お金で手に入るものが次第に 豊かに暮らすために不可欠なものにおよび ―
一定水準の健康保険や最高レベルの教育 ―
政治的発言力や選挙戦での影響力までもが お金に左右されるようになると 不平等は非常に大きな問題になる。
すべてを自由市場化すれば 不平等が社会や市民生活に与える痛みは ますます激しくなってくる。
市場経済は 生産活動を組織する重要で有効なツールだが、
気付かないうちに市場経済の考え方が社会にも浸透して、市場社会が生まれている。
それは、ほぼすべてのものに 値段が付くという社会。
― 社会的なものや慣習には 市場的な考え方や市場価値が導入されたとたんに 意味が変わってしまうものがあって、 大切にする価値のある態度や規範が 失われてゆくことだ。
サンデル教授が会話の中で、子供の読書を例に取り上げてる；
子供が一冊本を読んだら報酬としてお金をあげる。
その報酬（インセンティブ）のために、子供が読書をする動機が変わってくる。その子供の将来にとってそのことはどのように影響してくるだろうか － という問いだった。
― 社会的なものや慣習には 市場的な考え方や市場価値が導入されたとたんに 意味が変わってしまうものがあって、 大切にする価値のある態度や規範が 失われてゆくことだ。
サンデル教授が会話の中で、子供の読書を例に取り上げてる；
子供が一冊本を読んだら報酬としてお金をあげる。
その報酬（インセンティブ）のために、子供が読書をする動機が変わってくる。その子供の将来にとってそのことはどのように影響してくるだろうか － という問いだった。
市場は どこに属すべきか ― なじまない領域は どこか ― 市場は どの領域で 大切な価値や態度を傷つけるのか。」
サンデル教授は続けて、
「この議論を進めるには 私達が苦手とすることをしなければなりません 。
私達が重んじる社会的慣習の価値と意味について 公の場で共に検討することです。
そこで検討するのは 私達の身体や家庭生活 ― 人間関係や健康 ― 教育や学習 市民生活などです。」
「市場がものの性質を変えてしまうことを 理解した瞬間に ものの価値を評価するというより大きな問題を 皆で議論する ― 必要に迫られるのです」
（以下、ビデオと日本語スクリプト全文
------------------------
TEDGlobal 2013 · Filmed June 2013 · 14:37
マイケル・サンデル: なぜ市場に市民生活を託すべきではないのか？
この30年でアメリカは市場経済から市場社会へ移行したと、マイケル・サンデルは言います。アメリカ人が「共有する」市民生活は、どれだけお金を持っているかによって違うものになってしまったと言っていいでしょう。（主な例として、教育を受ける機会、司法と政治的影響力を利用する機会があります。）彼は、話と観客による議論を通して、真剣に考えるべき問題を提起します。現在の民主主義では、売りに出されるものがあまりにも多いのではないか、という問いです。
（日本語スクリプト）
皆で共に考え直すべき問題があります 私達の社会の中で お金と市場の役割はどうあるべきでしょうか
現在 お金で買えないものは ほとんどありません 仮にカリフォルニア州 ― サンタバーバラで懲役刑を言い渡されたとします 普通の監房が 気に入らなければお金を出して 部屋をアップグレードできることを知っておくといいでしょう これは本当の話です いくら位だと思いますか？ 500ドル？ 高級ホテルじゃなくて刑務所ですよ！ １泊で82ドルです 82ドルです もしテーマパークに行って 人気のアトラクションで長い列に 並びたくなければ いい方法があります 多くのテーマパークでは追加料金を払うと 列の先頭に行けるのです ファスト・トラックとかVIPチケットと言います
この仕組はテーマパークだけではありません 首都ワシントンでも 議会の重要な公聴会では 長蛇の列になることがあります でも並びたくない人もいます徹夜になるかもしれないし ― 雨が降ることもありますから だからロビイストや 公聴会にぜひ参加したいけれど 並びたくない人向けに業者がいるのです 行列代行会社です これを利用してはどうでしょう いくらか支払えば その会社がホームレスや仕事が欲しい人達を雇って どれだけ時間がかかろうと列に並ばせます そして公聴会が始まる直前にロビイストが 列の先頭にいるその人達と入れ代って 会場の前列に陣取るのです 雇われて列に並ぶのです
市場の原理や考え方 解決法を 取り入れる分野が 広がりつつあります 戦争を例にとりましょう イラクやアフガニスタンでは アメリカ陸軍の兵士より民間軍事会社の方が 多く展開していたことをご存知ですか？ 戦争を私企業に外注するかどうかを 公に議論したわけでは ありません でも それが実態でした
過去30年以上に渡って 私達はいつの間にか革命の中で生きてきました 気付かないうちに市場経済が 市場社会へと 拡大してきたのです 両者にはこんな違いがあります 市場経済は 生産活動を組織する重要で有効なツールです 一方 市場社会とはほぼすべてのものに 値段が付く社会です 市場社会とは一種の生活様式で 市場的な考え方や価値が 生活のあらゆる側面を支配します 人間関係や家庭生活健康や教育 ― 政治や法律や市民生活を左右します
では なぜ私達は市場社会になることに 不安を感じるのでしょうか？ ２つ理由があると私は思います 理由の１つは不平等に関するものです お金で買えるものが増えれば増えるほど ― 裕福か そうでないかがより重要になります お金で手に入るものが ヨットや優雅なバカンスやBMWに限られるなら 不平等も さほど大きな問題にはなりません ところがお金で手に入るものが次第に 豊かに暮らすために不可欠なものにおよび ― 一定水準の健康保険や最高レベルの教育 ― 政治的発言力や選挙戦での影響力までもが お金に左右されるようになると 不平等は非常に大きな問題になります すべてを自由市場化すれば 不平等が社会や市民生活に与える痛みは ますます激しくなります これが不安な理由の１つ目です
不平等に関わる不安の他にも もう１つ理由があります それは ― 社会的なものや慣習には 市場的な考え方や市場価値が導入されたとたんに 意味が変わってしまうものがあって 大切にする価値のある態度や規範が 失われるかも知れません
こんな例をあげましょう よく議論になる市場原理の利用のひとつ ― インセンティブとしてのお金です皆さんは どう考えるでしょうか 多くの学校では子どもの意欲を高めることに 苦労しています とりわけ恵まれない環境で育つ子ども達が 熱心に勉強し 学校にうまく適応することを目指しています 一部の経済学者は市場原理による解決を提案しています インセンティブとして子どもにお金を与えるのです 成績やテストの得点が良かったとか 本を読んだことへの報酬です これは実際に試されています アメリカでは いくつかの実験が主要な都市で実施されています ニューヨーク シカゴワシントンD.C.での実験では 成績がAなら50ドル ― Bなら35ドルを与えました テキサス州ダラスのプログラムでは ８才の子どもに本を１冊読む度に２ドルを与えました
ここで考えてくださいインセンティブとして お金を与えて成績向上を促すことには 賛成の人も反対の人もいます 皆さんはどう考えるでしょう 自分が大都市の学校教育組織のトップで そんな提案が持ち込まれたとします 相手は とある財団で資金も出してくれます 自分達が支出する必要はありません 試行に賛成の人と 反対の人は それぞれどのくらいでしょう？ 手を挙げてください
まず 試す価値があると思う方は？ 手を挙げてください
反対の方は どのくらいいますか？
反対する人の方が多いですが 賛成の方もかなりいますね では検討してみましょう 先に反対の立場の方 ― 試行も認めないという方に聞きましょう 反対する理由は何でしょう？ 誰から始めますか？どうぞ
Heike Moses: こんにちはハイケといいます お金は動機の本質を損なうと思います 子どもが本を読みたいと思うならそんなインセンティブは 与えるべきでないと思います 子どもの行動を変えてしまいますから Michael Sandel: インセンティブを与えてはいけないということですね
