Ken Hanly wrote, regarding Problems in CBA:
[snip] Surely it is important that a technique that is widely used in
every area from forestry, to health care, to agriculture, to
education should have some theoretical justification that holds
water. It seems to me that there are all kinds of ideological
features in the practice that are routinely ignored [snip]
Reply: At one time I was quite surprised at the hostile response that
any mention of CBA and other NC methods of analysis received, when I
spoke of their use in evolution. [Not that I've seen any hostility
here.] But now that I've learned a little about the use of CBA in
social/economics, I can see why it is rightly considered anathema -
for those uses.
In neodarwinian applications, there is nothing about 'compensating',
or totalling utility, or trading off one's cost against another's
benefit, partly because it's not applied to a group. I consider it
not inherently evil because of its use in conservative apologetics,
but analytically bankrupt when misapplied. What I learned as CBA,
optimality and such in evolutionary theory appears to me to be rather
a different critter.
Ken wrote: I would be interested in references to the use of CBA in
anthropology, or any other references that deal with the conceptual
and philosophical issues involved in CBA.
Reply: I've posted my EvolEcol in Anthro bibliography to you, but
I'm not sure it's what you're looking for. None of it is 'about CBA
issues' generally, and none of it is about what is traditionally
regarded as anthropology, i.e. cultural anthropology.
It is mainly a list of specific, recent work which applies
evolutionary analysis to current behavior and hominid evolution.
I know that the very idea that evolution could have anything to do
with human behavior is considered controversial in some circles, but
there it is.
Here are a few of my favorite references, selected partly to show the
range of the work, including the use of various economic
methods/models. These seven refs also have some of the better
written and more thorough discussions of neo-darwinian / evolecol
theory, its warrant and applicability. Some refs on the longer
biblio list are very short in that department.
Rosser and Rosser recently wrote a review paper on economic
anthropologies. I keep expecting Barkely to have something to say
about this stuff.
Lisa Rogers
Smith and Winterhalder, eds. 1992 Evolutionary Ecology and Human
Behavior. Aldine: Hawthorne NY
Hawkes, K. 1993 Why Hunter-gatherers Work: an Ancient Version of the
Problem of Public Goods. Current Anthropology 34(4):341-51
Note: Discussion. V34 P351-61; V34 P701-10; V35 P287-9; V35 P438-41
Hawkes, K. 1995 Foraging Differences between Men and Women:
behavioral ecology of the sexual Division of Labor, in The
Archaeology of human Ancestry: Power Sex and Tradition Steele, J and
Shennan S, eds Routledge:New York
Hawkes, K., Rogers, A. and Charnov, E.L. 1994 The male's dilemma:
Increased Offspring Production is More Paternity to Steal
Hurtado, A.M. and Hill, K.R. (1992) Paternal Effect on Offspring
Survivorship among Ache and Hiwi Hunter-Gatherers: Implications for
Modeling Pair-Bond Stability, in _Father-Child Relations: Cultural
and Biosocial Contexts_, Hewlett, Barry S., ed. Aldine De Gruyter:
New York
O'Connell, J.F., Hawkes, K. 1992 On Optimal Foraging Models and
Subsistence Transitions. Current Anthropology 33:63-6
Rogers, A. 1993 Why menopause? Evolutionary Ecology 7:406-420
