which of you here today buona sera good afternoon and welcome to this meeting it is the last day of our festival and we meet Michael Sandel a few minutes ago mr. Sandell showed me a video that you can find on YouTube of a meeting that he had in young psy which I hope I did not mispronounce and it is a South Korean City and the audience included 14,000 people he told me that there was a system of screens to interact with these 14,000 people so people would interact and discuss and so on and so forth using their screens tonight or this afternoon is going to be a bit easier because we are not quite as many and yet we want to have interaction today as well here in Toronto and we will talk about what money can't buy I think that the roving mics will be used to take the floor from the audience and talk about this thing what I said as a sort of introduction is not to shed light on the immense popularity of a philosopher as is the case with Professor Sun tell but I also share it with you because there is something which I considered to be very important for a publisher because you see the entire intellectual activity of santel focuses on the quality of public debate starting from education learning teaching at Harvard his lectures are followed and attended in a theater accommodating more than 1,000 students and if you see and watch on YouTube you're his course you will see that it is a very interactive approach it is a way of discussing by means of examples and if you read your book his books ariane justice as this one published by feltrinelli he is teaching I was saying is based on some features which entail the fact of providing practical and also imaginary examples and that is the first thing and then the second quality and characteristic is the capability of providing a number of arguments and argue on both sides so to say and also convey the opinions of those who think differently he has a community-based approach in terms of commonality and in this book Sun tell but in general of course conveys the best of the approaches that are based on freedom and on a libertarian attitude against perfection the first book published in italian bison del focused on genetic engineering as well being the possibility of deciding the characteristics of our children and santel argues against this type of engineering genetic engineering is important for health purposes for instance to prevent or control serious problems but when you wanted to have us blue eyes or blond hair or a braver child then that is wrong and he argues on the outside but also conveys the opinions of others that are in favor of genetic engineering so giving the possibility of hearing others opinions I believe it is not only a good philosophy but also a good ingredient in democracy democracy itself that should be common in common discourse and this is the reason why we thought it's very important to have an intellectual such as Michael Sandel taken the floor here at the festival and in his book that has been published by farinelli he conveys a number of very interesting thoughts about economy you know the festival hosts economists but not only economists and we wanted indeed to have an open festival which is a festival which is open to discussion we wanted to talk about the way by which economy influences our life hence the presence of Michael Sandel so I would say that it is the hi the right time now to talk about what money can't buy with Michael Sandel Thank You June gonna cause importantly if I may I would like to add one thing because I'm I promote feltrinelli you see at the end of our meeting after your questions sandal is available to sign copies of the book but please at the exit otherwise it's going to be very complicated so that's it my ad is finished to begin thank you very much to mr. Laterza for that warm and generous introduction today I would like to discuss with you and I do hope we'll have a discussion here a simple question at least a question that's simple to state maybe not so easy to answer and the question is this what should be the role of money and markets in our societies today there are very few things that money can't buy let me begin by saying to you Pepe that if you are ever in Santa Barbara California and sentenced to a jail term if that should ever happen to you if you don't like the standard accommodations in the jail did you know that you can buy a prison cell upgrade to a better cell for how much money do you suppose what would you guess I know it because I hear you saying oh but they it's a it's sir about ninety dollars a night or suppose you go with your family to a theme park or to an amusement park like gardaland the lines are sometimes long the queues now in some places and when I was young part of the experience of going to an amusement park or a theme park was standing on a long queue for the most popular rides this was part of the experience but today in many amusement parks and theme parks certainly in the US and in the UK if you don't like to stand on the long queues you can pay extra and go to the head of the line now this may not seem like a very serious example it may seem quite attractive but you can also buy your way to the head of the line in other places throughout our societies in Washington DC if you want to sit in on a congressional hearing in person and it might be a very popular hearing suppose you're a lobbyist and you don't want to wait in a very long queue maybe for hours and hours maybe overnight maybe in the rain you can go to a company pay them a certain amount of money they will hire a homeless person or someone else who needs the work to stand in the line for you until just before the hearing begins you pay your money and in you go to the front of the line now the name of the company one of these companies is line standing calm what strikes me is that in amusement parks and in more important places like congressional hearings more and more in our societies it's possible to buy ones way to