LAUSR

Abstract This paper considers differences in how economists and novelists view the importance of good and evil in determining social outcomes. As opposed to novelists, economists see the possibility of achieving desirable outcomes through the pursuit of self-interest in markets with good and evil having little influence on that achievement. However, the paper also considers problems with relying on self-interest alone to generate publicly desirable outcomes through markets and points out limits to self-interest in markets. It is argued that novels and literature are a time-tested way of promoting the moral education necessary for well-functioning markets. Attention is turned to the similarities between Adam Smith’s theory of moral sentiments and the novels of Jane Austen on the means by which people are able to transcend narrow self-interest in ways that improve both economic and social outcomes.