (Ruskin),
then in one way via ethics (Green) reaches to the institutions (like
social securities, social reform)－ethical approach,
in other way via history (Schumpeter) reaches to the institutions－
historical approach.
Schmoller asserted the construction of ‘historical, ethical, and
realistic approach’, public economy model of institutional changes.
Adding the artistic approach of Ruskin (as bearing the initiative and
leading role) to the historical and ethical approach is the essence of
romanticism.
13
Before Ruskin’s artistic ‘Life’ and Green’s ethical ‘Life’, Schumpeter’s
historical ‘Life’ in brief.
Schumpeter told of his ‘unusual philosophy of life’ in 1944 and had an ‘idea
of rich and full life to include economics, politics, science, art, and love’;
called his long-standing research program of ‘a comprehensive sociology’
(Harvard Crimson, 11/4/1944:quoted in Shionoya 2010, 267).
The research program of the German Historical School was formulated by
Schmoller as ‘historico-ethical’ approach to economics. He always protested
against an ‘isolating’ analysis of economic phenomena and held that ‘we
lose their essence as soon as we isolate them’. Schomollerian economist
was ‘a historically minded sociologist’.
14
Historico-ethical school professed to study all the facets of an
economic phenomenon; all the facets of economic behavior and
not merely the economic logic of it; the whole of human
motivations as historically displayed (Schumpeter 1954, 812).
It resonates Alfred Marshall’s ‘social science or the reasoned
history of man’ (“The old generation of economists and the new” 1897).
Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life.
Economists deal with man as he is: not with an abstract or
‘economic’ man; but a man of flesh and blood (Principles).
15
2. From Structure of Ideas of Value to Economic Thought of
Romanticism
After his monumental work on the right-based theory of justice
(vs utility) in Structure of Ideas of Value: Utility vs Right (1984),
(greatly inspired by Rawls’s A Theory of Justice),
Shionoya in later years (after Economy and Morality: The
philosophy of the welfare state, 2005, in Japanese 2002), focused more on
Virtue ethics (excellence), then later on Arts and economic
thought of Romanticism, in pursuit of further comprehensive
knowledge (of the whole of human nature).
16
In Structure of Ideas of Value: Utility vs Right Shionoya
proposed the Rights concept of Kantish ‘moral man’ against the
Utility concept of ‘economic man’, and
the framework of Right-Justice was set up against that of
Utility-Efficiency as the priority value.
To apply this scheme to economics meant to show the relative position of
neoclassical economics of ‘exclusively relating to Utility’. His basic tone
was criticism of the utility based neoclassical economics.
17
Utility (Good), Right, and Virtue are three ethical approaches;
and in later years Virtue ethics (excellence, capability) for
human being is much more focused.
The hierarchy of right, virtue, and good was the central claim of
Economy and Morality.
While ‘good society’ must be provided with these three, it is
virtue ethics that must be attached importance. Because virtue
ethics is steady foundation in order to maintain sense of right (justice) and
to enhance quality of good. This is why Shionoya pays particular
attention to virtue ethics of Ruskin and Green.
18
Shionoya’s system of ethics:
first, utility-based moral theory of good for individual acts (by utilitarians,
Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick);
second, rights-based moral theory of right for rules or justice (by Kant and
Rowles) ;
third, capability-based theory of virtue for individual existence (being) (by
Aristotle and Green).
Coordination of ethical systems of three branches; objects of moral evaluation
basic value terms, and operational value terms: a) act-good-efficiency, b) rulejustice-right, c) being-virtue-excellence.
Human welfare is served by the matrix values of a), b), c), not by a scalar
value of utility. The ordering of priority is right over virtue and good, and
virtue over good.
19
A system of ethics
20
First, a theory of individual good (utility) argues for the maximum utility for
individuals given their desires and income. Good should be subject to the
rules of right and virtue.
Second, right has the priority over good. This was raised by Rawls’s critique
of utilitarianism.
