Catholics 'more likely to back state economic intervention' [European Central Bank study]

The Irish Times ^ | November 1, 2011 | PATSY McGARRY

[Alex Murphy]

THEIR WORK ethic appears to be alive and well but Protestants are less likely than others to back notions of sharing the benefits.

A new European Central Bank study has also found that Catholics are more likely to favour sharing wealth and to support government intervention in the economy than are Protestants.

Based on data from Swiss cantons of Fribourg (Catholic) and Vaud (Protestant), the study found support for early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber’s theories about the Protestant work ethic.

It also concluded that Weber’s theories apply more widely than thought, including in the choice of political institutions and in explaining income inequality.

In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, published in 1904, Weber argued that Protestants were more likely to regard hard work as a way to salvation and that this encouraged the accumulation of wealth.

He noted the post-Reformation shift of Europe’s economic centre away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany.

He also noted that societies which had more Protestants had a more highly developed capitalist economy and that, in societies with different religions, the most successful business leaders were Protestant.

Weber also argued that Catholicism impeded the development of capitalism in the West, as did Confucianism and Buddhism in the East.

In their study published on the ECB website at the weekend but not officially endorsed by it, researchers Christoph Batzen and Frank Betz, said they found that “Protestant municipalities exhibit, clearly, higher income inequality.”

They also found that “relative to Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism has curbed preferences for redistribution and for government intervention in the economy.”

Batzen and Betz concluded that Weber’s work better explained economic development than that of Karl Marx.

“Religion is not just, as Karl Marx would have us believe, ‘People’s Opium’, but can, by its own force, significantly change people’s preferences,” they found.

Meanwhile last week the Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace called for “a kind of central world bank” to discipline markets.

In a statement last Friday, following a meeting in Brussels, EU Catholic bishops said the causes of the current financial crisis were structural and mainly rooted in the short-term and very often electorally-motivated political choices.

“These choices often reflect individual behaviour of credit-financed consumerism . . . populism . . . [and] moral relativism,” they said.

[Alex Murphy]

Their work ethic appears to be alive and well but Protestants are less likely than others to back notions of sharing the benefits. A new European Central Bank study has also found that Catholics are more likely to favour sharing wealth and to support government intervention in the economy than are Protestants....

....In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, published in 1904, Weber argued that Protestants were more likely to regard hard work as a way to salvation and that this encouraged the accumulation of wealth. He noted the post-Reformation shift of Europe’s economic centre away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany.

He also noted that societies which had more Protestants had a more highly developed capitalist economy and that, in societies with different religions, the most successful business leaders were Protestant. Weber also argued that Catholicism impeded the development of capitalism in the West, as did Confucianism and Buddhism in the East....

"....relative to Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism has curbed preferences for redistribution and for government intervention in the economy.”

[natetk]

Interesting. I am not Catholic so correct me if I’m wrong, but I would say Catholics agree a lot with the Democrats. Except now days the Democrats have lost all their morals, and the biggest issue is they are pro abortion.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

The problem with government helping the “poor” is they treat everyone the same way. Money essentially goes to the truly needy and the truly incapable as well as to the being lazy and behaving foolishly.

When you give your time to the poor, you help them the way they need it: money here, help getting up and a job there, mentoring non-foolishness over there.

When the focus of your life is purely on prosperity, you are too busy to spend time with the poor and you let the government do it...and have your excuse to detest their lack of focus!

[RitaOK]

I fully expect but a remnant of the Catholics will be the remnant as the Church is promised. The Church is the last stand to hold cohesively to its ancient and the everlasting dogma of Christ Jesus Commandments. It is a joy and a privilege to be a tiny part of such an object of now global scorn and rejection, which rather proves the narrow way is the way, regardless of the fall of so many Catholics. The mystery of the Body of Christ is one where we shall follow the Via Delarosa exactly the same as Christ Jesus, with the spitting and howling occurring from the sidelines. It is not a pleasant path but one with all joy and privilege to partake. There is more to the entry of her, the Church, than driving up and just parking your big Buick at the curb, having your umpteenth baptism after signing some member cult card, by afternoon. Would that I can stand because I love her. Thanks be to God.

[the invisib1e hand]

There are reasonable arguments that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by Communists for two generations at least.

