Content uploaded by Robin Wensley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Wensley on May 31, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
Market Ideology, Globalization and Neoliberalism
Robin Wensley
Foreword
It is rather ironic that this chapter is being written in the middle of what might
well become the Great Crash of 2008/9. The twin topics of the culture of
consumption (and the way in which non-sustainable levels of debt have
facilitated its continued growth) and the need for regulation within markets are
very much top of the agenda at the time of writing. By way of some defence
against the accusation of just applying 20:20 hindsight, I would like to point
out that a significant proportion of this chapter was covered in an earlier
Masterclass session given to the Marketing Society (Wensley1997)!
In this chapter we will cover the central issues from two different perspectives.
First in terms of market ideology, we will critically analyse the development
and evolution of what might reasonably be termed the hegemony of neo-
liberal perspectives on the efficacy of markets and market mechanism in a
wide range of contexts. Then we will consider what might be termed cultural
issues from the primary perspective of issues of identity and how it relates to
some of the issues of global markets. Finally we will consider how these
aspects relate to the broader issue of social welfare.
“THE MAGIC OF THE MARKET”
In public policy, we often associate market ideology with the Ronald Reagan
quote “The magic of the market” although many before him had also seen the
solution to problems of welfare and choice in Adam Smith’s hidden or, more
correctly invisible, hand. In passing it is worth noting two particular issues
about Adam Smith’s writing. First, in his Wealth of Nationsi as previous
commentators have noted, Adam Smith actually paid little attention to the
notion of the invisible hand – it basically appears in almost a footnote onlyii –
and paid much more attention to his concerns relating to the wider public
interest and the behaviour of cartels of producers or professionals. Second he
had a clear view that the market or markets operated within the context of a
wider set of norms and values.
Market ideology has come to be associated with two related but different
aspects of the political economy. First a belief that the market represents a
means of achieving appropriate welfare outcomes through the process of
choice and competition and second that such an approach can be extended
to the provision of many domains previously defined by what have been called
public services.
We will consider a number of aspects that have arisen particularly in this
extension of the market domain. Some of these aspects have been around
since Adam Smith’s initial observations, others have at the very least come to
1
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
the fore more recently. To start with the one closely linked to Adam Smith: as
Bishop (1995) notes:
“a close reading of the Wealth of Nations reveals that Smith thought the
interests of merchants and manufacturers were fundamentally opposed to
those of society in general, and that they had an inherent tendency to deceive
and oppress society while pursuing their own interests.” ( 165)
Hence, the issue of regulation or intervention to ensure that the producers do
not, either explicitly or implicitly collude to privilege their individual or collective
interests against the public interests of the wider community. As the remit of
public services provided by private suppliers has extended in national
contexts such as the UK so has the number and range of regulatory agencies.
Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand
The logic of the ‘invisible hand’ is the clear assumption that the individual
pursuit of self interest is much more likely to increase overall social welfare
than alternatives such as the actions of governments or politicians (Tobin
1991, 1992). Of course, this assumption has been subject to a great deal of
scrutiny and critical analysis although it is difficult not to conclude that, in the
end, most commentators have, not perhaps surprisingly read their own
interpretations into Adam Smith’s text. For instance, Tobin (1992) comments:
" Adam Smith is not responsible for the excesses committed in his name. His
main purpose was to opposed protectionism and other regulations favouring
special interests at the expense of the general public. His important message
was that the accumulation of precious metals by contriving trade surpluses
was contrary to the national interest, for the true wealth of a nation lay in its
capacity to deliver useful goods and services to its citizens. Modern
microeconomists of all shades would agree and usually do.
