As Bradley and Mosca pointed out in "Enrico Barone's ‘Ministry of
Production’: Content and

Context," Becker's famous time allocation model of the household was
essentially a retread of Barone's "simple book-keeping artifice," which I
have criticized relentlessly elsewhere. Bradly and Mosca:

"[citing Barone]'It is convenient to suppose -- it is a simple book-keeping
artifice, so to speak -- that each individual sells the services of all his
capital and re-purchases afterwards the part he consumes directly. For
example, A, for eight hours of work of a particular kind which he supplies,
receives a certain remuneration at an hourly rate. It is a matter of
indifference whether we enter A's receipts as the proceeds of eight hours'
labour, or as the proceeds of twenty-four hours' labour less expenditure of
sixteen hours consumed by leisure. The latter method helps to make easier
the comprehension of certain maxims of which we shall speak later.'

"This is the essential point in Gary Becker’s 1965 time allocation model of
the household, in which the household allocates its time to produce
intermediate goods and final goods (including leisure) that define the
household’s welfare (Becker 1965).

"The individuals in Barone’s model make their constrained optimal choices
of resources supplied (qs, qt, ...) to earn income and of the allocation
(‘distribution’) of their income among consumer goods (ra, rb, ...),
consumption of productive services (rs, rt, ...) and saving (e) which
satisfies the budget equation…

[a bunch of superfluous mathematical jib-jab omitted]

"…so in Barone’s model real national income is a measure of aggregate
welfare, and changes in national income measure changes in welfare.

"Barone thus aggregates welfare without aggregation of individual
utilities. This enables him to identify the effects of economic changes on
aggregate welfare in a much wider range of cases than is possible with the
standard Pareto optimality criterion."

What Barone does, then, is essentially an anticipation and inversion of the
Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle. Increasing national income may indeed
make some people worse off but, hey, any alternative would be worse because
then the non-losers wouldn't be able to compensate the non-winners.

To translate into the vernacular, "Heads I win and tails you lose." It
probably goes without saying that Barone was an elitist and "skeptical" of
popular democracy because he feared it would lead to socialism (and thus
diminish the "aggregate welfare" that results from the disproportionate
enrichment of the already wealthy).

Barone's "simple book-keeping artifice" only holds if output varies
directly with hours worked (which it doesn't). Otherwise, it is an absurd
exercise in measurement with a silly putty yardstick... adding apples and
bananas... It is, if I may cite Lionel Robbins, a "naive assumption that
the connection between hours and output is one of direct variation, that it
is necessarily true that a lengthening of the working day increases output
and a curtailment diminishes it."

One year after Barone published his "Il Ministro della Produzione nello
Stato Collettivista," S. J. Chapman published his theory of the "Hours of
Labour," which demonstrated to the satisfaction of Robbins, Hicks, Pigou
and Marshall that output doesn't vary directly with hours. Thus the
"calculus" proposed by Barone (and replicated by Becker) is reduced to
mathematical gibberish.

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM, michael yates <[email protected]> wrote:

> In response to the NYT obituary for Becker, which notes the
>
> economist's contention that people in wealthy nations face
>
> greater time that income constraints, Gene Coyle says,
>
>
> "Now I feel sorry for the 1%, they don't have enough time
>
> to consume their income.  That makes them worse off than
>
> the unemployed, who have all the time they need to consume
>
> their income."
>
>
> Gene, this is a wonderful comment. It shows the capitalist
>
> apologetics that underlies Becker's theories.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>



-- 
Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to