the head of the line to the head of the queue and there are there are new ways in which money and marketing reach into every sphere of life suppose you want to make some extra money and are you you can go to an advertising company there are advertising companies looking for new places to market and advertise products not only in newspapers and on television and on billboards now some advertising companies sell advertising space on people's bodies including their foreheads you can make some extra money if you need some by going to an advertising company and selling space on your forehead for a tattoo advertisement one woman did this who needed money she was a single mother needed money to support the education of her son and do you know how much money she got ten thousand dollars for a permanent tattoo on her forehead unfortunately the company that paid her was an online casino and so she has the name of the casino on her forehead tattoo ads now that this may seem like a small example but what it illustrates is a bigger development in our societies market thinking market reasoning increasingly govern more and more aspects of life and one can see this looking at big institutions we see now more and more in many countries for-profit schools for-profit hospitals for-profit prisons we see also for-profit companies fighting our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there were more private military contractors on the ground in those places than there were US military troops now this isn't because we ever had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies but this is what has happened and this is what I'd like to speak about here in Trento today over the past three decades we've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies the difference is this a market economy is a tool a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity but a market society is a place where everything is up for sale it's a way of life in which market values and market reasoning and market thinking reach into almost every sphere of life family life personal relations health education politics the media civic life today there is almost nothing that money can't buy there are still a few things what are the good things in life that money still can't buy friendship is one if you don't have enough friends and would like a few more and find it difficult perhaps to make friends in the usual way you might it might occur to you to try to buy some friends but then it would quickly occurred to you that it this wouldn't work it's an interesting philosophical question why it wouldn't work why can't money buy friends somehow the money that would buy the good results the good that you're aiming at we all sense that a bought friend is not the same as a real one but with most goods money this isn't true with most goods money does not necessarily dissolve or destroy the good itself consider kidneys or organs for transplantation there are some economists who say that using standard economic logic it would make sense to have a free market in the purchase and sale of kidneys for transplantation there is today an imbalance between the supply and the demand for kidneys people desperately need them why not use a market some economists argue now you may agree or disagree with the idea of a free market in organs human organs for transplantation but with a kidney a kidney is unlike friendship in this respect if you were in need of a kidney and bought one from someone willing to sell the kidney would still work the money would not dissolve the good you're aiming at the kidney would work assuming a good match regardless of the market exchange so kidneys are different from friendship in this respect money can buy a kidney the question is whether it should and this is the exactly the kind of question that I think we in democratic societies need to debate today where two markets belong and where may they do damage to social life or to social practices or to the goods worth aiming at now with most Goods it may be unclear with many goods it may be unclear whether money would dissolve the good being aimed at take not friendship but an expression of friendship when you go to a wedding there are wedding speeches or wedding toasts often by the best friend of the of the groom now these toasts are usually speeches are usually but sometimes they're funny deeply personal sometimes they're sentimental heartwarming but some people are a little bit anxious when they're asked to give a toast to their best friend at a wedding or a speech and today there is help for such people there are websites that will sell wedding speeches personalized wedding speeches one of these websites is called the perfect toast calm you go online you enter some information about your friend about the couple about to be married about how they came to know one another you can tell them whether you want a funny speech or a sentimental one and within three business days they will send you a custom written wedding speech for how much do you suppose a hundred and forty nine dollars including shipping and handling now it's it would seem then that money can buy a personalized heartwarming wedding speech or can it is it the same good now suppose here's a way to think about it suppose that it's your wedding your best friend gave a warm sentimental funny heartwarming speech that brought tears to your eyes and then later you learned that he had bought that speech online how would you feel would it be worth less probably it would so what this suggests is that although money can buy the wedding speech it changes the good it changes the thing that we see it degrades or corrupts or degrades or erodes the value in meaning now this points to a larger question which is when to market mechanisms the use of money cash incentives when do they actually degrade or corrupt or diminish the value of the good or the social practice at stake economists often assume that markets are inert that they