...The Wealth of Nations is a very down-to-earth book, with a simple thematic
moral, a rudimentary theoretical model, an imaginative intuition, a vast
collection of historical and institutional material, and a great deal of wisdom
and common sense. Perhaps looser claims for the invisible hand, less
sweeping. less rigorous and less abstract than general equilibrium models,
would be more congenial to Smith. Second-best claims that admit market
failures but say governments are worse. " ( 127-128)
The other side of individual self-interest is the issue of distribution of wealth
and the question of individual morality. On both questions it is important to
recognise that Adam Smith placed strong emphasis on a 'god fearing' world in
which all was to the Almighty’s design. Viner (1927) argued cogently that
Smith's belief in an optimistic theology meant that he regarded issues of both
wealth distribution and self-interest as relatively unproblematic. In the context
of the later, he notes;
2
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
"Nowhere in the Wealth of Nations does Smith place any reliance for the
proper working of the economic order upon the operation of benevolence and
sympathy... benevolence is not merely as a rule left out of the picture of the
economic order, when mentioned it is with the implication that it is a weak
read upon which to depend"
The context of this quotation is however itself significant it refers to the
“Wealth of Nations” and does not include Adam Smith’s other and earlier work
indeed the one on which his reputation initially was established, “The Theory
of Moral Sentiments”. In this case he uses the notion of the invisible hand in
rather a different context to refer more generally to the distribution of means to
happiness rather than economic maximisation iii. As Billet comments:
"Smith is severely critical of the pursuit of wealth and power in his work on
morality and yet maintains a positive attitude toward wealth in his political
economy. The supposed contradiction can be resolved when one realizes that
in the Wealth of Nations, his sympathy towards 'bettering one's condition'
expresses the preoccupation of political economy with the subsistence and
comfort of the masses, and that he has already provided in his earlier book an
explicit and comprehensive critique of 'riches' and the pursuit of power, aimed
at admonishing the rich and enlightening the receptive". ( 1976: 302)
Djelic (2005, 20037a and 20073b) has developed a similar analysis in much
more thorough and systematic manner to argue that whilst the original notion
of the invisible hand as partially developed by Adam Smith recognised a wider
social and political context, there was a gradual development of the so-called
neo-liberal synthesis, with the convergence, particularly in the US political
economy, of a number of key influences:
“In the twentieth century, the emergence of neoliberalism represented an
emerging synthesis. All three bodies of thought – economic liberalism,
Calvinist doctrine and Spencerian evolutionism – were present and combined
in this synthesis. At the same time, the neoliberal synthesis pushed forward a
process already well under way – the disenchantment of economics and
economic activity. Rationalization, individualism, utilitarianism, laissez faire
and a belief in progress remained as key building blocks. ..The profound
meaning, though, the legitimacy and the moral backbone that had been
understood to sustain economic activity, at least in classical economy and in
the Calvinist worldview, had all but disappeared” ( Djelic 20073b: 28)iv
It is hardly surprising therefore that in the early nineties, the American
Marketing Association decided it could do no better than break with it's own
tradition of change and repeat it's annual slogan "Marketing makes a good life
better"!
Different Forms of Capitalism
There has been much discussion about the extent to which one can identify
different forms of capitalism on a national or a regional basis. A key writer in
3
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
this area has been Richard Whitley (1999) who identifies six different forms of
capitalism or “national business systems”: Arm’s length, Collaborative
State organized, Highly organized, Fragmented, and Coordinated industrial
district. Amable (2003) adopts a more specific geographic approach to come
up with five types: Market-based model, Social-democratic model, Continental
European model, Asian model, and Mediterranean model.
Djelic (2007a) develops a more conceptual approach to suggest that there are
four “ideal types”. The two dimensions she uses relate to whether value is
mostly appropriated for “unproductive” use or mostly reinvested and whether
the value created goes mostly to private interests or to a collective. This leads
to four simple ideal-types that are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1: The Use of Surplus Value in Capitalism
reproduced with permission from Djelic Marie-Laure (2007a)
In her matrix, it is clear that in principle at least she sees an underlying logic
which could result in the existence of different “forms” of capitalism over
extended periods. Whether we regard there as being a specific form that will
become dominant as an inevitable process of evolution might be seen as a
question analogous to that raised by Fukuyama in his polemical treatise on
“The end of history”
However, in the context of the current global political economy, she notes:
“Contemporary capitalism clearly falls into the top line; and it has increasingly
been moving (back), over the period studied, towards the predatory cell. Fifth,
and finally, extreme commodification and a predatory pattern of use of surplus
value combine to generate and reinforce imbalances and inequalities –
economic, social, cultural, political and geopolitical. In spite of an
unmistakable progress of democratization and in spite of facilitating global
technologies, our world is not “flat” (Friedman 2005). Arguably, the
stratification in our world – as measured by differences in wealth and power
between those who have most and those who have least – may be historically
unprecedented. Contemporary capitalism comes together with new and
strong forms of stratification that increasingly have a transnational and not
simply a national scope” ( 31).
