What's Wrong with the Case AGAINST Shorter Work? VI

References

Davenant, Charles, (1699) "An essay upon the probable methods of making people gainers in the balance of trade." In The political and commercial works of that celebrated writer Charles D'Avenant, Volume 2. London, 1771. The Making of the Modern World. Web.

Fisher, George. (1995) "The Birth of the Prison Retold." The Yale Law Journal 104, 6. 1235-1324.

Hicks, J.R. (1932/1963) The Theory of Wages, London: Macmillan.

Jevons, William Stanley. (1866) The Coal Question. 2nd Ed. London: MacMillan & Co.
Kay-Shuttleworth, James Phillips. (1832) The Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester.

Keynes, John Maynard, (1934) "Is the Economic System Self-Adjusting." BBC radio address. Reprinted in The Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business. 2, 2, 11-15.

Kinderman, Daniel (2001) The Janus Faced Nature of Working Time Reduction: Between Rationalization Whip and Instrument for Social Justice, Progressive Economics Forum student essay contest winner.

Martin, Henri. (1701) Considerations upon the East-India Trade. London: The Making of the Modern World. Web.

Meiklejohn A. (1959) "Outbreak of Fever in Cotton Mills at Radcliffe, 1784" British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 16, 1, 68-69.

New Economics Foundation. (2010) 21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century. London: New Economics Foundation.

Niemietz, Kristian. (2011) "When Paternalism Meets Bogus Economics: The New Economics Foundation's 21 Hours Report," Institute of Economic Affairs.

Pencavel, J. (1986) ‘Labor Supply of Men: A Survey’, in (O. Ashenfelter and R. Layard,eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Amsterdam: North Holland. 3-102.

Pigou, Arthur Cecil. (1913) Unemployment. London: Williams and Norgate.

Rasbotham, Dorning. (1780) Thoughts on the Use of Machines in the Cotton Manufacture. Manchester: Making of the Modern World, Web.

Robbins, L. (1929) ‘The economic effects of variations of hours of labour’, Economic Journal, vol. 39, 25-40.

Tufnell, Edward Carleton. (1834) Character, Object and Effects of Trades Unions. London: James Ridgway and Sons.

Walker, Tom. (2000). "The 'Lump-of-Labor' Case Against Work-Sharing: Populist Fallacy or Marginalist Throwback?" in L. Golden and D. M. Figart (eds) Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Policy Perspectives, New York and London: Routledge.

__________. (2007) "Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor." Review of Social Economy. 65, 3, 279-291.
Abstract of "Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor: The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called one of the “best known fallacies in economics.” It is widely cited in disparagement of policies for reducing the standard hours of work, yet the authenticity of the fallacy claim is questionable, and explanations of it are inconsistent and contradictory. This article discusses recent occurrences of the fallacy claim and investigates anomalies in the claim and its history. S.J. Chapman's coherent and formerly highly regarded theory of the hours of labor is reviewed, and it is shown how that theory could lend credence to the job-creating potentiality of shorter working time policies. It concludes that substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's Wrong with the Case AGAINST Shorter Working Time? I

1. The proposition accused of being false Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid… One of the more peculiar and puzzling responses to the New Economics Foundation's 21 Hours report was the charge that the authors committed a " lump-of-labour fallacy " – that their policy proposals were based on the assumption that the amount of work to be done is a fixed quantity. This complaint needs to be taken seriously, not because it has substance – it doesn't – but because of the extraordinary resilience of the fallacy myth despite its anachronism and incoherence. The case for shorter working time is based on a cluster of core pr...
Read more

What's Wrong with the Case AGAINST Shorter Working Time? IV

4. Why the fallacy claim is false The case for work time reduction does not rest on the assumption that there is "a fixed amount of work to be done." Whether the demand for labour increases, decreases or stays the same, the work can be divided up differently. Whether it would be advantageous to do so under some particular circumstances is an empirical question, not an a priori certainty or fallacy. Furthermore, the division of labour has been a key tenet of economic thought since Adam Smith and his analysis of a pin factory. Exactly how easily work may be divided and how appropriate any given substitution is are design issues, which are, as Keynes would put it, "a matter of taste and experience…" This is true for any economic policy – not only work-sharing – and for individuals and firms no less than governments. Even if some proponents of work time reduction did wrongly believe in a fixed demand for work, that still wouldn't invalidate their proposals. ...
Read more

What's Wrong with the Case AGAINST Shorter Working Time? II

2. The fallacy claim  An example of the fallacy claim appeared in an opinion piece by Kristian Niemietz, "When Paternalism Meets Bogus Economics: The New Economics Foundation's 21 Hours Report," published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which bills itself as "the U.K.'s original free-market think-tank." According to Niemietz: This is not ‘new economics’, but a rephrasing of the old lump-of-labour fallacy, the idea that the amount of work which is ‘required’ in an economy is somehow fixed and can be redistributed ‘justly’… The case for work-sharing rests on a number of assumptions. Demand for working hours must be largely fixed; work must be easily divisible; and the work of one person must be a close substitute for the work of another person. When these conditions hold, an employer will be indifferent between employing A for 40 hours, or employing A and B for 20 hours each. But when the conditions are violated, then work-sharing imposes addition...
Read more