are neutral that markets do not touch or taint or change the goods being exchanged and for material goods this is often true if you sell me a flat-screen television or if you give me one as a gift the television will work just as well either way the good will not be changed by the fact that I've bought it from you but with non market goods this may not be true when we're talking about family relations personal relations social and civic life introducing a market mechanism may change and may diminish the meaning of the social practice and yet it's not always obvious when this is so so I would like to put to you a question to do with teaching and learning and the role of cash incentives and I'd be interested to hear what you think about it now in many schools teachers struggle to motivate the students to learn to work hard to score well on tests in a number of large American cities with the help of some economists they are experimenting with a new way of motivating children and students to study pain cash incentives for good grades or for high test scores $50 for an a $35 for a B they've tried this in New York in Chicago in Washington DC in Dallas Texas they offer eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read the goal is admirable to motivate students especially students from struggling families disadvantaged backgrounds to motivate students to study to read but some people object and I would like to put this question to you for discussion let's take a vote we'll take a survey here by a show of hands if you were the head of a school you were in charge of one of these schools and you are trying to find a way to motivate students to improve to work harder how many would favor this proposal and how many would propose it oppose it let's see first raise your hand those of you here who think it might be worth a try paying cash incentives for improved grades or test scores or to read books how many would be in favor raise your hand those of you in favor and not too many how many would be opposed how many would reject this idea there are some people who didn't vote the majority seem to be opposed let's have a discussion let's begin and we have people with microphones throughout the room let's begin by hearing from someone who opposes this practice who thinks it's wrong to pay students for academic improvement or achievement what would be your reason yes in the back stand up and and tell us you're in first tell us your name hi my name is Josephine I think you take the pleasure out of reading if you pay people to do it you take the pleasure out of reading yes I think if you want people to do something you have to make them enjoy it right and I think if you pay somebody to do it they might think of afterwards I can go to the cinema or whatever and they are not really enjoying the moment of reading and I think that is important but Josephine maybe they would say I enjoy making the money yes the goal here is to reach the goal is to read and you can make money in other ways well but what about the idea of reading and making money you're right but still I think that what you need to do is maybe it needs to be an enjoyment so if I think if it becomes an enjoyment people would do it without having to be paid I have to do something you have to be able to do some things without having have to be paid every time otherwise I can pay you for whatever right I understand that's good all right Josephine thank you for that thank you here wait let's let's all right now let's see if there's someone who disagrees with Josephine Josephine worries that if you pay pit students to read they won't learn to love reading they'll just do it for the money and Josephine wants these students to learn to love reading do I have it right all right so that's a strong objection now let's hear from someone who thinks it would be worth trying this experiment and let's see if you can reply to Josephine's argument against and I want to say you can answer the question in Italian as well as English because thanks to this machine I understand Italian so please feel free to speak in either language and who thinks this plan would be worth a try and has a reply to Josephine's argument go ahead I am my name is Luka Luka yes as for the reading part be necessary to be enjoyed I don't agree I think the main purpose of the program would be to improve test scores and not necessarily to have people reads more containing Austen novels you wouldn't you don't think it's worth much to pay people to read a Jane Austen novel yes I wouldn't pay any more maybe if some if somebody's learning and reading a calculus book or physics or something that is going to improve test scores you would pay them to read a a calculus book but not in Austin it depends I mean the marginal value is different the marginal value is different are you are you an economist by any chance I like to think yeah how did I get well that way let me just ask then one follow-up if the marginal value of reading a calculus book is higher than reading Jane Austen why not offer different financial rewards that's we could have these different schemes yes they coming to my next point I think it's also depends on the size of the offer obviously like if I offer one dollar it it's not that much it's just an incentives maybe I can think of my if I'm doing it reading the calculus book and I'm glad I get one dollar for it I can say I do it for an ulterior reason for myself and for one buck maybe I can go to a cinema I would do it anyways but I do it with an ulterior motive obviously if it becomes more of if I want to earn a lot of money then the motive becomes to to reach for the money not actually to understand calculus if we stay with but then but then that comes close to Josephine's point doesn't it yes he comes close but it depends on the size I mean depends on how much is being offered so if we're just talking about two dollars no one you think would read a calculus book just for two dollars yeah it