The question therefore remains whether the apparently inexorable trend that
she notes towards the model of predatory capitalism now faces a challenge
that could mean a halt or indeed even reversal. We may have to rethink the
relationship between the wider political economy and the nature of specific
markets and consider more critically both the relationship between and the
4
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
related doctrine of market failure. In the first case we may revisit some of the
issues raised by Kelner (1984) in his article on the relationship between
markets and socialism. In the later case we need to consider the recent
renewal of attacks on the use of the principle of market failure as the sole
legitimate justification for market intervention.
The Failure of Market Failure?
There has also been a significant revival in challenges to the hegenomy of
market-based approaches ( often general described as the process of
marketisation ) behind critical questioning of the policy doctrine of market
failure. Under this doctrine intervention in the market place is only justified if
there is clear evidence of market failure. Both Kay (2007) and Hutton and
Schneider (2008) strongly suggest that there needs to be a much clearer
recognition that not only do markets rarely reflect the ideal aspects
incorporated in neo-liberal theory but that it also makes little sense to treat
such idealised concepts as a realistic objective for economic policy.
However we now wish to shift our analysis from the general issues of the
nature of the political economy to the developments and concerns around the
nature of consumption. Of course there are links between these two
perspectives: indeed some have noted that until recently major parts of the
world economy continued to achieve economic growth through a process of
“privatised Keynesianism” where the banks encouraged more and more
private debt rather than the more traditional Keynesian use of public funds
( Bellofiore and Halevi 2008)
The Emergence of the BRIC economies
In the last few years, particularly in the financial and investment community
there has been an increasing focus on emerging and developing markets in
the BRIC (Brazil, Russia India and China) economies. The acronym was first
coined and prominently used by the bank holding company Goldman Sachs in
2001. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050
the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies
of the current richest countries of the world.
Of course, this was a projection about the overall size of the economies
themselves, and therefore by implication their importance to the global
economy, rather than a comment on their wealth per capita or indeed the
distribution of such wealth. In these wider issues of political economies it is
also clear that the likely balance between state, market and civil society
(Benington 2007) in each of the emerging economies will be quite different
which will pose both individually and collectively a further challenge to the
neo-liberal consensus.
Indeed a closer analysis of the BRIC “phenomenon” not only helps us to see
how a general notion of “otherness” can be used to mask what are in fact very
different types of entity but also that the actual pattern of the further
5
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
development of a global economy is both more contended and more complex
than often represented in debates about such phenomena as global markets.
GLOBALISATION, CULTURE AND IDENTITY
The neo-liberal consensus comes to its final form, at least from a marketing
perspective in the notion of unfettered markets and global consumers. This
“utopian” ideal was perhaps characterised from a marketing viewpoint most
clearly by Ted Levitt when he asserted:
“The worldwide success of a growing list of products that have become
household names is evidence that consumers the world over, despite deep-
rooted cultural differences, are becoming more and more alike” (1983)
In consequence, he contended, the traditional multi-national corporation
strategy of tailoring its products to the needs of multiple markets put it at a
severe disadvantage vis-a-vis competitors who applied marketing imagination
to the task of developing advanced, functional, reliable standardized products,
at the right price, on a global scale.
Least this sound a little too much like a supplier driven process to foister a
uniform product or service on the customerv, there was also a parallel
narrative which focused on the privileging of a consumer rather than a
producer culturevi. As Paul DuGay observed:
" Governing economic life in an enterprising manner is intimately bound up
with the de-differentiation of economy and culture - with a pronounced blurring
between the sphere of 'production' and 'consumption', the 'corporate' and
'culture'. As the language of the market becomes the only valid vocabulary of
moral and social calculation, the 'privilege of the producer' is superseded by
the 'sovereignty of the consumer', with 'civic culture' gradually giving way to
'consumer culture' as citizens are reconceptualized as 'enterprising
consumers'".
It is noteworthy however that not only have there been different views
proclaimed about the inevitability of such trends: such as the global-local
dilemma that Levitt referred to: slogans such as “Think Global; Act Local”
have acquired considerable currency albeit at some significant loss of
specificity! Also rather ironically some of those who have proclaimed what
they see as the evident benefits in welfare terms for such an outcome have
most often been vociferous in their critique of what they see as the opposite
trend ( see for instance, Epstein 2004).
More recently, two developments are particularly worthy of additional note: the
challenge to what might seen as the “branding of everything”, and the ways in
which some of the issues of identity reintroduce what might be broadly be
termed cultural variables such as religion.