Even on the face of it, it stands to reason. The Catholic Church is Communism's victorious enemy.

This calls for discernment, which, sadly, is in very short supply.

The Influence Of Saul Alinsky On The Campaign For Human Development .

[Vigilanteman]

I don't think it is so much a Protestant vs. Catholic thing as it is against those who practice their religion vs. those who don't. Mass or church attendance is one such indicator, but by no means the only one.

The Catholics, at least, have held the line on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The Protestant sects are much more badly split.

[the invisib1e hand]

parking your big Buick at the curb

You mean "your big black SUV".

[natetk]

I agree with what you say about the Protestant sects being split. That is one of the reasons why I am actually thinking of attending a Catholic Mass. It has been on my mind a lot lately. One of the reasons is that the Catholic church has never changed while the Protestant church began with a couple of guys disagreeing with some of the church’s ways.

[redgolum]

Correct.

By in large, the Catholics vote Democrat. If the Dems became pro life, or at least open to some one not supporting abortion, they would vote in larger numbers.

Reformed groups tend to be individualists, and Catholics tend toward colletcivists. Groups like Lutherans split down the middle, but are small enough not to have a huge effect.

[Cronos]

Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany.

That's hilarious right there! There are more practising Catholics in England than Anglicans, more practicing Catholics in Scotland than Presbyterians, etc.

Sadly these countries are now heavily secular, especially in the formerly non-Catholic areas

[Cronos]

the Calvinist or specifically puritan work ethic is to a large extent a myth. Let me explain why:

1. The places considered as the sources of this industriousness were the Netherlands primarily and secondarily parts of England. YET, the Netherlands region (present day Netherlands + Belgium) were industrious right from the 11th century - BRugges etc. were centres of industry as was Genoa and Pisa and Venice.

2. Remember also that the Netherlands was also very Catholic (modern day Belgium split away in 1830)

3. The places in which the industrial revolution really took off in the late 1700s to the 1800s was in the triangle of London-Paris-Amsterdam. This was Anglican, Catholic, Calvinist in population

   so, hence it was not religious but more regional

4. Next, the capitalist institutions that kicked off this work ethic, like banking etc. were started and in many cases perfected BEFORE the reformation -- in places like the Italian city states

5. Delacroix points out that Amsterdam's wealth was centered on Catholic families; the economically advanced German Rhineland is more Catholic than non-Catholic; all-Catholic Belgium was the second country to industrialize, ahead of a good half-dozen non-Catholic entities.'"

6. The same author also compares the level of economic development across various Anglican, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic countries and finds no evidence that one group outperforms another

   The reason for this myth in America is that many see countries as monolithically one religion, which is not correct:

   • Germany is 40% or more Catholic and the major industrial zones are in the southern, Catholic areas -- like Bavaria (BMW, Adidas, Puma) or Swabia or in the Rhineland.
   • Belgium as we see above is mainly Catholic, and has the same or better growth levels than non-Catholic countries
   • Switzerland is 30% Catholic

7. The myth starts with the Puritans who being primarily city folk didn't choose good lands to farm in in the US, and also brought in old world crops that required more work yet brought in less bounty. They then HAD to work hard to survive. The Puritans also then started up the entire Prosperity Gospel that doing well must be a sign of God’s favor, perhaps even a sign that the successful person had received salvation through God’s grace!

8. Then of course in the late 1800s, Irish and Italian immigrants came who were poorer and the myth really got under way!

you can see more details in post 523, the second map

[Cronos]

to elaborate common historical mis-statement by some posters is whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestant nations"
Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king.  When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above.  France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas.  The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy   The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.  These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce.   Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic.  In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union.   The strongest nation-state is Denmark.  Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s.   Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies.  This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!).  Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states.  This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc.  Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors.  Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural.  However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule.   Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe.   Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria arespan> devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains.  Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes.  Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great.  It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems.  Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews.  This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar).  However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants.  The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs.  The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity.  It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

The net effect is that before the reformation you essentially have only 5 viable "nation"-states. In orders of strenght of national identity:

1. England
2. Denmark
3. France
4. Spain
5. Portugal

The financial positions of these countries do NOT change as part of the reformation. They remain more or less the same until the mid-1700s. In fact, the economic position of Germany declines due to the 30 years war and even worse, the Peace of Westphalia