needs to be balanced he didn't know all right all right thank you for that who else who else would like to add to this discussion and say why he or she would favor this idea I think it might be worth trying yeah this old Sir Robert Johnson okay all right let's hear first year go ahead and then we'll come well I think you should teachers given that if he studies something if you read something then you will achieve something in the future so the reward he will get will be just postponed and so you you would pay them no not he would I would teach them that they would get a reward in the future so they have to do that if they want to achieve their goals in the future and what would the real future reward be would you talk about it depends according to each one for someone would be to do something they lie for some other one would be to have a lot of money so they will read and study what they think it's more useful for them to reach their goals but suppose if for the eight-year-old suppose that doesn't work well yeah that's the teaching part like parents and teachers they shall convey this idea to them okay what do you think I wouldn't offer that there is a benefit to society above and beyond what happens to any individual from reading and the growth of imagination so you would strengthen the democracy and you would strengthen the Society by having all of us we they are but it is worth subsidizing for that reason so you would pay them yes and how do you answer Josephine's worry that by paying them you might cultivate bad habits you might teach the wrong lesson you might teach them that reading is simply it's a chore to be done for pay how do you how would you reply to that argument I would reply that sometimes you have to do something in order to experience the joy of it and an incentive like a threshold that houses you in that direction might engender all of you otherwise would have missed so it could be that the student who reads for the two dollars falls in love with reading and doesn't need to be paid in subsequently and then and then you don't have to pay them any more and then all as well and then you've not crowded out the intrinsic love of reading you've kindled that you've inspired it you've kick-started it with the money and then the money can stop what about that Josephine what do you say to that that the money could get the young people reading and then they will fall in love with reading and then you won't have to pay them anymore I think it's difficult because you start in a certain mindset because I start reading because I get paid and so you do not really read I think for enjoyment you read for the wrong reason yes and if you're in that mindset I think it's difficult to change I'm I'm a teacher oh you're a teacher okay yes and what how old are the students you know they're at university okay University yes yes and I think maybe now everybody all my students are thinking is she really saying this but I think you need people to enjoy so you need to have some enthusiasm so that they will go out and have the enthusiasm to find out stuff by themselves because I only have a certain amount of time to teach them stuff but I cannot do that so what I try to convey Saul so give them some enthusiasm give them some some joy to go out and look for it yeah themselves the love of learning for its own sake yeah and also it's yeah I teach languages so I tell them at a certain point when you learn the languages you discover a whole world right and it's out there for you to discover okay so you try to point to the intrinsic importance and love that you're trying to nurture among the students I think you learn best when you enjoy it okay I got it I've got it that's very powerful all right I want to thank everyone who's participated in this round of the discussion really good really good comments on both sides now I should say about what's happened with these experiments so far paying for good grades or high test scores doesn't seem to have worked in most places paying the kids to read books the two dollars for each book did lead those students to read more books it also led them to read shorter books but the but the real question is the one that has been but the real question is the one we've just been debating which is what will happen to these kids in the long run what happened what will happen when the money stops now in one view what may happen is the incentive scheme may expose the students to reading they may fall in love with reading for its own sake in which case when the money stops they will continue there they will continue reading books and learning and loving reading or it could turn out the other way it could be is Josephine worries that the monetary payment will teach the wrong lesson and that that lesson is what will last and stay and if that's what happens then these students may find it difficult to learn or to acquire the intrinsic love of reading and learning what this example suggests is that it may be unclear in any given case whether the use of a cash incentive or a market mechanism will support or corrupt the intrinsic good of an activity in this case learning to love reading for its own sake but that in order to decide whether to use a market mechanism we have to ask not only about economic efficiency and we have to ask not only how many more books to those kids read the in a given year we have to ask what is the good that we are aiming at what is the larger purpose the larger purpose after all it's not to maximize the number of books read in that year the larger purpose in this case of Education is to cultivate a lifetime love of learning and reading and that's a normative question that's an attitude toward reading that's a norm that's a value and so we have to ask whether the market mechanism will support that value or whether it will corrupt it or degrade it or erode it or crowded out some years ago in Switzerland they were trying to decide where to locate a nuclear waste site no