>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:22:40 -0700 >From: Tom Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: TimeWork Web >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [workfare] Re: Why hard work isn't working anymore >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Status: > >In an article forwarded from The Age, Sharon Beder wrote that "It is no >accident that the downsizing of the 1980s and '90s has been accompanied >by a resurgence in propaganda aimed at reinforcing the work ethic." >I heartily agree with Beder's commentary and would like to mention >related research I have done on the topic. > >In North America, every time someone suggests reducing working time as a >way of better distributing work they are met with the accusation that >they have committed the "lump of labour fallacy". What is this quaintly >named fallacy and why is it so authoritative? It turns out that the >claim has a dubious status in the history of economic thought, but a >prominant place in the anti-union polemics of employers' organizations. >The claim itself is bogus and amounts to a code phrase meant for ruling >"out of order" any intelligent discussion of the issue. > >The National Association of Manufacturers of the USA used the argument >extensively in the early 20th century as the centrepiece of its efforts >to demolish trade unionism. But somehow the phrase crept uncritically >into widely-used economics textbooks and became an economic >pseudo-doctrine. The Economist magazine uses the phrase frequently to >ridicule policies for shorter working time, such as the French 35 hour >work week. Recently, a report commissioned by British Prime Minister >Tony Blair for the Council of Europe hinged its promotion of "Welfare to >Work" on the disparagement of supposed "lump of labour" alternatives >that might reduce the supply of labour. > >Two of the authors of that report were "experts" from the London School >of Economics, Richard Layard and Stephen Nickell who, it should be >noted, have played the lump of labour card before in their academic >career. I have criticized the intellectually dishonest usage of this >claim, including Layard and Nickell's usage, in "The 'lump of labor' >case against work-sharing: populist fallacy or marginalist throwback," >forthcoming in Lonnie Golden and Deborah Figart, eds., _Working Time: >International Trends, Theory and Policy Perspectives_ (Routledge >2001).(see http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/execsum.htm) > >Anthony Giddens, "Third Way" guru to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, >and director of the London School of Economics, has an "open and public >dialogue" about globalization on the LSE website. I've sent in the >following contribution. > >Tom Walker >Sandwichman and Deconsultant >Bowen Island, BC > > > >Message sent to the "Runaway World Debate" on "Democracy and Third Way >Politics" >http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/RWDdemocracyandthirdway.htm > >> According to the background summary for this debate, a keynote of the >> new social contract is 'no rights without responsibilities.' Not >> surprisingly, the same theme of complementary rights and >> responsibilities was central to the report to Prime Ministers Blair and >> D'Alema, "Welfare to Work", prepared by Tito Boeri and LSE experts >> Richard Layard and Stephen Nickell for the March 2000 meeting in Lisbon >> of the European Council. > >http://www.palazzochigi.it/esteri/lisbona/dalema_blair/inglese.html). > >> The issue that concerns me is what responsibilities do the experts have >> to ensure that their advice is balanced and credible? Boeri, Layard, >> Nickell disparage what they refer to as the 'lump-of-labour fallacy' >> behind policies, such as early retirement, which may reduce labour >> supply. Aside from the straw-man argument that such policies have labour >> supply reduction as their *only* or *predominant* aim, the >> lump-of-labour label itself is highly objectionable. >> >> As I have documented ("The 'lump of labor' case against work-sharing: >> populist fallacy or marginalist throwback" in Lonnie Golden and Deborah >> Figart, eds., _Working Time: International Trends, Theory and Policy >> Perspectives_, Routledge, forthcoming 2001), the claim of a so-called >> lump-of-labour fallacy has a dubious status in the history of economic >> thought. Its use by contemporary economists is characteristically >> inconsistent and incoherent. Furthermore, the dubious claim played a >> prominant role in anti-trade union and anti-democratic politics in the >> U.S. and Britain in the early 20th century. >> >> In short, Boeri, Layard and Nickell have trotted out a demonstrably >> bogus piece of right-wing propaganda to shore up their case for >> restricting benefits to the unemployed. I assume they are unaware of the >> background of their phraseology. Where is the responsibility >> complementary to their 'expert' right to disparage popular wisdom and >> thus close off, rather than open up, informed democratic debate? >> >> Tom Walker > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > Workfare-defeat: a list for discussion about the international > resistance to workfare To subscribe, post to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with > "subscribe workfare-defeat" in the BODY of the message > ** This material may be freely distributed, provided this ** > ** footer is included in full. ** >