1683, Battle of Vienna and 1701-1714 there is the War of Spanish succession -- THAT changes everything in Europe.. At the end of this, Spain and Portugal are in decline, France is the most powerful state and will remain so until 1812. the Ottoman Turks are in precipituous decline, Russia is expanding south and east rapidly and modernizing fast from an Asian monarchy to a more European-style feudal state. Germany gets consolidated into 4 majory states: Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg-Prussia and Hesse-Hanover. The Swedes are now extremely powerful and in 50 years invade Poland and Russia (the Deluge) -- this destroys the commonwealth and even though it reforms it is never the same under the Swedish Vasa kings of Poland nor the Saxon kings of Poland. THe commonwealth is irrevocably headed for 1791 when Poland is carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

======================================================================================================================================================

Next, urbanization in Europe in 1800

As you can see, the heaviest urbanization has been in the triangle formed by London, Paris and Amsterdam

======================================================================================================================================================

Scientific innovation --> I couldn't find an online map for this, but there are books available and there should be something online. however, I need to figure out the right google-words!

Anyway, scientific innovations leading the industrial revolution are exclusively found in these 2 countries:

England (right from the north to the south)
1. France (mostly in the north)

England is Anglican, France is Catholic. Germany is Lutheran and Catholic (60-40) and the Dutch republic is reformed. The latter two have their scientific developments but in sheer quantity they lag behind England and France. Scandanavia is Lutheran and has fewer scientific developments and mostly in Sweden or Denmark i.e. in the populated states). Eastern Europe and southern Europe are in the throes of war or recovering from their declines as powerful entites, so the developments are least over here.

So, the scientific developments are not exclusively any type of Protestant -- if anything, the industrial revolution is led by High-Church Anglican Britain and Catholic France.

======================================================================================================================================================
But does religion have a role to play in this?
======================================================================================================================================================

I would argue yes in the case of Anglicanism -- it is far less rigid in it's structure than either the CAtholic countries OR the Lutheran/Reformed state countries. While all the countries had state religions, Anglicanism was the most "flexible" -- you had near Catholics in the High-Church Anglicans and reformed in the "Low Church Anglicans", so religion did play a factor because Anglicanism was flexible compared to Catholicism, Calvinism or Lutheranism -- but what were the other factors?

The other factors are:

• Population -- by the late 1700s, France is the most populous country in all of Europe and the richest and it has the second strongest sense of "self"
• England is heavily populated -- by the late 1700s it has to import foodgrains as it can no longer feed itself. It is rich and getting richer due to it's gains in north america and India (1756 Battle of Plassey where it threw out the French to get exclusive trading rights -- note, the british Indian Empire had still not formed, but the Brits controlled Indian trade). England has a STRONG sense of who is it, a very strong 'nation-state' identity that other states envy and has built up a mythology about itself which is important in building a sense of self
• Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. have stable, lower populations that resemble the populations of 1500, so no growth due to war etc. the Netherlands had a growing population but then they lost the Anglo-Dutch wars (how we got the disparaging terms in English like "go Dutch" etc) and lost a lost of national self-confidence

Which brings me to the second fact -- war and peace. England and France mostly fight on the periphery or on overseas territories. They are not fighting like Spain or Eastern Europe or Germany on their homelands. This means that the home populations have the peace to focus on science and economy.

Finally, the last factor -- success breeds success. By the Victorian era, the momentum of scientific discovery in England and France meant that smart people were encouraged to come to these countries as they knew they'd get opportunities. It's the same reason why silicon valley is the centre of IT research -- as we reach a critical mass of smart folks, this mass expands itself, absorbing smart people from elsewhere --> on a side note, check how many American nobel laureates were born outside the US and see how the key factor affecting our scientific growth is that we no longer have the super-critical mass of smart folks we once had

[Mrs. Don-o]

So, where are you? I’m on the RCIA team in my parish (that’s the adult inquireres, converts and catechumens instruction program) and I’d be mighty please to have you in our class. Can you drive to upper east Tennessee? :o)

[natetk]

I’m in Michigan, and there is a Catholic church nearby. I wouldn’t be able to make it to Tennessee, even though it would be a fun road trip :)

[Mrs. Don-o]

I hope you find a good parish. I'll say a prayer.