community once won in its backyard they identified a small town in the mountains of Switzerland as likely to be the safest place but under the law the community had to approve and so before the decision was made a survey was done of the residents of this small Swiss town and they were asked if the Parliament chooses your town for the nuclear waste site will you vote to approve it 51% said yes then they asked a second question they improved the offer they said suppose Parliament chooses your town for the nuclear waste site and offers to pay in compensation each resident of the town a yearly amount of money up to six thousand euros then would you be willing to accept now how many people were willing to approve do you think what would you say SiC a hundred percent 60 percent sixty percent what do you think eighty percent less than before the number the number willing to approve when the money was offered fell in half from 51 to 25 percent it fell in half now now from the standpoint from the standpoint of standard economic reasoning from the standpoint of standard economic reasoning this is a puzzle this is a paradox because the standard price effect in every economics textbook teaches that if you offer money to do if you offer people money to do something more of them will be willing to do that thing not fewer so what happened in the Swiss town who has an explanation what do you think yes stand up and look and maybe because before they were doing it for the public good and then they understood it was more for the money and the money wasn't worth suddenly so so the public good was better than the money in this case I think okay so here's then what's your name Nicola Nicola Nicole Nicole says that before they were doing it for the public good out of a sense of civic responsibility but when the money was offered it became a different kind of choice a different kind of transaction it became a matter of a financial transaction and that does seem to be the reason that the number fell in half when the money was offered they asked the people why did you change her mind when the money was offered many of them said we didn't want to be bribed why was the money understood as a bribe well abroad suggests a corrupt monetary offer that's what we mean by a bribe isn't it something that that corrupts but what was corrupted here exactly what was corrupting well as Nicole suggested a sense of civic responsibility among those who were willing to make the sacrifice without the payment but when they were offered money they felt here I'm being asked to accept money to expose myself and my family to grave risk and I'm not willing many of them felt to sell out that's what it felt like selling out the safety of my family for the sake of money if it's so what had been a civic question a question of the public good was changed by the introduction of the monetary offer into a financial transaction and so here was an example where the introduction of a market mechanism or a cash incentive did not leave things just as they were the money crowded out or corrupted the higher motivation the sense of civic responsibility in Israel there was a kindergarten a daycare center that experienced a familiar problem parents coming late to pick up their children and so also with the help of some economists the daycare center the kindergarten established a fine for late arriving parents what do you suppose happened well I think that everybody would come on time as this thing as is the case with the Regional Council in trend if we have to pay the fine we all arrive on time how much is the fine but how much is the fine in Toronto 50 50 euros that's hot that's more well what happened in the kindergarten in the daycare center when they established a fine the opposite happened more parents came late more parents came late now why why do you think more parents came late again from the standpoint of standard economic analysis if you put a price on something or if you increase the price fewer people will do that thing or consume that good but here more people came late more parents came late and paid the fine why do you suppose that happened yes in the orange in the orange yes hi my new statements who were I think maybe they for today of freedom was at stake so they were the ones wanted to fight for their freedom - freedom become late to fight for their freedom to come late yes they could have fought for their freedom to come late when it was before their the freedom wasn't at stake or before their freedom wasn't at stake but they did but how free were they they came late and they paid the money they paid the money maybe the the fine wasn't high enough it's possible so if the fine how high would the fine have to be in order to reduce the late arrivals it depends in Switzerland radda high and Easter Oh two parts might be in a poor state all right yeah there were a million dollars for a late arrival probably that would have been more coming on time like like the with the Trento councils but it's still that may be true thank you for that it was it may be true and still there is something here to explain and what seems to be the case is as something similar to what happened in the Swiss town the parents before when they came late when there was no fine parents felt guilty for coming late they were imposing on the teachers who had to stay with their children until they arrived but once there was a fine once there was a monetary payment they treated the fine as if it were a fee for a late arrival and they felt they were paying a babysitting fee something like that and so the guilt the sense of obligation to arrive on time went away now they were just paying for a service so the financial payment changed the meaning of the late arrival and increased late arrivals when the kindergarten saw the effect of the fine they removed it but do you know what happened the new pattern of increased late arrivals continued which suggests something of quite far-reaching consequence