The Branding of Everything
6
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
Naomi Klein (2000) and Conley (2008) both from rather different perspectives
have forcefully challenged the extent to which consumer marketing focuses
on “branding”. Klein is particularly concerned by the attempt, as she sees it, to
distance the brand image itself from the realities of the production and
distribution process in a global economy. For a rather more nuanced and
reflective commentary of some of these issues it is also worth reading Tully
(2003), and for a more detailed analysis of some of the issue in the area of
food production and consumption, see Roos et al (2007).
Conley focuses more on the extent to which branding is used as the sole
means to achieve authenticity:
“The object of the great phalanx of brand-mongers and "experiential
marketers" is to tap into every facet of human contact with the world and
manage it so that only that which is marketed seems genuine”.
Again there are strong resonances with some of the issues raised earlier by
writers such as Fromm (1990), with his critique of ownership as the prime
definition of identity and meaning.
Identity, Ethnicity and Belief
Lindridge (2005) conducted an interesting empirical study looking at
differences in consumption patterns between British consumers, Indian
emigrants, and Indians. Overall, as the executive summary of his article
notes:
“All religions have something to say about consumption either directly or
indirectly. The great religions all promote a framework of ethics that influence
what we consume and the manner in which we approach. consumption. And
as religion becomes less important, individuals get closer to the position
Lindridge associates with British Whites where only the shadow of religious
association remains. As British Indians see religion as less significant in their
lives, their consumption behaviour becomes more similar to that of the
majority community”
Some would argue that this can be seen as confirmation of convergent
tendencies but only in a very particular manner: by the immigrants towards
the consumption pattern of what might be termed the indigenous population.
We also need to consider what patterns might emerge for Hindi immigrants to
India. On top of this it is worth remembering the observation by the late Robin
Cook on the Britishness of some Indian food:
“Chicken Tikka Massala is now a true British national dish, not only because it
is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain
absorbs and adapts external influences. Chicken Tikka is an Indian dish. The
Massala sauce was added to satisfy the desire of British people to have their
meat served in gravy.” (Robin Cook, 2001)
7
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
It is therefore far from clear how far whether in the longer run; we are actually
witnessing an overall “homogenization” of consumer tastes or more a parallel
set of processes of convergent and divergent trends in different sub-domains.
We also referred earlier to the “End of History” perspective, although we can
now see particularly with the advantage of hindsight that, as Fukuyama
himself has recognised his initial treatise severely underestimated the
importance of religion and ideologyvii. it is indeed time to revisit these major
assertions about the nature of global markets through the further empirical
evidence of the last 20-30 years
Markets And The Wider Issues Of Social Welfare
The other key area in which the neo-liberal consensus is now under critical
scrutiny goes back to our original commentary on the wider social welfare
aspects. Here again we can see some clear forebodings of the current crisis.
For instance, in a careful summary of the empirical evidence of privatisations
of public assets in various countries and particular of the earlier Mexican and
Asian financial crises, Bathala and Korukonda (2003) note that:
“The discussion and the data analysis .. clearly show that the underlying
causes that have led to the Mexican and Asian crises are not due to the
existence of free markets per se but are due to their abuse… Then important
lesson from these crises is that free market benefits come at a cost. In order
for the free markets to contribute to social gains and pareto improvements, it
is important that the respective governments, regulators, bankers and market
participants exercise diligence and restraint”, (865).
In a more detailed study which reviewed the experience in the UK specifically,
Taylor-Gooby et al (2004) concluded:
“The experiment in developing a welfare state within a market-orientated
public policy has made (some) real progress toward welfare ends. It faces
corresponding limitations, most importantly in stimulating and regulating
private market provision ( in child care, elder care and pensions) and in
managing the behaviour of private actors (in seeking to promote employment
for workless groups) while it simultaneously pursues market freedom so that
regulation is limited and compulsion only deployed against politically weak
groups such as young unemployed people” (589)
CONCLUSION
It is difficult to avoid a conclusion that three core assumptions about the wider
political economy, often unspoken, which underpinned much of the writing
and research in marketing and marketing management are being subjected to
profound critical scrutiny. The neo-liberal consensus, the presumed efficacy of
an unfettered market system and the gradual convergence towards global
markets and global consumers all look at best contentious conclusions. For
8
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
marketing scholars and researchers this must inevitably mean that such
assumptions will need to be examined and considered much more thoroughly
in the future.
