‘Chivalry in Using Wealth’: Moral Standard and Social Wellbeing
In Book III’s final chapter on ‘Value and Utility’, writing about the dependence of wellbeing on material wealth, Marshall referred to the flow or stream of wellbeing as measured by the flow or stream of incoming wealth and the consequent power of using and consuming it (1961a, 134), and discussed the power of using wealth in relation to moral progress (or the improvement of standards of life including the forms of expenditure).
Criticizing the misuse of wealth and the desire to display it, phenomena Thornstein Veblen had denounced, this line of reasoning led him to write about raising moral sentiments, and ‘chivalry in using wealth', which seems to have something in common with the ‘virtuous utilization of resources' (based on virtue ethics, not on utility ethics) (see Shionoya's chapter in this volume and Shionoya 2018).[25] Marshall stressed ‘the power of rightly using such income and opportunities' was ‘wealth of the highest order' by itself (1961a, 720).Marshall concluded the chapter on ‘Value and Utility', in which he discussed how the virtuous use of wealth could lead to higher activities, by arguing that the influence on general wellbeing of the way people spend their income is one of the more important of those ‘applications of economic science to the art of living' (1961a, 137). His argument was that when the necessaries of life are provided, everyone should seek to increase the beauty of things rather than their number. Improvement in the artistic character of furniture and clothing trains the higher faculties of those who make them, a point also important for Ruskin and Hobson (see Peter Cain's chapter in this volume). The world would go much better if everyone would take the trouble to select for real beauty, buying fewer things made well by highly paid labour rather than many things made badly by low-paid labour (1961a, 136-7; cf.
also 1961a, BookV, ch. xiii, §7).[26]It was easier to work well than to use wealth well, and much easier than to use leisure well. In the final part of ‘Progress in Relation to Standard of Life' as well as in ‘Social Possibilities of Economic Chivalry', Marshall stressed the importance of the use of wealth, saying:
The inequalities of wealth and the very low earnings of the poorer classes, have been discussed referring to their effects in dwarfing activities as well as in curtailing the satisfaction of wants. But here, the economist is brought up against the fact that the power of rightly using such income and opportunities, as a family has, is in itself wealth of the highest order, and of a kind that is rare in all classes. (1961a, 720)
Marshall went on to say that raising the standard of life would raise the moral standards and social wellbeing, arguing that, although a reduction in working hours would reduce the national dividend and lower wages, it would be good for most people to work less, provided that the consequent loss of material income could be met by the abandoning of the least worthy methods of consumption. His emphasis on rightly using income, or the ‘virtuous utilization of resources’, resonates with arguments in Keynes’s ‘Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren’ (Keynes 1930). Leisure would be used less and less for just doing nothing as there would be a growing desire for athletic games and travelling which would develop activities (1961a, 89). Unfortunately, human nature improves slowly, and in nothing more slowly than in learning to use leisure well. In human history, far more have known how to work well than have known how to use leisure well. It is only through freedom to use leisure that people can learn to use leisure well. This meant that manual workers, devoid of leisure, could neither have much self-respect nor become full citizens, or ‘gentlemen’.[27]
Marshall often referred to ‘social ideals and the ultimate aims of economic effort’ (1907, 324).
He attached great importance to the power of using wealth because he took the view that even the working classes spent vast sums that added little to their happiness and higher wellbeing. Much expenditure conferred no solid benefits on the spenders beyond honour and influence. There was a general agreement among economists that if society could award this honour by less wasteful methods, then resources set free would open out to the mass of the people ‘new possibilities of a higher life, and of larger and more varied intellectual and artistic activities’ (1907, 325). In Marshall’s age it was not so wasteful as sometimes represented, for much more than half of the total income of the nation was devoted to uses which made for happiness and a higher standard of life. Even so, there was a large margin for improvement; surely, then, ‘it is worth while to make a great effort to enlist wealth in the service of the true glory of the world’ (190 7, 3 3 0).[28] Marshall contended that ‘chivalry in work would run into chivalry in using wealth’, arguing for ‘social possibilities of economic chivalry’, which is well illustrated by his own words:Economic chivalry on the part of the individual would stimulate and be stimulated by a similar chivalry on the part of the community as a whole. The two together might soon provide the one or two hundred million a year that appear to be available, without great pressure on the well-to-do, towards bringing the chief benefits which can be derived from our new command over nature within the reach of all.
Equipped with such funds, the State could so care for the amenities of life outside of the house that fresh air and variety of colour and of scene might await the citizen and his children very soon after they start on a holiday walk. Everyone in health and strength can order his house well; the State alone can bring the beauties of nature and art within the reach of the ordinary citizen. (1907, 344-5)
3.5