In my earlier post I did not say anything about Becker's theories about crime because I had a meeting I was late for. But Jim Divine does bring it up: Devine: Pat Mason's defense of the idea of studying Gary Becker is well-taken (especially since it was not a defense of Becker himself). If I were doing research on crime, for example, I would look up what Becker had to say. (Just as I'd look up what all the other thinkers on the subject, no matter how reactionary, have to say.) But I wouldn't expect Becker -- or any other theoretical economist, especially of the n.c. variety -- to have much to say about crime besides "common sense" stuff such as if the punishment of crime Z is swift, certain, and terrible, Z will tend to be less practiced. (translation: if you raise the price of criminal activities, the quantity of criminal activities demanded will fall.) [Even this ultra simplistic statement is wrong - see below -DVO] If I wanted to understand crime, I would look to _empirical_ research. Some of that would be from economics, but much of it would be from other disciplines. Me: Exactly. Turn to sociologists, or if you are interested in a more reasonable right-wing take on the issue, maybe those in a criminal justice department. At EWU we have both. I spend a reasonable amount of time taking to colleagues in both of these disciplines. Even the right-wingers in the criminal justice department think that Becker's theories a devoid of even a kernal of useful insight. In fact, there seems to be a correlation between the degree to which people seem to think there is something useful in his theories, and those people's ignorance of empirical data about crime. Yet that is true of all of Becker's theories. They all make sense if one is unfettered by real world data. Devine: there's an on-going process of up-scale folks walling themselves off from the unwashed masses at the same time they deny those masses social services, which creates a vicious circle of widening social gaps. I would also bring in the way that capitalist accumulation (with the support of the state) tends to disrupt all of the formal and informal community organizations which traditionally limit crime. Etc. (Stop me before I write all afternoon.) I think all of these dynamics can be tied together with a vision of the way in which capitalist accumulation has changed over the last few decades, what I think of as the transition from state-guided national capitalism to global capitalism. Me: These are the types of issues that sociologists and those in criminal justice have been analysing for well over 10 years. Any good ECONOMIC theory of crime has to include them as well. Becker's does not. Becker's theory gives us the nonsense noted in Devine's first paragraph that raising the price of crime reduces the "demand" for criminal activity. That view of the world has given use a wave of 3-strikes, 2-strikes and 1-strike laws around the country. Becker's view of the world justifies creeping and not so creeping fascist repression. Yet none of my conservative criminla justice colleagues think that 3-strikes will reduce crime, and all of the evidence from the real world so far supports that conclusion. What do conservatives in criminal justice recommend? They look at the issues Devine raises in his his second paragraph and recommned various forms of community policing. What does the real world evidence show us? Cities that have implimented community policing have seen significant reductions in crime, those that rely on "raising the cost of crime" have not. Becker's theories are wrong and suggesting that people study them as a starting point for radiacal theory is wrong headed. The only reason to study his theories is to understand the arguments and justifications behind repressive right-wing policies. But if your goal is to understand how the world works, studying Becker is a total waste of time. Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