Surely Marketing should be about studying the nature of markets as they
actually operate in broad terms of inputs, choices and outputs. It is clear that
in pursuing this goal we need to recognise that the process of market
evolution and its impact on wider social welfare is a complex and contingent
one. There remain challenges between individual interests and collective
impacts, between simple single identity choices and complex multiple
identities and between seeing the emphasis within the overall economic
system as around the improved efficiency of existing modes of activity as
compare with the innovation heralded by the Schumpeterian doctrine of
creative destruction (1942/2008). Marketing scholars therefore cannot avoid
implicitly even if not explicitly engaging both with some of these wider
theoretical debates and also engaging with those who adopt the language of
marketing itself as rhetorical device for a wider agenda in the overall political
economy .
REFERENCES
Amable, Bruno (2003), The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bathala Chench and Appa Rao Korukonda, “An analysis of social welfare
issues in free market environments”, International Journal of social
Economics, 2003, 30(7/8), 854-866
Bellofiore Riccardo and Joseph Halevi, A critique of post-keynesian
economics applied to the political economy of the Eurozone, 10th Anniversary
Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics, Cambridge, July 3-6
2008
Benington, J. (2007), The Reform of Public Services, Stationery Office and
National School of Government, London,.
Billet, L. "The Just Economy: The Moral Basis of the Wealth of Nations",
Review of Social Economy, 34(3), December 1976. 295-315
Bishop, John D.,” Adam Smith's invisible hand argument”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Volume 14, Number 3 / March, 1995, 165-180
Conley Lucas, OBD: Obsessive Branding Disorder: The Illusion of Business
and the Business of Illusion, PublicAffairs (June 2, 2008)
Cook Robin, Extracts from a speech by the foreign secretary to the Social
Market Foundation in London, Guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 April 2001 17.03
9
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
BST ( available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/19/race.britishidentity on
02/03/09
Marie-Laure Djelic, (2005), "How Capitalism Lost its Soul: From Protestant
Ethic to Robber Barons", in Vranceanu and Daianu (eds), Ethical Boundaries
of Capitalism, Ashgate.
Djelic Marie-Laure (2007a), “Changing Forms of Capitalism, Globalization and
the Marketization of (Nearly) Everything?”, Uppsala Lectures in Business
2007 – Lecture I, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies,
September 2007. (available at:
http://www.fek.uu.se/documents/research/uppsalalectures/UL_2007_PM_1.pdf on 02/03/09
Djelic Marie-Laure (2007b), “Moral Foundations Of Contemporary Capitalism:
From Markets To Marketization “,Uppsala Lectures in Business 2007 –
Lecture III, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies, September
2007 (available at:
http://www.fek.uu.se/documents/research/uppsalalectures/UL_2007_PM_3.pdf on 02/03/09
Djelic, Marie-Laure (2007b), "The ‘Ethics of Competition’ or the Moral
Foundations of Contemporary Capitalism", in Djelic Marie-Laure and Radu
Vranceanu (eds), Moral Foundations of Management Knowledge, Edward
Elgar
DuGay, P (1996), Consumption and Identity at Work, Sage: London
Epstein Richard (2004) Free Markets Under Siege: Cartels, Politics and
Social Welfare, IEA: London
Friedman, Thomas (2005), The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux
Fromm Erich, To Have or to be?, Abacus; London (1 May 1990)
Fukuyama, F, (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press:
Fukuyama Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity,
Hamish Hamilton: London, 1995
Hutton Will and Philippe Schneider, The failure of market failure: Towards a
21st century Keynesianism, Provocation 08: November 2008, NESTA :
London,
(http://www.nesta.org.uk/assets/Uploads/pdf/Provocation/market_failure_provocation_NESTA.pdf)
on 1/3/09
Hogg, M.K. and Michell, P. C. N., Identity, Self And Consumption: A
Conceptual Framework, MEG Conference, July 1996, Glasgow.
10
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
Kay John, “The failure of market failure”, Prospect Magazine: London,
26 July 2007
Kelner Peter, “Are Markets Compatible With Socialism?”, in Ben Pimlott (ed),
Fabian Essays In Socialist Thought, Heinemann: London, 1984, 146-156
Klein, Namoi, No Logo, Flamingo: London, 2000.
