The principle of sphere-sovereignty in a time of globalisation

Abstract

This article investigates the phenomenon of present-day globalisation from a Christian perspective to determine whether the principle of sphere-sovereignty can provide an antidote to globalisation’s harmful consequences. Firstly, it is explained how the principle of sphere-sovereignty is founded on the biblical message, and that it includes two interrelated dimensions, viz. that of life-orientation and of responsible differentiation. Secondly, the following four characteristics of contemporary globalisation are reviewed: it is (1) of a more or less autonomous nature, (2) a seemingly unavoidable project, (3) a process of a dynamic nature, and (4) a product of Western modernisation. In the third place the implications of the acceptance of the principle of sphere-sovereignty for globalisation are investigated. It seems that globalisation, in many areas of life, is detrimental to healthy forms of differentiation – the first dimension of sphere-sovereignty. From the perspective of orientation(the second dimension of sphere-sovereignty), it becomes evident that the present project of globalisation has in some respects already deteriorated into a kind of blinding, oppressive ideology. This type of globalisation “ad malam partem” is finally contrasted with a better road of globalisation “ad bonam partem”. This last type of globalisation – not driven by selfish greed, desire and power, but by love for our Lord Jesus Christ,and for one’s neighbours – may help to prevent the ominous crisis of our time

Free Markets and Public Interests in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Comparative Analysis of Catholic and Reformational Critiques of Neoliberal Thought

“…Given their economic function, they do not have a direct responsibility for the public interest; however, because they are active in all aspects of society (economic, social, legal, ethical, etc. ), companies should consider (issues in) society (Goudzwaard, 1998). Free Markets and Public Interests CST and RPH mount similar critiques of the neoliberal free market view on the responsibility of governments and companies for public interests.…”