Third, theory of virtue concerns the nature of human
existence and examines the quality of desires in the pursuit of a
good life and just rule. It prescribes development of human
capabilities, self-realization, and individual and social
accomplishment of excellence. A theory of virtue is ethics of
perfection.
Shionoya argued for primacy of virtue over good in the sense
that norms of virtue or excellence should critically evaluate
quality of good, as exhibited in Green’s criticism of utilitarianism.
21
22
Pre-theory:
Shionoya’s admiring quest for comprehensive social science
(system of knowledge) culminated into Economic Thought of
Romanticism via methodological devise in preceding book
Economic Philosophy: A Hermeneutical Approach (2009).
Embarked by Schumpeter’s emphasis on vision, he extended
view of social science toward the area of pre-theory (rhetoric,
vision, ideology) by adopting hermeneutics as method. Pretheory meant Vorwissenschaft (pre-scientific knowledge) that precedes
scientific theory (economic theory), and it is vision that is
always hidden beneath the theory, though it is a guideline for
theory building. The hermeneutical turn to pre-theory
envisaged him to integrate ‘economic thought of romanticism’
into his purview.
23
‘Economic Thought of Romanticism’ is not economics (theory)
itself but a vision that economics must presuppose.
Shionoya’s Economic Thought of Romanticism is written as
criticism of mainstream economics and of enlightenment,
rationalism, utilitarianism; he argued on Ruskin, Green, and
Schumpeter from viewpoint of arts, ethics (virtue), and history, in
pursuit of synthetic knowledge of ‘entire human nature’;
stressing ‘full life’ of man. In place of economics of selfinterested economic man, he tried to build an alternative
based on romanticism (life, feeling, virtue, capability) to
recover the ideas of the ‘entire human nature’.
24
While moral science of enlightenment, using the standard of
‘reason’, dwarfs and makes prosaic the contents of ‘arts, ethics
and history’, and only describes the mechanism of economic
operation of market economy ‘institutions’; moral science of
romanticism, using the standard of ‘life’, attempted to
describe a full scope ‘institutions’ image emanating from manysplendored ideas of ‘arts, ethics and history’. Different from the
reason’s dominance of enlightenment and the pursuit for
universalization and standardization, romanticism regards
the expression of life and feelings as the driving force of
creativity. It seizes the interdependent entity of mansociety-nature as if living organism.
25
“Philosophy, arts, economics of Keynes”
Shionoya’s actually last unfinished paper for our project on the
Cambridge economists is “Philosophy, arts, economics of
Keynes－in the light of enlightenment versus
romanticism”, which was addressed to Keynes Society in Japan and
will be published in the volume (ed. by Nishizawa and Hirai, in Japanese,
2016, forthcoming).
26
Examining Keynes’s philosophy in details (epistemology,
ontology, and value theory) in view of Enlightenment vs
Romanticism, Shionoya concluded that an overview of Keynes
is clearly closer to Romanticism; stressing Moore’s intrinsic
value (good), while arguing arts in Keynes, referring Craufurd
Goodwin’s works on Keynes and Roger Fry’s ‘imaginative life’.
Fry’s ‘imaginative life’, compared with ‘actual life’, is reflected
in Keynes’s “Possibilities for our Grandchildren” that ‘we shall
once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the
useful’.
27
Shionoya called this way of using the resources for
intrinsic value of arts and science, etc.
as ‘economics of virtuous utilization of resources’,
different from ‘economics of efficient allocation of
resources’ and ‘economics of just distribution of resources’.
He argued in the same way about Ruskin (and Green);
and wrote that three grand systems of ethics, Right (Justice),
Good (Efficiency), and Virtue (Excellence) should have their
counterparts in economics.
28
He distinguished Ruskin’s economic thought as
‘Economics of Virtuous Utilization of Resources’ (Virtue/
Excellence), different from
‘Economics of Efficient Allocation of Resources’
(Good/Efficiency) and ‘Economics of Just Distribution of
Resources’ (Right/Justice) (2014, 45).