it suggests that once markets and cash incentives and market mechanisms erode or crowd out non market attitudes and values in this case the sense of responsibility to show up on time it's not easy to reverse because attitudes values norms these can be corrupted or eroded or diminished by market relations but they can't easily and quickly be turned back on as if it were a light switch because often on market values and norms and attitudes require time and shared understandings to cultivate and to build up now what these examples suggest I think there are two implications for the discussions we've had about teaching and learning about the nuclear waste site about the parents showing up late to pick up their children but these examples show is that contrary to mainstream economic analysis markets do not leave the world unchanged sometimes introducing a market mechanism or a cash incentive may crowd out non market values and attitudes worth caring about and if that's true then in order to decide when to use markets and where to use markets it's not enough simply to ask about economic efficiency it's also necessary to ask whether the market mechanism will disturb or corrupt or drive out non-market attitudes values and norms worth caring about and if they do is the gain in efficiency worth the loss in the attitudes and values if that's the question we have to ask in order to decide where markets serve the public good and where they don't belong then economics as a discipline as a science needs to change because in recent decades really going back to the early 20th century economics has presented itself as a value neutral science of human behavior and many textbooks still teach economics in this way but with these examples and our discussion suggests is that economics is not a value neutral science that economics unavoidably rests on certain claims about values and about moral and political philosophy that economists many economists not all ignore when calculating economic efficiency so if this is right one implication is that we need to challenge two assumptions of mainstream economics the assumption that markets are value neutral and also a second assumption many economists might listen to the discussion we've had into the conclusions I've drawn from it and offer the following objection yes it's true they might say economics rests on assumptions of self-interest that's a good thing because generosity altruism civic virtue are rare commodities that we need to conserve and so it's better that we rely on self-interest when we can one of the most famous examples of markets driving out non market values involves blood human blood in the 1970s a sociologist a British sociologist rich timís wrote a book comparing the system of blood donation in the US and in the UK in the UK there was no market in blood only donated blood in the u.s. you could donate blood or you could buy and sell it tidmouth showed that contrary to arguments and expectations about efficient about economic efficiency the system with no market in blood actually worked better in economic terms produced a better supply a more reliable supply a healthier supply of blood then one that included a market in blood but he also made another point which is allowing a market in blood though it doesn't require anyone who wants to donate blood to sell nonetheless a market in blood he found or he argued crowds out the intrinsic sorry the altruistic impulse to donate blood Ted misses book about blood was reviewed by a one of the most famous economists of his generation Kenneth arrow an arrow said he thought this was a puzzling conclusion one of the arguments arrow made was we should rely on self-interest the market to allocate blood as a way of conserving the scarce resource of altruism and generosity so that we would have it when we really need it here's what arrow wrote I do not want like many economists I do not want to rely too heavily on substituting ethics for self-interest I think it is best on the whole that the requirement of ethical behavior be confined to those circumstances where the price system breaks down we do not wish to use up recklessly the scarce resources of altruistic motivation this is Errol so the idea and this is an idea this is not an official principle that you find in the textbooks it's not like the law of supply and demand but this assumption that virtue needs to be economized that it exists in fixed supply this assumption runs very deep among many economists and it fuels the faith in markets we can't rely too much this argument says I'm civic virtue and generosity and altruism and benevolence because we will use them up we will spend them down as if they were like fossil fuels in fix supply I think this metaphor is misleading altruism generosity solidarity civic virtue these are not like commodities that are depleted with use there are more like muscles that are strengthened with exercise and that makes a difference for our public life and for democratic life I think one of the defects one of the weaknesses of the market driven societies we inhabit is that there are fewer and fewer occasions to exercise these civic virtues these generous virtues and that the result is not to conserve them so that they are available intact for moments when we really need them the effect has been the opposite the effect has been to get us out of the habit of asking more of one another as fellow citizens that is one of the corrosive effects of societies increasingly driven by market values and market thinking and market reasoning there's one other habit that we've lost in an age of market faith against a background of rising inequality putting a price on everything leads to a growing separation between the affluent and those of modest means there are fewer and fewer occasions when rich and poor come together in the common spaces of democratic life in so many of our societies now after three decades of market triumphalism we find that the affluent