Tipos de capitalismo y justicia, según Edmund Phelps

Edmund Phelps, justo después de que se anunciara el otorgamiento de su Premio Nobel en 2006, publicó en el WSJ el artículo Dynamic Capitalism. En este texto define los dos tipos de capitalismos que a su parecer predominan en el mundo occidental.

Primero señala el capitalismo típico del mundo angloparlante -sistema americano- y que se centra en la apertura y en la innovación empresarial:

There are two economic systems in the West. Several nations -- including the U.S., Canada and the U.K. -- have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their development. Although much innovation comes from established companies, as in pharmaceuticals, much comes from start-ups, particularly the most novel innovations. This is free enterprise, a k a capitalism.

Luego describe el capitalismo que predomina en Europa continental -sistema europeo- que es más rígido y se basa en la convivencia de propiedad privada e instituciones públicas:

The other system -- in Western Continental Europe -- though also based on private ownership, has been modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the interests of "stakeholders" and "social partners." The system's institutions include big employer confederations, big unions and monopolistic banks. Since World War II, a great deal of liberalization has taken place. But new corporatist institutions have sprung up: Co-determination (cogestion, or Mitbestimmung) has brought "worker councils" (Betriebsrat); and in Germany, a union representative sits on the investment committee of corporations. The system operates to discourage changes such as relocations and the entry of new firms, and its performance depends on established companies in cooperation with local and national banks. What it lacks in flexibility it tries to compensate for with technological sophistication. So different is this system that it has its own name: the "social market economy" in Germany, "social democracy" in France and "concertazione" in Italy.

Para Phelps, estos dos sistemas no son equivalentes. La diferencia yace en el dinamismo que permiten ambos modelos. Mientras que el sistema americano está diseñado para darle cabida a una mayor pluralidad de ideas e innovaciones empresariales, el corporativismo típico del sistema europeo lo bloquea. Así, el primer tipo de capitalismo es más deseable dado que es más dinámico, lo que favorece mayor productividad y, con ello, obtener salarios más altos.

Otra idea es la aceptación de Phelps de que el capitalismo verdadero, plagado de imperfecciones, es justo (subrayado propio):

Actual capitalism departs from well-functioning capitalism–monopolies too big to break up, undetected cartels, regulatory failures and political corruption. Capitalism in its innovations plants the seeds of its own encrustation with entrenched power. These departures weigh heavily on the rewards earned, particularly the wages of the least advantaged, and give a bad name to capitalism. But I must insist: It would be a non sequitur to give up on private entrepreneurs and financiers as the wellspring of dynamism merely because the fruits of their dynamism would likely be less than they could be in a less imperfect system. I conclude that capitalism is justified–normally by the expectable benefits to the lowest-paid workers but, failing that, by the injustice of depriving entrepreneurial types (as well as other creative people) of opportunities for their self-expression.

La justificación que hace Phelps del capitalismo imperfecto tiene su fundamento en el pensamiento de John Rawls. Trataré de explicar la idea a un nivel simplificado: Phelps argumenta que en tanto el dinamismo del capitalismo hace que el salario de los trabajadores "menos aventajados" aumente -o por lo menos no disminuya- no ocurre un resultado injusto en términos rawlsianos. Por el contrario, suponiendo que las innovaciones en realidad disminuyen el salario de los trabajadores más desventajados, Phelps afirma que el capitalismo se justifica ampliando el criterio para tomar en cuenta la autorrealización (self-realization). Ahora ya no importa únicamente el salario del trabajador peor pagado, sino que hay que considerar que prohibirles a los empresarios autorrealizarse los convierte en los "menos aventajados". Entonces, sin considerar una métrica, se justifica incrementar la autorrealización del empresario menos aventajado hasta alcanzar el nivel salarial del trabajador menos pagado.