For Shionoya in later years, virtue ethics, economic thought based on virtue ethics
were pursued for. [Shionoya seems to have shifted his importance from
Utility-efficiency vs Right-justice to Virtue-excellence (capability).]
[Suzumura titled his intellectual autobiography Between Welfare (Utility)
and Rights (in Japanese, 2014); he told himself that he followed
Shionoya’s Utility vs Rights.]
29
3. Ruskin’s Romantic Triangle: Wealth, Life, and Beauty
‘No Wealth but Life’ (anti-utility, virtue ethics approach)
Last important paper in English, “Ruskin’s romantic triangle: neither
wealth nor beauty but life”; a special issue of the HEI (2014), ‘Aspects of
the history of welfare economics’ as its first article.
Shionoya’s Ruskin may be the first chapter of our new history of
welfare economics or economic thought of human welfare (well-being).
He started Ruskin’s arts and to integrate Ruskin’s art theory and
economic discourse in unified way from viewpoint of romanticism:
he emphasized key notions of ‘entire human nature’, and of
‘organism’ of ‘nature, mind and society’. Romanticism is construed
from both sides of multiple humanity and organic objects.
30
Ruskin’s economic thought are summarized as ‘No Wealth but
Life’, his art theory can be formalized as ‘No Beauty but Life’.
Shionoya made a unified thesis ‘Neither Wealth nor Beauty but
Life’, that can be called ‘Ruskin’s romantic triangle’, i.e.
‘synthetic knowledge of wealth, beauty, and life’.
Shionoya stressed that ‘Life’ is vital for Ruskin’s unified
knowledge; basic concepts of economics (like wealth, value)
come from contribution to Life. ‘To be ‘valuable’ is to ‘avail
towards life’. A truly valuable or availing thing is that which
leads to life with its whole strength’ (Ruskin 1860, 118).
Ruskin’s economic thought can be called as ‘Economics of
Artistic Life’.
31
Ruskin's Triangle
Life
Labour
Wealth
Beauty
32
‘No Wealth but Life’, phrase loved not only by Shionoya
but also by Shigeto Tsuru, can be a starting point of a
new history of non-utilitarian, non-welfaristic welfare
economic thinking as we discussed in volume of 2010 (No Wealth but
Life. Welfare economics and the welfare state in Britain);
where Shionoya contributed ‘the Oxford approach’, in
contrast with the Cambridge approach based on
utilitarianism, represented by Pigou’s Economics of
Welfare, from which ‘economic welfarim’ originates.
33
[As Hicks says; Pigou’s contention: the economist’s concern does not
lie with Welfare in general, but with that part of general Welfare
which he calls economic welfare; this is the point where trouble
arises. Welfarist have become something like the dominant school
of economic thought (Hicks 1959). Pigou’s economic welfare is ‘that
part of social welfare that can be brought into relation with the
measuring rod of money’. ]
[Hicks: Welfare economics (the ‘Utilitarian Calculus’) be considered
an integral part of economic theory, as its twin brother, Positive
economics, the ‘Economic Calculus’ . (1930)
34
35
[Romanticism in Ruskin
Beauty is a term of aesthetics. Ruskin challenged the notion of
beauty and claimed that ‘Beauty is Life’. ‘Wealth’ is a term of
economics. Ruskin challenged the usage of wealth and insisted
that ‘Wealth is Life’. Thus the trinity of Wealth=Life= Beauty is
established. Ruskin’s link between economics and aesthetics is
the romantic notion of Life (Shionoya 2014, 26).
36
The question of why Art (Beauty) can play a dominant role over
economy (Wealth) has much bearing on the interpretation of
romanticism. The fundamental premises of romanticism are
twofold, first, what Ruskin calls Life as the ’entire human
nature’, which includes ‘reason’, ‘feeling’ and ‘will’, or ‘head,
heart and hands’, and second, what might be called the organic
conception of ‘nature’, ‘man’ and ‘society’. Art is the most easily
available practical candidate for expressing the working of the
‘whole human nature’ through observations of nature.
