The religious market theory proposed by Stark and Bainbridge argues that religion behaves like a market, with demand for religion remaining constant but demand for specific religions varying. They believe secularization theory overlooks religious revival cycles. Norris and Inglehart propose the existential security theory, arguing that variation in religiosity is better explained by differences in levels of existential security - the feeling of survival being secure. Religiosity is higher in societies with more insecurity due to factors like poverty, disease, and inequality, and lower in wealthy societies with strong welfare states that reduce insecurity.

2. RELIGIOUS MARKET
THEORY
The main advocates of this theory are Stark and
Bainbridge. They see secularisation theory as
Eurocentric and believe it puts forward a distorted
view of the past and the future; there was no ‘golden
age’ and we can’t predict when people will become
atheists.

3. What is the theory based
on?
 People are naturally religious and religion meets
human needs. So, the overall demands for religion is
constant but demands for particular types vary.
 It is human nature to seek rewards and avoid costs.
Stark and Bainbridge believe religion is attractive
because is provides us with compensators. When real
rewards become scarce and unobtainable, religion
promises supernatural rewards. Non-religious
ideologies cannot do this.

4. Stark and Bainbridge say there is a cycle of religious decline,
revival and renewal. They describe a perpetual cycle
throughout history. For example, when traditional churches
declined, it left a gap for sects and cults to attract new
members. So, they believe the secularisation theory is one
sided: it only notes the decline in religion.
They argue churches operate like companies selling goods in a
market. Competition leads to improvements in the quality if
‘religious goods’ on offer. If a churches product is more
attractive, it will not decline.

5. America vs. Europe
The demand for religion increased when there are different
sorts to choose from because a consumer can find one to
meet their needs. Whereas, monopoly (refer to Berger’s religious
diversity bit in secularisation) leads to decline as no competition
means no incentive.
Religion thrives in the USA as there has never been monopoly
which has encouraged the growth of a healthy religious
market where religions grow or decline according to
consumer demand.
But, in Europe, most countries are dominated by a church
which holds monopoly. Competition was held back which led
to a lack of choice and religious decline.

6. Conclusion…
Stark and Bainbridge conclude that the main factor in
influencing the level of religious participation is supply.
Participation increases where there is an ample supply
and choice.
Also, the comparison between USA and Europe
suggests that the decline of religion is not a universal
trend.

7. Supply-led Religion:
Evidence
 Hadden and Shupe argue the growth of televangelism in
the USA shows the level of religious participation is supply-led.
Commercial funding of religious broadcasts opened up
competitions which led to evangelical churches thriving.
The response to consumer demand was preaching a
prosperity gospel.
 Finke says the lifting of restrictions on Asian immigrants
into American in the 1960s allowed Asian religions to set
up permanently there. Therefore, Asian faiths became
another option.

8. Supply-led Religion:
Evidence
 The growth of evangelical megachurches meant that
with such large congregations (2,000+), they have
lavish resources and can offer lots of activities to
meet members needs. Miller compares them with
hypermarkets.
 Stark also notes Japans free market in religion
stimulated participation. After WW2, religion was de-regulated,
creating a new market.

9. Criticisms
 Bruce rejects the view that diversity an competition increase the
demand for religion. Statistics show diversity has been
accompanied by decline in the USA.
 Bruce says they misrepresent secularisation theory: it doesn’t say
there was a ‘golden age’, it doesn’t say people will become
atheists, it doesn’t suggest secularisation is universal.
 Norris and Inglehart show high participation in Catholic countries
where the church has near monopoly. But, in countries with
religious pluralism (Holland, Australia etc.), religious participation
is low.
 Beckford says it is unsociological and assumes people are
‘naturally’ religious.

10. EXISTENTIAL SECURITY
THEORY
Norris and Inglehart are the main advocates. They
reject the market theory and argue no international
studies of religion have found evidence of the link
between religious choice and participation.
They argue the reason for variation in religiosity is
different degrees of existential security (the feeling
that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for
granted). Religion meets a need for security, so in
societies where people feel secure, religious demand is
low.

11.  Poor Societies: where people face life-threatening
risks (e.g. disease), there are high levels of insecurity
and therefore religion. Even in rich societies, the
poorer people are still more religious as they face
insecurity.
 Rich Societies: a high standard of living provides less
risk and a greater sense of security. This means
lower levels of religion.

12. So, the demand for religion isn’t constant, but varies
within and between societies. Norris and Inglehart
note that global population growth undermines the
secularisation trend. While rich countries are becoming
secular, the majority of the world is becoming more
religious.

13. Europe vs. America
Norris and Inglehart aren’t surprised that Western
Europe is becoming secular as these societies are
amongst the most equal and secure in the world.
Health care and pensions etc. reduce poverty and
protect those at the bottom from insecurity.
The USA remains religious. They argue it’s due to it
become the most unequal of the rich societies with
‘dog eat dog’ values. Poverty and insecurity leads to
religion. However, it needs to be considered that
America is religious by the standards of other rich
nations; it is less religious than poor societies.

14. State Welfare and
Religiosity
Gill and Lundegaarde’s study found that the more a
country spends on welfare, the lower the level of
religious participation. In the past, religion used to
provide welfare for the poor (it still does in some
societies), but from the 20th century onwards, the
state in the West began to provide welfare so religion
declines.
However, welfare doesn’t eliminate religion
completely. They didn’t expect religion to disappear,
as welfare can’t answer ‘ultimate’ questions.

15. The Case of Uruguay
 Gill and Lundegaarde identify Uruguay, a small Latin
American country, as having religious diversity but
low levels of religious diversity. This contrasts the
religious market theory. Uruguay’s neighbouring
countries have higher levels of participation, but
Uruguay have more generous welfare provision. This
supports the existential security theory.

16. Criticisms
Although Vasquez accepts this theory, he criticises it
on two grounds:
 They only use quantitative data about income levels
 They only see religion as a negative response to
deprivation