What Money Can't Buy

1. Markets are expanding into spheres of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms

The years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 were a heady time of market faith and deregulation—an era of market triumphalism.

Market expansion. Over the past few decades, market thinking and market mechanisms have reached into spheres of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms. We see this in the proliferation of for-profit schools, hospitals, and prisons; the outsourcing of war to private military contractors; and the aggressive marketing of prescription drugs. Other examples include:

• Selling the right to immigrate to the U.S. for $500,000
• Paying people to lose weight or quit smoking
• Buying and selling the right to pollute
• Corporate-sponsored education materials in public schools
• Selling naming rights to parks and civic spaces
• Outsourcing pregnancy to surrogate mothers in developing countries

This trend reflects a growing faith in markets as the primary means for achieving the public good. However, it raises questions about whether there are some things money should not buy.

2. The fairness objection: Markets can be coercive under conditions of inequality

A peasant may agree to sell his kidney or cornea to feed his starving family, but his agreement may not really be voluntary.

Coercive choices. The fairness objection to certain markets points to the injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under conditions of severe inequality or economic desperation. Some examples that raise fairness concerns:

• Selling kidneys or other organs
• Paying drug addicts to be sterilized
• Selling babies for adoption
• Low-income people serving as surrogate mothers for wealthy couples

The argument is that such "choices" may not be truly voluntary if people are acting out of economic necessity. Market choices are only truly free if there is a level playing field and people are not coerced by poverty or unequal bargaining power.

3. The corruption objection: Markets can degrade the moral value of certain goods

Paying kids to read books might get them to read more, but also teach them to regard reading as a chore rather than a source of intrinsic satisfaction.

Degrading effects. The corruption objection argues that valuing certain goods in market terms can diminish or corrupt their moral worth. This applies even under conditions of equality. Examples of potentially corrupting markets:

• Paid blood donation
• Prostitution
• Selling votes
• Buying college admission
• Paying students for good grades

The concern is that buying and selling these goods may change their meaning and crowd out nonmarket values and norms worth caring about. For instance, a market in children may erode the norm of unconditional parental love.

4. Incentives can crowd out intrinsic motivations and moral norms

Sometimes, offering payment for a certain behavior gets you less of it, not more.

Backfire effects. Contrary to standard economic logic, studies have shown that financial incentives can sometimes reduce desired behavior by crowding out moral and civic motivations:

• Offering money to nuclear waste site volunteers reduced willingness to accept sites
• Small payments to students collecting charity donations reduced amount collected
• Fining parents for late daycare pickup increased late pickups

This occurs because introducing market norms can displace moral and civic norms. Doing something for pay feels different than doing it out of moral conviction or civic duty. Policymakers need to consider these crowding out effects when designing incentive schemes.

5. The commercialization of public spaces erodes civic spirit and social bonds

Once it was clear that corporate sponsorships and naming rights were up for sale, it wasn't much of a leap to contemplate ads on police cars and in classrooms.

Commercialized commons. The increasing commercialization of public spaces and civic institutions threatens to erode social bonds and the spirit of common citizenship:

• Selling naming rights to parks, schools, subway stations
• Ads on police cars, fire hydrants, school buses
• Corporate-sponsored educational materials
• Ads in jails and government buildings

This trend reflects cash-strapped governments turning to corporate sponsorship to fund public services. But it risks turning shared civic spaces into commercial venues and citizens into consumers. Some argue this degrades the dignity and meaning of public institutions.

6. Market values are reshaping professional sports and undermining their integrity

Moneyball made baseball more efficient, in the economist's sense of the term. But did it make it better? Probably not.

Sports as business. The increasing commercialization of professional sports illustrates broader trends of market values reshaping social practices:

• Proliferation of corporate naming rights for stadiums
• Rise of the memorabilia industry and commodification of autographs
• Corporate-sponsored highlights and announcements during games
• Use of advanced analytics ("Moneyball") to maximize efficiency

While making sports more profitable, these trends risk undermining the integrity of the games and eroding their role as sources of community identity and shared cultural experience.

7. The skyboxification of American life reflects growing inequality and social segregation

At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives.

Social segregation. The proliferation of luxury skyboxes in sports stadiums exemplifies a broader trend of social segregation:

• Wealthy fans in skyboxes separated from ordinary fans in the stands
• First-class airport lounges and fast-track security lines
• Exclusive "concierge medicine" practices for the wealthy
• Gated communities and private schools

This "skyboxification" of society means people of different socioeconomic backgrounds increasingly live, work, and play in separate spaces. This erodes social cohesion and mutual understanding across class lines.

8. We need public debate about the moral limits of markets

To decide where the market belongs, and where it should be kept at a distance, we have to decide how to value the goods in question.

Moral discourse needed. As markets reach into more spheres of life, we need robust public debate about their moral limits. This requires overcoming our reluctance to engage in moral and spiritual argument in the public square. Key questions to consider:

• What should and should not be up for sale?
• How do markets affect the character of the goods being bought and sold?
• What nonmarket values and norms are worth protecting from market forces?
• What is the proper balance between market mechanisms and other ways of valuing goods?

Answering these questions inevitably involves competing conceptions of the good life and the kind of society we want to live in. We cannot rely on markets alone to make these decisions for us.

Last updated: January 22, 2025