The same role for implementing romanticism is carried out also by ethics
and history because they are essentially concerned with the life of the
‘whole human nature’ and the organic conception of ‘nature’, ‘ man’ and
‘society’.
37
The notion of ‘polygon’ is central to Ruskin’s approach. He
attempted the romantic synthesis of knowledge, starting from
the overall human soul and pursuing the total organic system
of thought with regard to nature, man, and society. The result
is the ‘polygon’ of his thought. ‘Ruskin’s triangle’ is the simplest
example of his ‘polygon’.
In ‘Ruskin’s triangle’ Life integrates two other angles,
i.e., Beauty and Wealth. Whatever angles there may be
in Ruskin’s ‘polygon’, Life integrates all other angles.
38
Six Elements Serving Life through Wealth and Beauty
(Nature) Air, Water, Art
Wealth (Economy)
Life
(Mind) Admiration, Hope, Love
Beauty (Art)
39
Life as stock of capability
Unlike utilitarian doctrine, Ruskin’s ‘Life’ is not series of behaviours
producing ‘flow’ of pleasure, but ‘stock’ of capability, functions, and
character of human beings. ‘Life includes all its power of love, of joy,
and of administration’, proves Life to be stock of powers, especially
moral powers.
Moreover, concept of Life is normative one. Life is prescribed as
maximum degree of virtue or excellence of ‘being’, not as
maximum sum of pleasures and pains produced by ‘doing’, as
utilitarian ethics claims….Underneath art lies an ethical value for
evaluating the ‘stock’ of human being, which is ethics of virtue as
distinct from utilitarian ethics of good.
40
Commodity and Capability
In discussion of Wealth in Munera Pulveris, Ruskin introduces
‘intrinsic value’ and ‘effective value’. ‘Intrinsic value is absolute power of
anything to support life’. In order that this value become effectual, certain
power is necessary in the recipient of it. ‘Where intrinsic value and
acceptant capacity come together, there is Effectual value,
or wealth’. Wealth involves two requirements: production of
thing useful to Life and production of capacity to use it.
41
Ruskin’s shift of attention from stock of commodity to stock of
capacity in definition of Wealth, is the ground for criticizing classical
economics under perspective of Life. From Ruskin’s standpoint of
aesthetics, Life is regarded as stock of overall human
capacity to create the pleasure of Beauty in opposition
to the utilitarian flow of pleasure or happiness.
Traditionally, well-being of a nation has been represented by
either aggregate of commodities as index of Wealth or
aggregate of utilities as index of happiness. Ruskin’s notion
of capacity or capability lies between commodity and
utility.
42
As shown in thesis of Wealth=Life= Beauty, the focus on capacity is based
on conception of Life as stock of powers to produce excellence of human
nature in economics as well as artistic activities. Art is not only a
representation of Life but also a means to Life. Similarly, economy is not
only a representation of Life but also a means to Life. In both cases, the
trinity is established by the development of capacity. What does not
contribute to enhancement and development of Life should be excluded
from ‘Wealth’ and be regarded as ‘illth’.
The recognition that Wealth depends upon capacity of
human beings is heterodox, mainstream approach is
commodity approach or utility approach. Ruskin’s idea
of locating intrinsic and effectual value between both
approaches is succeeded by Amartya Sen’s capability
approach hundred years later (2014, 40).
43
4. Green’s Virtue Ethics, Perfectionism; and Oxford Approach
While Ruskin’s normative economics was founded on ‘artistic
life’, it was T.H. Green who delved into philosophy of ethical
life by developing perfectionist ethics of British idealism in
opposition to utilitarianism. Linking Green with Ruskin is
essential for Oxford approach to welfare thinking based on
virtue ethics. Their normative thoughts share in common values of
virtue as self-realization through perfection of capabilities
(human nature). The Oxford approach enables us to conceptualize
economics of virtue (2014, 46).
