Capitalism, Freedom & Philanthropy Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
By ALLEN R. SANDERSON
Next
year will mark the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1976, the 200th anniversary of the
publication of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, he will share, with John
Maynard Keynes, the title as the most influential economist of the 20th
century. 2012 will also be the 50th anniversary of the publication of
Capitalism and Freedom, the volume for which Friedman is perhaps best
known. (Disclosure: I was a student of Friedman’s at Chicago in the
1970s, and we stayed in touch over the years. I regard it as an honor to
have gotten to know and learn from him.)
Although
Friedman’s contributions were of great importance, such as his writing
on monetary theory and advocacy of flexible international exchange
rates, others were also controversial—privatizing some governmental
activities, a push for a flat-rate income tax, and the area in which he
devoted much of his energy late in life: vouchers in education.
But for some, it is a 1970 New York Times Magazine piece entitled “The
Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” that was
perhaps most galling. In that article, Friedman argued that the CEO does
not have the right to spend stockholders’ money on anything that does
not augment the worth of their investment (which would include, I
suppose, expensive office artwork or hiring low-productivity relatives).
He ended that column with a quotation from Capitalism and Freedom that
the corporate executive should pursue “activities designed to increase
profits so long as it …engages in open and free competition without
deception or fraud.”
(This Times essay spawned lively
discussions over the years, including rejoinders in the Harvard Business
Review and a famous roundtable debate in 2005 with Friedman, Whole
Foods founder and devout libertarian John Mackey, and Cypress
Semiconductor’s T.J. Rodgers in Reason magazine.)
But
Friedman also wrote in Capitalism and Freedom that: “I am distressed by
the sight of poverty; I am benefited by its alleviation; but I am
benefited equally whether I or someone else pays for its alleviation;
the benefits of other people’s charity therefore partly accrue to me. To
put it differently, we might all of us be willing to contribute to the
relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing
to contribute the same amount without such assurance. In small
communities, public pressure can suffice to realize the proviso even
with private charity. In the large impersonal communities that are
increasingly coming to dominate our society, it is much more difficult
for it to do so.”
It is this important “free-rider” aspect
that creates, even for Friedman, a legitimate role of government when it
comes to coercion and income redistribution. The principle of
free-riding is also the reason that the retorts against Warren Buffett
and other capitalists who advocate that they and other rich folks ought
to be paying more taxes—“Ok, then let them write their checks to the IRS
if they want to pay more taxes and leave me alone!”—ring hollow and are
disingenuous: because the rest of us could free-ride off their
generosity. (It is also one reason that the Pentagon budget is so
large—NATO nations have figured out how to free-ride on security. Ditto
for other nations and U.S. medical research. And don’t get me started on
China!)
But it is equally important that government at
least follow the Hippocratic Oath and engage in ethical behavior and do
no harm. For example, as many scholars and practitioners have noted, our
tax codes currently provide deductions for charitable contributions,
yet that is implicitly a much greater subvention for the rich than for
lower-income givers. One can craft an argument for subsidizing
gift-giving to cultural or educational institutions—and to churches and
charities—but not by income level!
One private-market
contribution economists can make, as in research by my colleague John
List, is to determine what incentives in the form of matching—1-to-1 v.
2-to-1, for example—will tease out the most in contributions (1-to-1
works just fine and is less costly) and how to start the giving-ball
rolling in the first place (personal solicitations by friends and
co-workers).
By harnessing our creative energies into
finding ways to “do good” while at the same time to “feel good” about
our compassion and personal actions, we can better assist those in need
and bolster institutions that enrich our lives and our society. And
Milton would certainly concur.
Published: December 04, 2011
Issue: 2011 Philanthropy Issue