Mat Forstater's piece of 16 January, referring to an AER article by
Vernon Dixon, led me to attempt to fill an apparent gap in my economics
training, namely, understanding that there is such a thing as "black
economics." It turned out, much to my relief, that I hadn't really
missed anything in my economics education. Indeed, Dixon opens his
concluding comments with the admission: "This paper does not include an
attempt to develop a body of theory that may be termed 'black
economics'." This after declaring in the introduction that "economics
is economics and there is also black economics"!
Dixon's piece, published among the "Papers and Proceedings" (1970), was
merely an attempt to call attention to the study of black culture and
for black culture to be recognized as "copresent with the cultural
uniqueness of white Americans" (p. 425). In this regard, he argues that
specification of utility functions that are maximized be informed by
culture. But he also admits that the tools of economic analysis are
universally applicable: "... this suggests that while the desire to
maximize utility functions is the province of universal economics, the
types of functions are the concern of nonuniversal economics." Any
well-trained economist recognizes that, don't they?
Would that Dixon had paid heed to Alfred Marshall's explanation of "The
Substance of Economics" in Chapter 2 of his _Principles of Economics_.
That is, the science of choice we call economics is applicable in
different contexts, including cultures. Thus, to declare that "there
could be as many economics as there are cultures" (Dixon 1970, p. 425)
is merely to betray one's failure to appreciate what the appropriate
application of the science entails.
It is interesting that Forstater referred to "Black Political Economy"
in his attempt to defend the claim that there exists "black economics."
But the two terms don't mean the same thing. Black Political Economy,
as I understand it, applies the tools of economic analysis to issues of
concern to blacks (mainly in America). Dixon tries to illustrate the
point in note 10 of his article(pp. 428-9), although he draws the wrong
conclusion. He claims that, in allocating a given amount of funds for
housing construction to the benefit of blacks, it would be better to
discriminate against a white-owned firm that could build 23,000 units in
favor of a "high-cost, black-owned" firm that would build 21,000 units
instead with the same amount of money. He admits that "To maximize
satisfaction from the consumption of housing alone, the white-owned firm
should receive the allocation." But he argues the inferior allocation
of the funds by asserting that there is a "collective black preference
for having its own productive facilities" and also arbitrarily assumes
that the white-owned firm would build housing outside of the black
community.
Had Dixon considered the cost of raising the funds for housing
construction and the need to earn enough revenue to cover such costs as
well as the income of the housing developer, he would have reached a
different conclusion. Are black entrepreneurs averse to profit-making,
as compared to white, brown, yellow, or any other colored entrepreneurs?
I don't think Dixon's flawed economic analysis merits being cited as
proof of the existence of "black economics."
Feminists may want to apply the science of economics to issues of their
concern. But it is equally misleading to call what they do "feminist
economics." Perhaps they would like to describe their enterprise as
"the economics of feminism" or "feminist political economy." Gary
Becker thus uses careful language when he writes about the "Economics of
the Family" or "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach." One may
legitimately point out that he has in mind white American family or
criminals in his descriptions. But that doesn't stop one from applying
the tools of economic analysis in the context of African, Asian, or
Latin American societies, without first chastising or complaining about
Becker's work.
James Ahiakpor
|