[welfare economic thinking based on utility and utilitarianism
(economics of economic welfare) vs economics of human well-being or
welfare thinking based on virtue ethics and capabilities]
44
Integrating Ruskin’s economics of artistic ‘Life’ into Green’s philosophy of
ethical ‘Life’, economics of ethical ‘Life’ was to be formulated in Oxford
tradition. Green’s virtue ethics or perfectionism was an ethical formulation
of Ruskin’s humanized conceptions of wealth and value.
According to Shionoya, based on Ruskin’s rhetoric and Green’s ethics,
Toynbee’s historical-ethical economics and Hobson’s theoretical-ethical
economics constituted an indispensable scaffolding for Oxford approach and
led to social and political movements of new liberalism for the welfare state.
The Oxford approach formulated here, as distinct from the Cambridge
approach, amounts to building and legitimizing (What Hla Myint (Theories
of Welfare Economics, 1948) called) welfare economics at ethical level, in
contrast with welfare economics at physical level (classical economics) and
at subjective level (neoclassical economics).
45
Oxford approach and Hobson’s welfare economics
The economics aspect of Oxford approach was brought to
fruition in Hobson’s welfare economics. Hobson’s concept of
organic welfare, a desirable standard of welfare, depends on his
view of organic nature of man and of human society. Organic
welfare, which corresponds to Green’s common good, is not a
sum of separate individual goods but connected to the structure
of output. Hobson’s division of income into costs and surplus,
instead of wages, interest, and rent, seems to be instrumental in
combining Green’s self-realization with virtuous utilization of
economic resources. The theory of ‘organic surplus value’ is the
key to Hobson’s economic philosophy…The surplus or ‘unearned
increment’ is the source necessary for self-realization of the
individuals and should belong to the public as a whole, but
actually goes to waste through the market. The standard of
social well-being is realized by the natural evolution of an
organic society.
46
Following Ruskin’s proposal of substituting human
standard of welfare and vitality for money standard of
wealth and value. Hobson reached conclusion:
The true ‘value’ of a thing is neither price paid for it nor
amount of present satisfaction it yields to consumer, but
intrinsic service it is capable of yielding by its right use.
Of commercial goods, or any other class of goods, those which have
a capacity of satisfying wholesome human wants are ‘wealth’, those
which pander to some base or injurious desire of man are not
wealth, but ‘illth’, availing, as they do, not for life but for death.
47
Thus Ruskin posits as starting point of political economy
standard of life not based upon present subjective
valuations of ‘consumers,’ but upon eternal and immutable
principles of health and disease, justice and injustice.
Man or nation is wealthy in proportion as he or it is enabled
to satisfy those needs of nature which are healthy, and thus
to realize true capacities of manhood.
Shionoya thus argued: Hobson held that the standard for evaluating
cost, utility, and value must be qualitative, not quantitative,
reflecting plural human values. We can probably understand their
notion of human standard by referring to the contemporary concept
of basic human needs, which could be scrutinized in terms of
virtuous utilization of resources from the viewpoint of virtue
ethics.
48
Ideas of Perfectionism and the Welfare State
The simple view of economic world held by economists is
dominated by the notions of good (utility) and efficiency.
Introducing the major elements of moral world, i.e., right
(justice) and virtue (excellence), transformed this view. The
economic world (consisting of the ‘resources-goods-utility’
relationship) is modified so as to be integrated with the moral
world. First, Rawls’s theory of justice, which proposed the
concept of ‘primary goods’, Second, Sen introduced the concept
of ‘capabilities’ between goods (commodities) and good (utility).
Finally, perfectionism, as the ethics of virtue, holds that the
promotion of capabilities and the achievement of excellence is
the dual goal of social arrangements.
