“If it is to be governed essentially by the ground motive of the Christian religion, a scientific practice of economics should not be limited to the field of so-called economic policy. It needs to start with a reformation of the foundations of economic theory itself.”¹ So began an address to the association for Calvinistic philosophy in 1946 by Herman Dooyeweerd, philosopher and legal scholar at the Free University of Amsterdam. In calling for a “reformation” of economic theory, Dooyeweerd uses a word that intentionally echoes the reformation of the Western church that began in the sixteenth century. What would count as a reformation of economics, and should we even wish for such a development?

Today there is a widespread sense that all is not well in economic practice, from corporate finance to everyday shopping. The concentration of wealth in the pockets of a shrinking minority has been increasing, broadly, for at least 200 years,² a trend that has been given fresh, global impetus³ by such events as the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial depressions and crashes are not new, but discontent was heightened by the financial crisis of 2007–2008. And while inflation is a perennial hardship for many, the current cost-of-living crisis brings renewed frustration. Many people agree that something needs to change in the teaching of economic theory itself.

There is a growing set of initiatives seeking to diversify economics curricula. In 2011, students walked out of a lecture at Harvard protesting that their neoclassical economics course perpetuated unfairness and instability in the outside world, while in 2012, students at the University of Manchester founded the Post-Crash Economics Society. The demand for “decolonisation” of curricula is also pertinent in the case of economics, where international financial arrangements largely maintain the balance of power established by colonial expansion. Such currents lie behind the formation of the Rethinking Economics network to promote “economic pluralism,” supported by a range of other initiatives. Certainly, there is no shortage of alternative paradigms to set alongside the neoclassical school, including Marxian, Feminist, Behavioural, Ecological, Evolutionary and Institutional schools – each with its own starting point, some more fundamentally reformist than others.⁴ But contemporary demands for curriculum reform seek coherent paradigms that are able to address our current crises, and they suggest that no existing paradigm is fully satisfactory.

How about a Christian economic paradigm to throw into the ring? Here the economics student might be forgiven for looking blank. Hardly anyone looks for Christian paradigms these days beyond matters of personal lifestyle, and certainly nothing in the alternative economics literature is branded as such. But there is actually a rich legacy. Contemporary economics – both the mainstream and the heterodox – owes much to Christian influences, although awareness of this is hampered because the neoclassical school takes an ahistorical approach, pushing courses in “history of economic thought” out of university curricula. The prohibition on charging interest was not only a Mosaic commandment but persisted in Europe among Christians until the 16th century. Various labour reforms and regulations were led by Christian campaigners. And the successful Jubilee Debt Campaign at the turn of this millennium, with its Old Testament imagery, was founded by the Christian academic Martin Dent and gained strong support from Christian groups. Could fresh Christian thinking contribute to reforming economic practices?

Attempts have been made in recent decades. In the Kuyperian tradition, there are books such as Goudzwaard’s Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society (1979), Douglas Vickers’ A Christian Approach to Economics and the Cultural Condition (1982), and Alan Storkey’s Transforming Economics (1986).⁵ And Anthony Annett’s Cathonomics (2022) provides rich insights from Catholic social thought. But a successful Christian approach needs ongoing collaboration, and would point to new research and policy programmes, eventually bearing fruit in public life.

My view is that the time has come for a new attempt at a Christian economics paradigm. The foundational reformation that Dooyeweerd envisaged called for a deep understanding of created reality, in which economic processes, relationships and norms take their place in a comprehensive philosophical and scientific view. Besides such considerations as justice, charity and faith – perennial features of Christian approaches – we must pay close attention to aesthetic, social, linguistic and historical analyses. Far from seeking to deduce economic principles from the Bible, the call for Bible-reading economists is to broaden their engagement and open up their practice empirically. Perhaps new “Christian” paradigms might emerge from this. Or existing paradigms might be built upon, following the “affirm-critique-enrich” approach advocated by Andrew Basden on the model of the biblical motif of creation-fall-redemption. Certainly, the aim is not mere diversity but to enrich curricula, and, in turn, to enrich our economic practices and social life in all their fullness. Surely this is the kind of reformation for which God calls us to work?
It is in this spirit that I’m part of an initiative of the KLC, the Association for Christian Economics and the Thinking Faith Network to bring together a small group of senior Christian scholars working on reforming economics. Each scholar has a distinctive starting point, consonant with the Scriptures and informed by her or his professional experience. And each has a desire to see economies bearing fruit for the many and not just the few, helping the whole creation to flourish. From my own Reformational perspective, and from talking to some of these scholars, I can envisage some principles that might feature in a reformation of economics. First, I would be pleased to see the physical, ecological, psychological and social grounding of economies accounted for: how the global economy sits within ecosystem dynamics while nurturing the financial activities of businesses, for example. Then, the nature and role of modern money and its associated banking, inflation and interest no doubt need scrutinising with reference to governments’ roles, powers and permissions. Productivity, waste and harm will also need considering in the light of critiques of GDP, and the long-established distinction between “normative” and “positive” considerations surely needs shaking up. Finally, the 200-year-old elevation of idealistic mathematical models may need subjugating to more data-driven methodologies.

When scholars seek theoretical inspiration, God’s Spirit may move them in unexpected directions. I hope that we’ll have encouraging, even surprising, progress to report in a future issue of The Big Picture. Meanwhile, perhaps you would join me in praying that progress in economic theory will be to the glory of God and for the inheritance of Jesus Christ.

Richard Gunton is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Winchester, where he is programme leader for the BSc in Economics and Finance. He is an Honorary Senior Research Associate at University College London, Faith-in-Scholarship coordinator at Thinking Faith Network and an Associate Fellow of the KLC.