では動機の本質とは何ですか？または どうあるべきでしょう？
HM: 動機の本質は 学びであるべきです
MS: 「学び」とは？HM: 世界を知るということです それにお金を与えるのを止めたらどうなるでしょう？ 読書も止めるのでは？
MS: なるほどでは次に賛成する方 ― 試す価値があると思う方は？
Elizabeth Loftus: エリザベス・ロフタスです 試す価値と言う位ですからまず試してみて 実験をしていろいろ調べてみたらどうでしょう MS: 調べるというと何を調べるんですか？ EL: 子どもが何冊読んでいて ― お金を与えるのを止めても どの位 ― 読み続けるか です
MS: お金を止めた後もですね どう思いますか？
HM: 気にさわったらすみません でも率直に言っていかにもアメリカ的なやり方です
（笑）（拍手）
MS: この議論で明らかになったのは こんな論点です 「お金というインセンティブのせいでより高い動機 ― つまり子どもに伝えたい本質である ― 進んで学ぶことや自分のための読書が 追い出され 腐敗し ― 失われるのではないか？」 効果については意見が分かれるでしょうが 疑問として残るのは 市場原理や インセンティブとしてのお金が間違ったメッセージを伝えるとしたら 教わった子ども達がその後どうなるかです
先程の実験の結果をお話ししましょう 成績に応じてお金を与える実験では明確な結果は出なかったのですが ほとんどの場合成績は向上しませんでした １冊の読書に２ドル与えた実験では 子ども達がより多く本を読むようになりました ただし薄い本を選ぶようにもなりました
（笑）
でも本当に知りたいのは この子ども達が将来どうなるかです 読書は面倒な雑用で 報酬目当ての作業だと考えるでしょうか？ あるいは間違った理由がきっかけでも 結局は読書自体が好きになるのでしょうか？
こんなに短い議論でも多くの経済学者が 見過ごしがちなことが明らかになります 経済学者は こう考えがちです 市場は取り引きされるものに 影響を与えないしそれを汚すこともない 市場で取り引きされるものの意味や価値は 変化しないと 彼らは考えます 対象が物的財貨の場合は 確かにその通りでしょう 薄型テレビなら 私に売ろうが 私にプレゼントしようが 全く同じ商品です どちらにしろ機能は同じです でも物的財貨ではない場合や 社会的慣習 例えば ― 教育や学習や市民生活での共同作業には 当てはまりません そういった分野では市場原理や お金によるインセンティブが 市場に属さない大切な価値や態度を傷つけ ― 排除するかも知れません 市場や商業が 商品の次元を越えて もの自体の性質や 社会的慣習の意味を変え得ることを 教育や学習の例で見てきました それがわかったら次に こう問うべきです 市場は どこに属すべきか ― なじまない領域は どこか ― 市場は どの領域で 大切な価値や態度を傷つけるのか ただし この議論を進めるには 私達が苦手とすることをしなければなりません 私達が重んじる社会的慣習の価値と意味について 公の場で共に検討することです そこで検討するのは 私達の身体や家庭生活 ― 人間関係や健康 ― 教育や学習 市民生活などです
どれも物議をかもす問題なので 誰もが避けがちな話題です 実際に過去30年間 ― 市場の論理や考え方が 勢いを増し権威を持つようになり 一方で 公の議論は 骨抜きにされ より大きな道徳的意味を失っていきました 私達は対立を恐れるあまりこれらの問題を避けています でも市場がものの性質を変えてしまうことを 理解した瞬間に ものの価値を評価するというより大きな問題を 皆で議論する ― 必要に迫られるのです
あらゆるものに値段を付けたときに ― 深刻な害を被るのは 共通性 つまり ― 皆が一緒にいるという感覚です 広がる不平等を背景にして 生活のあらゆる側面を自由市場化することで 裕福な人とそうでない人が 次第に離れて生活する状況が生じます 私達は別々の場所で暮らし 働き ― 買い物をし 遊ぶのです 子ども達は別々の学校に通います
これは民主主義にとって良くない状況です 満足できる生き方でもありません それはお金を払って列の先頭に行くことができる ― 人々にとっても同様です なぜなら ― 民主主義には完全なる平等は必要ありませんが 市民が共通の生活を 共に送る必要があるからです 大切なことは 様々な社会的背景を持つ 様々な階層の人々が 普段の暮らしの中で 顔を合せたり 知り合ったりすることです そうなれば私達は お互いの違いを乗り越え受け入れられるようになります こうして皆に共通する善が維持できるのです
だから結局は市場の問題の中心にあるのは 経済の問題ではありません 本当は 私達がどう共に生きるかという問題です 私達はすべてに値段が付く社会を望んでいるのでしょうか？ それとも 市場では尊ばれない道徳的で社会的な ― お金で買えないものがあるのでしょうか
ありがとうございました
（拍手）
----------------------
（英語スクリプト）
Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
Today, there are very few things that money can't buy. If you're sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don't like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It's true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don't want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
And this isn't only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don't like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don't like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn't matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life -- decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns -- when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That's one reason to worry.
There's a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it's this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
I'd like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves. Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They've tried this, actually. They've done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A,35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
So let's see what -- Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let's see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don't have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let's see by a show of hands.
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let's have a discussion. Let's start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
MS: To learn.HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You'd measure how many -- EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
(Laughter) (Applause)
MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
I should tell you what's happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books.
(Laughter)
But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn't change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we're talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we're talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don't, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we're not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here's why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It's really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money can not buy?
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Today, there are very few things that money can't buy. If you're sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don't like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It's true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don't want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
And this isn't only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don't like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don't like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn't matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life -- decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns -- when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That's one reason to worry.
There's a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it's this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
I'd like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves. Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They've tried this, actually. They've done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A,35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
So let's see what -- Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let's see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don't have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let's see by a show of hands.
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let's have a discussion. Let's start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
MS: To learn.HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You'd measure how many -- EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
(Laughter) (Applause)
MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
I should tell you what's happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books.
(Laughter)
But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn't change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we're talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we're talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don't, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we're not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here's why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It's really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money can not buy?
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
