I strongly endorse the sense of Patrick's remarks about the recent PEN-L discussion of Becker. I'd add just two comments: first, there have been theoretical initiatives on the left in some of the areas Patrick mentions, in particular radical feminist theories of the family (a recent example of which appeared in the March 1996 issue of the Review of Radical Political Economics), but these don't get the sort of promotion and attention that Becker's work has always gotten, in good part because they don't have Becker's access to mainstream outlets and don't convey the comforting message that patriarchal capitalism is legitimate. Second, to endorse Patrick's comments is not to endorse categorically Becker's work (that should be obvious, but past PEN-L experience has shown that I have to add these disclaimers to avoid being labelled a neoclassical sellout). In particular I find that Becker's economic arguments consistently suffer from the same sort of fallacies I encounter in the work of Hayek, Coase, Williamson. etc. But this is not to say that their work is useless. I've learned a good deal from H, C, and W, fallacies notwithstanding (I could say the same for Marx, Joan Robinson, and John Roemer), and in the same sense I've learned a good deal from Becker's work--if sometimes only in the negative sense of finding out how the critique of "free-market" economic reasoning must be extended. And yes, the banter, "light-hearted" or otherwise, about his wife's suicide is simply repulsive. In solidarity, Gil >X-Acknowledge-To: <PMASON@WAYNEST1> > > Pen-lers: > > 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. > >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. Yeah, one could argue that radical theory is still evolving, >but it ain't here yet. > >Some concrete examples. > >1. There was a recent debate recently on pen-l around the crime issue, i.e., > part of the Henwood-Sawicky slugfest. At no point during that debate did > any of the participants draw on a radical theory of the economics of crime. > And, for good reason, there isn't one. Yet, crime is a major issue in every > working class community in this country and it is very much an economic > issue. To the best of my knowledge there has never been an article on the > economics of crime in the Cambridge Journal of Economics and only 2 articles > on crime in the Review of Radical Political Economics, one by Gary Nicholson > in 1983 and one by the late David Gordon around 1972. > >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. > >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. > >4. Try explaining the following. Women are segregated in both household and > market work activities. Why? Jane Humphreys had a good paper on this in > an RRPE special issue about 3 or 4 years ago, but that's about it. Becker > had a model of this in 1985. Becker's model has its problem, but it can > incorporate concerns about discrimination and patriarchy without being > conspiratorial. > >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. > >peace, patrick l mason > >