and those of modest means live and work and shop and play in different places we send our children to different schools this isn't good for democracy nor is it a satisfying way to live even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the queue and the reason is this democracy does not require perfect equality but it does require that men and women from different backgrounds encounter one another bump up against one another in the course of their everyday lives because this is how we learn to negotiate our differences and this is how we come to care for the common good and so in the end the question of markets is not only it's not even mainly an economic question it's really a question of how we want to live together do we want a society where everything is up for sale or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy thank you very much so you have a to a confection when yo pens okay well I think that irrespective of what you think the way of putting forward arguments by santel has been very interesting and stimulating for us all irrespective of what we think and this is again the approach that you want to have at the festival of economics and they'll arrive today but I told him that over the past days we had different clashing opinions as well about the very same topics which were seen from different standpoint I would say that we have 10 15 minutes at our disposal if you want so I would say that if you have questions if you want to put forward different opinions and typically for their economists we also accept questions from them and not only from economists of course but if you have questions if you have doubts if you think that something that was said was too partial please this is the right moment to make a comment please state her name good evening Felicia Felicia Zambelli Felicia is the name I really appreciated what you told us but perhaps you also well you should have mentioned voluntary work as well and the culture of voluntary work I'm quite aged and I spent my entire life with voluntary work and blood donation as well 16 years at the Red Cross and the Italian Association for organ donation so I would really invite all young people to do voluntary work because that makes us better people they will mature more and that will also bring a de different generations closer to continue life together thank you I agree but Cultra other questions comment thanks a lot for them interesting thanks a lot for interesting speech just is not it's a provocative question there's a paper of Alex on mm I think you know it is the market for social norms so basically the idea is it's possible through market mechanism to achieve social norms creation effective or efficient or even good if you wanna in a value stuff through market mechanism so I would say well it's through market could frame badly some situation but it's not always it's not necessarily at the kata mean between markets and good norms well thank you for the question I think it is sometimes possible that market mechanisms or cash incentives could encourage rather than corrupt social norms or civic norms or moral norms non market norms in fact the debate we had about paying to read reflects this one suggestion was that the cash incentive could get the child to begin reading but having begun the child would develop and learn the love of reading and an and a social norm or an intrinsic valuation of reading might be the result and if that were the effect of this system in the school there would be a very strong case for it all I'm suggesting is that it can work both ways and typically it works in the opposite direction from this hopeful scenario typically it works in the opposite direction we're introducing a market mechanism or a cash incentive may undermine or crowd out the social norm or the civic norm as in the Swiss nuclear waste a case where the money crowded out or drove out the Civic motivation the willingness to sacrifice so all I'm really suggesting though is that it can work both ways and we have to take account of that effect of of the effect of markets on norms and to evaluate the even if we can determine what that effect is likely to be in a given case we have also to assess the effect on norms is wit and that's an aura that's that's a a question of values it's not a value neutral question what norms do we want to encourage with regard to teaching and learning or with regard to civic shared Civic sacrifice with regard to military service with regard to criminal punishment with regard to family life what norms should we want to protect that's a that's a question of values and yet many much Economic Analysis forgets that forgets that there can be an effect on norms for better or for worse often for worse and if that's the case then economics can't really think of itself or present itself as a value neutral science that's my main argument I just said but at least 30 years of crowding out theory in well it's not mainstream economics but at least 30 years of crowding out theories of economists that study this stuff so it's just I mean I stand for the professional well the crowding out theory that has been developed as you say rightly and that can you call me review I mean econometric a paper so I mean pop Jonah's already recognized this stuff I think that's all to the good and I don't deny it for a moment but what I am what I am suggesting is that given the crowding out effect which as you say is increasingly recognized by if not mainstream economists by many economists who are doing important work and writing in journals the crowding out effect has more far-reaching results than the crowding out economists for the behavioural economists have worked out and articulated and the because it's one thing to say this may confound the prediction about the effect of a cash incentive and that point has been made by the crowding out literature I agree but it's a further question about how we should evaluate this norm being crowded out or