49
Whereas morality provides rules on how to live, it is the
economy that produces the means of livelihood. The economy is
for producing goods and well-being from resources; its weakness
is the absence of values that are morally superior to efficiency,
such as justice and excellence, within the economic realm. It is
the ethics of right (justice) and virtue (excellence) that
cultivates livelihood enabled by the economy for well-being.
Thus normative economics must be concerned with the efficient
allocation, just distribution, and perfectionist utilization of
scarce goods (Shionoya 2005, 128-30).
50
As task of social security consists of satisfying basic needs,
reasonably presumed that its first moral basis is ideal of virtue
ethics for ontological aspect of human being. Basic needs should
be understood not as the minimum conditions of biological
subsistence but those of human excellence, improvement,
perfection, and self-realization. The ideal of excellence or
perfection, supported by satisfaction of basic needs, demands a
life of human flourishing for all individuals through the
development of capabilities.
[Pigou, ‘A national minimum standard of real income’: not as subjective
minimum, but objective minimum of conditions. The minimum includes
some defined quantity and quality of house accommodation, medical care,
education, food, leisure, the apparatus of sanitary convenience and safety
where work is carried on, and so on.]
51
The moral foundations of social security as a non-market system
are excellence, justice, and efficiency. The welfare state is not
simply a technical device to effect a redistribution of income and
a guarantee of minimum material conditions but is designed as a
moral community to cultivate the human capabilities of its
members.
The relevance of perfectionism to today’s welfare thinking will be
explained with reference to the idea of positive welfare in ‘the
third way’ politics of the New Labour, Amartya Sen’s capability
approach to economic ethics, and the notion of common good in
communitarianism. No reference whatever to Ruskin and Green’s
virtue ethics in the current literature, but these welfare thinking
are based on the philosophical reflection on the public
institutions of welfare and aiming for the same of Ruskin and
Green (Shionoya 2010, 97-99).
52
Green’s basic thesis is that except for the self as a ‘stock’ of character
rather than a ‘flow’ of feeling, one cannot conceive of a virtuous life based
on learning by doing, which is further specified as the virtues of wisdom,
fortitude, self-control, justice, and so on. Green’s ethics will replace
utilitarian economics of efficient resource allocation and open
up the way to economic discourse on virtuous utilization of
resources, on which perfectionist conception of welfare state
should depend.
Green’s vision of perfection is not a static ultimate state in which the
moral ideal is realized but a process of moral progress as the German
Idealist conceived. Green’s perfectionism, interpreted as
evolutionary process of interaction between morality and
institutions, provides basis for developing historical-ethical
approach to economy and society by historical economists, new
liberals, and Hobhouse’s evolutionary sociology.
53
5. Final Remarks
Shionoya’s admiring quest for a comprehensive system (unity) of
knowledge for ‘full life’ and ‘entire human nature’ culminated into
Economic Thought of Romanticism. His basic tone was criticism of
utilitarianism, putting importance on virtue ethics of human being
and capabilities development. Shionoya developed the Oxford
approach based on virtue ethics, compared with the Cambridge
approach largely based on utility (economic welfare). He remarked
that Ruskin’s idea of effectual value is succeeded by Sen’s
capability approach a hundred years later. Shionoya’s normative
economic studies in this aspect seem to install an alternative way
to a non-utilitarian, non-welfaristic welfare economic thinking.
54
His arguments on ‘Virtuous utilization of resources’
(virtue/excellence), different from Efficient allocation
(utility/efficiency) and Just distribution (right/justice), largely
deduced from Ruskin and Green’s virtue, excellence, would also
contribute a new approach to welfare economic thinking and
the perfectionist conception of the welfare state.
Shionoya’s stimulating works on Ruskin’s arts and economic
thought of romanticism induces into his purview, ‘Keynes and
arts’, Roger Fry’s ‘actual life’ and ‘imaginative life’, or the
material needs (means) and the ends of human life (excellence
goods), which made Keynes’s vision on the future economic
possibilities in a new perspective and more realistic.
55