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

This article puts critical realism in conversation with the classical Aristotelian concept of the common good. This concept plays an essential explanatory role in Aristotelian thought, not only a normative one, and so it has something to offer critical realism, which in turn can provide a sound metatheory for common good reflection. It is argued that accounts of emergence based on causal powers and common purpose are compatible and mutually enlightening. Critical realism can develop a distinctive conception of common good (...) based around ontological stratification and social teleology. In this conception, empirical social enquiry is essential for understanding what common goods are available in given social settings, since common goods flow from the intransitive real features of social entities, especially their causal powers. (shrink)