Three Rival Versions of Markets and the Common Good: Spontaneous, Instituted, and Civil

Abstract How do markets principally contribute to society, and do they all contribute in the same ways? The logic of common and private goods provides much-needed clarity in grappling with the constitution and contribution of markets. The root challenge of the market is that impersonal private exchange cannot directly promote any common goods, so it appears only capable of promoting the flourishing of society “by accident,” as it were. As responses, the “spontaneous” approach regards both markets and politics as unintended orders of private ends, while a “instituted” model subordinates thin exchange to the thick communal goals of sustaining politics, and the “civil” economy claims that market exchange is itself a form of fraternal solidarity around common goods. All three rival models capture some exchange contexts, but none works for all markets. I advocate a meta stance of “market pluralism,” acknowledging that different markets’ moral architectures could match any of the three models, in line with empirical findings that different industries and market systems vary significantly in their modes of coordination, human relations, and major objectives.