that and that's a question of moral and political philosophy that's my point and therefore once you except once when accepts the crowd the crowding out effect which I agree has been written about it there's a further more far-reaching I would say maybe even radical implication which is that we need that the economists way economists should be involved in evaluating the norms that are crowded in or crowded out and that evaluative project requires that economics reconnect with moral and political philosophy as it was when economics was invented back in the days of Adam Smith there was one subject economics was understood as a branch of moral and political philosophy now not as an autonomous discipline and I think that's what we need to go back to I think that's what the crowding out literature points us to to re re integrating economics into a broader field of moral and political economy or as it would be described these days moral and political philosophy and many economists I think would hesitate to be subsumed under that broader broader liberal that's all ya'mo came for portugal team Adama we have some time for the very last question in the microphone plays in the microphone plays in the microphone please my name is Mauricio Mauricio and I'm a sociologist but the spectacle area yesterday in this theatre Stefano Dada agreed with you on the extension of market mechanism and we can say the commodification of life in an extensive way contemporary society and as a person with a background in law and songs definite argued that one of the boundaries that we can put to the extension of market mechanism is the recognizes of strong individual rights so I'm wondering from your perspective because you have pointed out very well how market thinking is in some way corrupting our way of living or as corruptive our way of living I was wondering from the point of view of constructing or reconstructing new ways of living that marginalize the negative effect of market mechanism if you agree with ratata that individual rights are the starting point or if you can find any other argument I think individual rights are important for their own sake I don't see them as the primary solution to market-driven societies they are important for their own sake the reason I don't see them as a sufficient response to the commodification of social life is that it's perfectly possible to have a political system a political order and a constitution that requires and enforces respect for rights for individual rights freedom of speech freedom of the press freedom of assembly and Association privacy rights human rights perfectly possible to have a system that respects all of those individual rights and yet still is a society where many social goods and practices are corrupted by being dominated by money and markets and so what I think we need to do is to go beyond in order to have a public debate here's another way of putting the question what passes for public discourse these days is pretty impoverished during the same three decades when the market triumphalist faith has predominated these have also been decades when put the public life of most democracies in the public discourse have been hollowed out emptied of larger meaning and purpose and I think there's a connection between these two things part of the appeal of market reasoning is that it seems to enable us to make social decisions without engaging in explicit public debate about contested ethical questions including questions of justice and the common good and civic virtue market seemed to offer a neutral mechanism that spares us as Democratic citizens the need to reason together and argue together about the proper way of valuing goods whether it's teaching and learning or procreation and child-rearing in the case of paid pregnancy and surrogate motherhood it seems to spare us all of those hard ethical controversies in public life so I think what we need beyond a regime of respect for individual rights we need a public discourse that engages more directly with contested questions about the common good and about the good life we shrink from these debates not only because we're in the grip of market reasoning but also because we in pluralist societies know that people disagree about the good life and about how to value everything from pregnancy to military service to prison cell upgrades we disagree about those values and so we shrink from them but I think that has led to a public politics preoccupied with narrow managerial technocratic questions and we've lost the ability as Democratic citizens to reason together about big questions that matter including questions of justice and the common good and civic virtue and how we want to live together so respect for individual rights is important it can be a prerequisite for that kind of debate but it can't be a substitute for that kind of debate and so I think we need to have a morally more robust kind of public discourse from the kind to which we've become accustomed if we're big to be to define the moral limits of Marcus not because we'll agree on every question but because it will make for a healthier democratic life meaning gracio I thank you very much for being here thank you Michael Sandel that was a wonderful end of our meeting and then we have the next meeting where the Nobel Prize winner merliss earlier on professor sundar said something fundamental which is that altruism and generosity are not scarce commodities but as muscles they increase with exercise I think that that goes also for public discourse and for the capability of putting forward argument so this is the core of our democracy this is something that we try and do with all our limits at the first of all the commandments we will continue doing so also thanks to the enormous success we had in these very days thank you so much for for participating so much thanks to all that all of you and thank you to Michael son Dale shiragami Lucy Carmichael sandal maraschino Lavinia you