If things glitch out, come to Tennessee. We're much nicer than Michigan. (No, that is not a Catholic Dogma. It's a Mrs. Don-o Dogma.)

Seriously, a n00bie guy in my RCIA class said he was interested in the Cath church because he was in non-Cath churches where he didn't like how they acted: they didn't practice what they preached. I smiled and nodded kinda non-commitally but thought inwardly, "You're gonna find that here, too, buddy. You're never going to successfully avoid people who fall short of high standards, and this is even truer the higher the standards are. Don't look for perfect people. Look for the Lord Jesus."

(Or in the words of a corny old joke:

Mitch: "I ain't goin' to your church, Myrtle. Your church is full of hypocrites." Myrtle: "There's always room for one more." )

:o0

[Moltke]

Thanks for that very informative post!

I’m not going to join the Catholics vs. Protestants debate, but I found the 1500s population numbers by state/region interesting, given current debates about the ‘demographic decline’ in Europe. There are easily ten times as many people in Europe today. Populations may shrink for now, but I doubt they’ll ever decline that far, and likely catch up again in a century or two. And I mean that with regard to age distribution as well. The next couple of decades are going to be problematic, though.

[Rashputin]

I don't know about Europe but in the US I have a ton of Conservative friends who like the free lunches their kids get at school rather than paying every day the way we did when I was a kid. They love their mortgage interest deduction, State and Federal government owning half the land in the country as parks and so forth, public education rather than the "hassles" of a private school and way more than homeschooling, and on and on. So, I think at least in this country you couldn't make a blanket statement on anything except in very broad terms without a very detailed survey being the basis of your conclusions.

I think it was Friedman who was talking about mortgage interest deductions as a bad idea back when Reagan was in office and there were people I know who were pissed off for having voted for Reagan just because someone was even talking about ending their deduction. When Reagan didn't do that, they were once again pleased with the way things were going even though a lot of them thought getting rid of the Education machine Carter created didn't make any difference one way or another. Now, of course, their view on the Education apparatus fascist democrats use as a recruiting and rewards machine is a bit different.

JMHO

[Cronos]

well, I initially did do the research after being baited enough by our Calvinist friends on the supposed puritan work ethic

Incidently on checking it up one sees that the real innovators were in the triangle of Southern England-Northern France-the Netherlands -- including Catholics, Anglicans and Calvinists (no Lutherans) -- but the most innovations were in Southern England arguably.

I think this was more to do with government rather than religion. Religion played a role in that a Christian god can be a "scientist" in that He created scientific rules that the universe follows. This is in opposition to the Islamic god which since the 9th century has been held to be not following any rules, who creates the universe each second -- hence scientific laws are senseless. Or Hindu deities which, though they have rules, are capricious. Buddhism has "rules" but the point is to escape these

Within Christianity, arguably the Orthodox areas (or what is now the Orthodox/ORiental areas in the Eastern Mediterranean) were the most "innovative" until the 12th century even under Islam. But was that religion or culture/economy/trade? -- as Islam expanded and a larger % of the populace became Moslem, then innovation, learning etc. decreased, so it was definitely something "better" with Christianity in that respect, but within Christianity? Difficult to compare as at that time the West was under seige by Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Goths, Vikings, Slavs, Magyars, Baltics etc. and that wasn't resolved until well into the second millenium

in the second millenium the east was increasingly under seige and the West, starting with Italy, the most populated place, developed new innovations

Think of it -- Italian scientists, artists, philosophers, architects etc. dominated Western thought until the Renaissance and arguably after that

So, what was it that allowed Italy to develop and then Anglican England to do so? I would argue for a government that didn't interfere too much, in fact almost "anarchy" in the sense of local governance rather than a strong central governance. But you need to tie that in to a relatively large population and to a religious authority that does not couple tightly with the government -- for the latter, the Anglicans though part of governance were not completely so, because of the division between Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Calvinists.

[Cronos]

you are correct about the demographic change in Europe. In fact in many countries there is large unemployment.

[Moltke]

Thanks for your further thoughts on the topic - I wholly agree with your assessment. Very plausible.