Lindridge Andrew, Religiosity and the construction of a cultural-consumption
identity, The Journal of Consumer Marketing; 2005; 22, 2/3, 142-151
Levitt, Theodore, "Globalization of Markets", Harvard Business Review, May-
June 1983
Mintz Sidney W (1986), Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in
Modern History , Penguin,
Roos Gun, Laura Terragni et Hanne Torjusen, “The local in the global –
creating ethical relations between producers and consumers”, Anthropology of
Food, S2, March 2007 (available at http://aof.revues.org/document489.html
on 10/3/09)
Schumpeter Joseph A Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper
Perennial Modern Classics (2008), first published 1942
Taylor-Gooby, Peter, Larsen Trine and Johannes Kananen, “Market Means
and Welfare Ends: The UK Welfare State Experiment, Journal of Social
Policy, October 2004, 33(4), 573-592
Tobin, James, “The Invisible Hand in Modern Macroeconomics”, Cowles
Foundation Discussion Paper no 996, Yale University, New Haven CN,
January 1991 (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cwlcwldpp/966.htm on 1/3/09)
Tobin, James, “The Invisible Hand in Modern Macroeconomics”, in Adam
Smith's Legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern Economics, Michael
Fry (ed) , Routledge, 1992, pps 117-129,
Tully, Mark, India in Slow Motion, Penguin: London, 2003
Ullman-Margalit Edna, "Invisible Hand Explanations,", Synthese 39 (1978):
263-291.
Viner, J, "Adam Smith and Laissez Faire", Journal of Political Economy, 35(2),
April 1927, 198-232
Wensley, R.,"'The Voice of the Consumer?': Speculations on the Limits to the
Marketing Analogy", European Journal of Marketing, 24(7), 1990, pps 49-60.
Wensley, R, “Marketing And Society: Part Of The Solution Or Part Of The
Problem?, Marketing Society Midlands Masterclass 1997
11
Handbook of Marketing Theory, Pauline Maclaran, Mike Saren, Barbara Stern and Mark Tadajewski
(eds), Sage: London , 2009
Whitley, Richard (1999), Divergent Capitalisms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
ENDNOTES
12
i The common abbreviated version of the full title “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”
ii The sole reference in Wealth of Nations is in Book IV: Of Systems of Political Oeconomy, within a chapter on
“Chapter II: Of Restraints Upon the Importation a From Foreign Countries of Such Goods a As Can Be Produced At
Home”:
“By preferring the support of domestick to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing
that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in
this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
( see http://oll.libertyfund.org/?
option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=220&chapter=111910&layout=html#a_2313856 accessed on
01/03/09)
iii “They ( the rich) are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which
would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without
intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the
species” from Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV: Of the Effect of Utility Upon the Sentiment of Approbation a
Consisting of One Section ( from http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=192&chapter=200135&layout=html&Itemid=27, on 01/03/09)
iv However as she then presciently notes:
“Strangely enough, notions like “invisible hand” or “spontaneous market equilibrium” carried with them the shadows
and echoes of a lost moral frame. This lost moral frame had originally given meaning to a peculiar form of economic
and acquisitive behaviour. It also had placed bounds and limits upon it, through notions like “fellow feeling” as a
counterpoint to “self-interest”. Without the frame, only pragmatic ethics remained – acute individualism combined with
utilitarianism; materialism as the only end; an attachment to laissez faire and competition even when those were leading
in fact through their own internal contradictions to a weakening of competition; rationalization and the eviction of
pockets of irrationality; finally a profound and undisputed conviction that the evolutionary trend meant Progress.”
v Indeed Wensley (1990) argued that even within marketing itself the rhetoric of customer sovereignty is used to
disguise a much less empowering view of the user.
vi Of course in reality such processes take place over a long period of time and there are strong interactions not only
between the supply and demand networks but also with the wider national and international political economy. For a
thorough and well documented historical analysis of how one key product moved from luxury to necessity and the ways
in which it was both used and represented in various strata of society ( and indeed the complex interaction between the
nature and scale of production and the distribution and forms of consumption) see Mintz (1986)
vii Ironically Marx may prove to be more right than we expected in raising profound questions as to the extent to which
predatory capitalism is inevitably driven towards a vicious spiral which cannot be sustained in the long run. Equally
however Fukuyama’s (1995) somewhat more recent interest in Trust now seems remarkably prescient.
