Published by EH.NET (July 2004)  
 
David Colander, Robert E. Prasch, and Falguni A. Sheth, editors, _Race, 
Liberalism, and Economics_. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 
x + 334 pp. $65 (hardcover), ISBN: 0-472-11356-9.  
 
Reviewed for EH.NET by Stanley Engerman, Department of Economics, 
University of Rochester.  
 
This collection of eleven essays, almost all by economists, deals with 
questions relating to the political and philosophical background of 
economic thought, as well as to issues of public policy, as reflected in 
past and present attitudes to race and racial discrimination. Based upon a 
conference held at Middlebury College, the originating point was David 
Levy's controversial book, _How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical 
Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics_ (2001). In that book, and in 
the two essays here co-authored (with Sandra J. Peart), it is argued that, 
in the mid-nineteenth century, it was the laissez-faire economists who 
tended to be non-racist, while those often proclaimed as anti-capitalist 
social reformers, such as Dickens, Carlyle, and Ruskin, were more likely to 
be racist and pro-slavery (or, at the least, to be willing to delay 
emancipation until the time that the slaves were ready for freedom). To 
Levy and Peart, the economists conclusions follow from "their presumption 
of human homogeneity," so "that the social world is composed of equally 
competent optimizers," and "there is no group that needs looking after and 
no group that can do the looking after" (p. 57).  
 
Most essays deal with particular economists and their attitude towards 
racial distinctions. After surveying the views of several economists and 
social scientists, including J.B. Clark, John Commons, W.E.B. Du Bois, 
Abram Harris and Sterling Spero, Gunnar Myrdal, Gary Becker, and Thomas 
Sowell, Robert E. Prasch suggests "that the existence of this literature is 
itself evidence of an erosion in the harshness and degree of discrimination 
in America," (p. 178) as well as demonstrating a more analytical and 
empirical approach to its study.  
 
There is one direct onslaught on the Levy argument, by Susan Zlotnick, who 
praises Carlyle, Dickens, and Ruskin for their "critique of unrestrained 
capitalism," (p. 97) and generally criticizes Levy (and Peart) both for 
misinterpretations of these authors and also for a failure to understand 
the nature of modern-day literary criticism. There is a delightful air of 
nastiness to Zlotnick's critique, and to Levy and Peart's discussion of her 
points, but since they, in effect, focus on different issues of moral 
evaluation there is no need to reach a clear-cut decision on this debate.  
 
Other essays deal with the central topic of racism and social sciences. 
They include one on the beliefs of natural scientists on human variation 
since the Enlightenment (Brendan O'Flaherty and Jill S. Shapiro), one on 
views of John Stuart Mill on "race, liberty, and markets" (Falguni A. 
Sheth), and a survey of some recent studies on "Racial Discrimination in 
the Labor Market" (William A. Darity, Jr. and Patrick L. Mason). All 
provide useful information and insights. The remaining essays do, in 
various ways, relate to the basic theme, but in more tangential manners. 
Glenn C. Loury presents a clarification (or defense) of his book, _The 
Anatomy of Racial Inequality_, ending by quoting Keynes: "when 
circumstances change I change my opinion" (p. 255). This is clearly 
something he has done in moving away from his earlier arguments focusing 
mainly on black responsibility. In an article not directly related to the 
principle issue of the book, Vanita Gowda and O'Flaherty advocate the 
economic and other benefits expected from better recreational drugs, 
particularly for African-Americans. David Colander discusses the best-mix 
of private markets and government control, in dealing with racial problems, 
and argues for a more pragmatic approach than we have become used to. And 
Marcellus Andrews cleverly analyzes the neoclassical model, and its role in 
free market ideology, drawing a distinction between classical liberalism 
and egalitarian liberalism, and the manners with which each deals with 
racism and racial discrimination.  
 
As with all collections, some essays are more interesting and useful than 
others, and some are more relevant to the theme that the editors have 
chosen for this volume. In general, however, these essays are rather 
stimulating in dealing with such important questions as understanding the 
philosophical roots of some aspects of economic theory, describing the 
importance of changing ideas over time, both in society as well as in 
economics, and establishing that people, some of whose ideas we admire may 
also hold some beliefs that we find abhorrent.  
 
Stanley Engerman is John Munro Professor of Economics and Professor of 
History at the University of Rochester.  
 
Copyright (c) 2004 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied 
for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and 
the list. For other permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator 
([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229). Published by EH.Net (July 
2004). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.