Free Markets and Public Interests in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Comparative Analysis of Catholic and Reformational Critiques of Neoliberal Thought

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q2 BUSINESS Business Ethics Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-06-24 DOI:10.1017/beq.2022.9
Mathilde Oosterhuis-Blok, Johan Graafland
{"title":"Free Markets and Public Interests in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Comparative Analysis of Catholic and Reformational Critiques of Neoliberal Thought","authors":"Mathilde Oosterhuis-Blok, Johan Graafland","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The rise of liberal market economies, propagated by neoliberal free market thought, has created a vacant responsibility for public interests in the market order of society. This development has been critiqued by Catholic social teaching (CST), forcefully arguing that governments and businesses should be directed to the common good. In this debate, no attention has yet been given to the Reformational tradition and its principle of sphere sovereignty, which provides guidelines on the responsibilities of governments and companies for the public interest of society. This article analyzes the differences and similarities between CST and the Reformational philosophy in their critiques of the neoliberal free market perspective of Hayek. We apply the three perspectives to the case of orphan drugs in the pharmaceutical industry and show that CST and the Reformational philosophy offer valuable insights in correction to Hayek’s views on the responsibilities of governments and companies for public health interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Ethics Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The rise of liberal market economies, propagated by neoliberal free market thought, has created a vacant responsibility for public interests in the market order of society. This development has been critiqued by Catholic social teaching (CST), forcefully arguing that governments and businesses should be directed to the common good. In this debate, no attention has yet been given to the Reformational tradition and its principle of sphere sovereignty, which provides guidelines on the responsibilities of governments and companies for the public interest of society. This article analyzes the differences and similarities between CST and the Reformational philosophy in their critiques of the neoliberal free market perspective of Hayek. We apply the three perspectives to the case of orphan drugs in the pharmaceutical industry and show that CST and the Reformational philosophy offer valuable insights in correction to Hayek’s views on the responsibilities of governments and companies for public health interests.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医药工业中的自由市场和公共利益:天主教和改革派对新自由主义思想批判的比较分析
在新自由主义自由市场思想的宣传下,自由市场经济的兴起,在社会的市场秩序中造成了公共利益责任的空缺。这种发展受到天主教社会训导(CST)的批评,他们强烈认为政府和企业应该以共同利益为导向。在这场辩论中,尚未注意到宗教改革传统及其领域主权原则,该原则为政府和公司对社会公共利益的责任提供了指导方针。本文分析了CST与改革派哲学在批判哈耶克的新自由主义自由市场观点时的异同。我们将这三种观点应用于制药行业的孤儿药案例,并表明CST和改革哲学为纠正哈耶克关于政府和公司对公共卫生利益的责任的观点提供了有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that publishes theoretical and empirical research relevant to the ethics of business. Since 1991 this multidisciplinary journal has published articles and reviews on a broad range of topics, including the internal ethics of business organizations, the role of business organizations in larger social, political and cultural frameworks, and the ethical quality of market-based societies and market-based relationships. It recognizes that contributions to the better understanding of business ethics can come from any quarter and therefore publishes scholarship rooted in the humanities, social sciences, and professional fields.
期刊最新文献
A Better Account of Constitutional Contractarianism Implies a Cooperative Form of Governance of the Sharing Economy: Critical Assessment of Hielscher, Everding, and Pies’ (2022) “Ordo-responsibility in the Sharing Economy: A Social Contracts Perspective” The Free-Riding Issue in Contemporary Organizations: Lessons from the Common Good Perspective Business without Management: MacIntyrean Accounting, Management, and Practice-Led Business It’s a Three-Ring Circus: How Morally Educative Practices Are Undermined by Institutions The Virtue of External Goods in Action Sports Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1