Daniel K. FINN, editor. Empirical Foundations of the Common Good: What Theology Can Learn from Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017. 246 pp. $99 hb. ISBN 978-0-19-067005-4. Reviewed by Pablo M. ITURRIETA, Dominican University, Ottawa, ON K1R 7G3

This volume originated from a conference organized by the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies in 2014, and it contains a tightly connected and focused group of essays that aim to offer the notion of “common good” a more interdisciplinary meaning. In fact, the idea of the common good is part theological insight, part moral theory, part empirical theory, and part political philosophy. The common good has been defined as “the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and effective fulfillment” (ix). One of the problems, however,is that this idea has been rooted only in the traditions of philosophy and theology. Meanwhile, the social sciences have offered new insights into the human condition which have not been assimilated in narratives of the common good. This has created a gap between the consideration of “what is” (social sciences) and “what ought to be” (philosophy and theology). Thus, the eight studies offered on Empirical Foundations of the Common Goodare centered around two questions that aim to narrow that gap: What have the social sciences learned about the common good? And, how might theology and philosophy alter its understanding of the common good in light of that insight?

Each of the first six chapters is written by a social scientist with backgrounds in economics, political science, sociology, and policy analysis. They all speak about what their disciplines have to contribute to discussions on the common good. In the last two chapters, two theologians explore how Catholic social thought can integrate social scientific insights into its understanding of the common good.

In the first chapter, Matthew Carnes, S.J. presents the contributions of contemporary political science to an understanding of the common good. Political science could offer “new opportunities for understanding the common good in a cross-disciplinary conversation between political science and theology” (28). Even though the social sciences do not talk about the common good, they are interested in how human flourishing is produced through human choices.

In the second chapter, Andrew M. Yuengert analyzes the contributions that economists may offer the common good tradition, especially with concepts such as economic agency, the distinction between public and private goods, and the work on the logic of institutions and norms.

In chapter 3, Mary Jo Bane sets the theme of public policy and the common good within the context of an imaginary consultation by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. She responds three imaginary questions: How does public policy envision the common good? What are some urgent problems that might be addressed? How might the abstract notion of the common good be operationalized into concrete recommendations? Bane suggests that the policy sciences can offer to the discussion both quantitative and qualitative empirical analysis tools, bridging the normative and ideal notion of the common good with concrete policies based on empirical research.

In chapter 4, on the contribution of sociology to Catholic social thought and the common good, Douglas V. Porpora claims that sociological “critical thinking” and “relationality” could deepen the conversation on the common good. Yet, “sociology has nothing explicit to say about what constitutes the common good” (91), for it may be described as interested in the “common bads,” that is, in the social ailments that prevent individuals from truly achieving human flourishing (92).

In chapter 5, Charles K. Wilber presents the contributions of economic theory to an understanding of the common good in Catholic social thought.He calls for more robust ways of measuring economic well-being and human flourishing. Economics, he states, does not see human flourishing as an “aggregation of the welfare of all individuals,” but rather as a product of the stability of markets when those markets result from and supported by human choice.

            In chapter 6, Gerardo Sanchis Muñoz offers his views on public service, public goods, and the common good, taking Argentina as a case study. He argues that good public administration is necessary in order to bring about the common good.

In chapter 7, Brian Coultier offers a theology of the common good, seeking to refine its contemporary formulation by bringing forward an older tradition in Catholic social thought. Traditionally, the common good has been seen as a dynamic activity that produces human flourishing itself, and, according to Coultier, the social sciences support a return to the older view.

In chapter 8, Mary L. Hirschfeld makes the case that the social sciences can learn much from theology and philosophy, for these disciplines “encourage us to reason together about what constitutes the good life.”

This volume’s interplay of social, scientific,philosophical, and religious views is certainly a unique and very valuable contribution to contemporary discussion of what constitutes “the common good.” All these essays will be a helpful resource for economists, political scientists, philosophers, theologians, and anyone eager to understand and promote the common good today, especially with respect to the crucial role it can play in our public life.