For the first time in all of my years on PEN-L I have to disagree, and disagree strongly with a post by Pat Mason. In doing so, I will reproduce much of his post. Mason: The recent discussion of Gary Becker and his work has been disappointing, at a minimum. Originally, I wasn't going to comment. But, the critiques of Becker have been way off base. First of all, heterodox economists and others interested in constructing a more egalitarian society have a lot to learn from Gary Becker. If one is interested in doing an in-depth analysis of the theoretical and empirical work by sociologists, lawyers, or economics on racial discrimination, gender discrimination, skill acquisition and the distri- bution of income, marriage and the family and children, the relationship between economic growth and education, the economics of crime and punishment, and the allocation of time -- Gary Becker is the dominant voice. Me: Becker is the dominant voice, not because any of jis work make sense, but because it serves the interests of the capitalist elite. All of his theories blame victims for their problems and justify policies to continue or intensify that victimization. (examples below) Becker got his start with his thoery of human captial. that IS the dominant theory in labor economics. If fact, there was an article in the JEL in the early 1980s that documented the publication of over 10,000 journal articles on that topic. That is not a cottage industry. It is the meal ticket for NC labor economnists to get tenure. The JEL article also noted that the very best of all of these articles could not explain even one half of the variation in wages. One would think, with all of that effort, if the theory had any merit at all, they could do better than that. It has also been demonstrated that almost any version of segmented labor market theory is a better predictor of wages and income than "best" human captial models. But yes Becker IS the dominant voice. So we get the pathetic situation of Clinton and Reich pushing policies of "training, training, training" (ie, the human capital solution) as the way out for American workers, at the same time that hundreds of thousands of highly trained workers are lossing their jobs. An absurd theory leads to absurd policies that do very real damage to people's lives. Mason: Writers to this list may view his work as eccentric, shallow, misapplied, or even just plain stupid. But -- be careful -- many so-called "radical," "feminist," or other "heterodox" explanations of the social phenomena examined by Becker or simply alternatives of Becker's ideas. Worst, for many of the social phenomena discussed by Becker, e.g., the economics of crime, have no radical counterpart. Well, a bad theory -- even a stupid one -- beats no theory at all. Some concrete examples - 2. Compare segmented labor market analysis of discrimination (racial or gender) and Becker's theory of discrimination. They are the same theory. For SLM theory discrimination does not occur in the secondary sector, but both employment and wage discrimination occur in the primary sector. This is Becker's model, with the competitive sector = secondary sector and the monopoly/oligopoly/imperfectly competitive sector = primary sector. Me: Bad theory is NOT better than no theory at all. Especially if that bad theory causes pain and suffering for millions of people. More importantly, SLM theory has absolutely nothing to do with Becker's theory. It is not built on it or and extension of it. Becker claims incomes are determined by human capital "endowments," yet 10,000 journal articles can't demonstrate it. SLM theory argues that in the secondary segment, skills and education have no impact on wages, and emprical evidence strongly supports this prediction. SLM also argues that skils and education do not determine wages in the primary sector. Here, firm monopoly power, unionization rates, race and gender mix of the workforce all play a role in determining wages. Thus, human captial theory is useless in both sectors. "Building" on that foundation is an absolute waste of time, unless one is trying to justify exploiting workers more. Mason: 3. Try finding some good empirical work on the economics of the family writ- ten by a radical economist. Good luck, I've tried. After reading the collective works of Elaine McCrate, the literature gets awful thin in a hurry. On the other hand, the new household economics work of Gary Becker has spawn an entire cottage industry of empirical work and dominates the debate on transitions in family structure. Me: Yes, Becker's work dominates here as well - because it rationalizes and supports existing patiarchal family structures. Most people are less familiar with Beckers work on the family, so a few of his "insights" would be instructive. Becker claims (using his usual highpowered mathematical modelling approach) that women's postion in the family would be enhanced under polygamy rather than monogamy. There is not one shread of real world evidence to support this claim. Extending his model further, he claims that the man's role in the family should be considered as "altruistic," no matter how poorly he treats his wife, as long as she is not killed by the relationship. As long as the man is behaving in this altuistic manner, it would be irrational for the wife or kids to do anything to upset this familial bliss, so two parent families simply CAN"T be dysfunctional. What do we get from these wonderfully "imperfect" theories? Policies to force women back into abusive marriages, many of these women dying at the hands of their abusive husbands. Policies to force children back into abusive families rather than go on welfare. BAD THEORY is BAD THEORY and radicals have no need to try to learn from it or build upon it. Mason: I could go on with a hundred other examples. But, my point is a simple one. While we on the left remain smugly contemptuous of Becker and jest about his wife's suicide, the man has kicked our self-satisfied collective royal ass in the war of ideas. And, he's won the war by concentrating his life's work on things that are most important to working class people -- schooling, work, education, crime, and family. So, to hell with personal attacks against Becker and idle (and repulsive) jokes about his wife's suicide. What is needed a more serious alternative analysis to the issues he has addressed. Me: Pat, I don't think you could go on with a hundred other examples. The left does not remain smuggly contemptuous of Becker. For at least two decades the left has been working very hard to counter his ideas, and has made enormous progress in many areas. He has not "kicked ourt collective ass" because he focuses on issues the working class cares about. He has succeeded because the economics profession is so careful about policing what gets published in the journals and who gets to teach in graduate programs. Much of the best radical research can be found in dissertations, that never find a home in academic journals. Working class people hear what Becker has to say and they laugh. I know this becuase I teach at a school where most of the students come from working class families and I present Becker, straight, with no crtitique, and then ask them to respond to it. They find it repulsive, pathetic, and laughable. Finally, Pat, please send back to the list the posting that made a "repulsive joke" about Becker's wife's suicide. I have gone back over the entire discussion and I can't find it. What was discussed was how Becker's theories might have helped to contribute to her decision to take her own life. A women, from a generation that did not consider divorce an option might feel somewhat rejected and trapped upon reading an article that eplained that the way she was picked as a mate had nothing to do with love, but rather that the marginal benefits of the services she provides within the home (cooking , cleaning, sex, etc) were higher the the marginal cost of her husband continuing to seek these services in the marketplace outside of marriage. In solidarity, but disappointed, Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
