[PEN-L:11343] Re: on CEO Pay

[MScoleman@xxxxxxx]

          The Bowles and Gintis incorporation of power into neoclassical
economics has been repeated by many feminists.  While I do think the results
are at least more interesting than standard neoclassical theory, I have real
problems both with the B & G work and the feminists who use NC models.
          First, however, the positive.  By using the NC model to incorporate
issues of power and diversity and to look at the social critiques of
neoclassical economics (racism, sexism, classism), at least the authors are
addressing issues which are not as trite as those normally found in NC work.
 I know as a grad student I just got sick and tired of reading IO literature
which looked at "important" questions such as whether or not consumers
received actual information from advertising.  Second, by incorporating these
social critiques, feminists and other critics of NC work bring these debates
squarely into the room of the Chicago School.  For many students in most
schools who only ever get taught and read mainstream economics, this is one
method by which students can realize that there are cracks in the seemingly
monolithic wall of mainstream economics.
          However, these positives are only positive if you think there is no
other way to avoid the triteness of the Chicago School paradigm or that there
is no better way to carry on the political debates.
          There is currently an ongoing debate within feminist economics as
to whether or not using econometrics by default leads to inaccuracy.  So what
if you add a variable or two to incorporate diversity or power, in effect all
mathematical models must be parsimonious or they will not work.  Why continue
to use a tool which, by its very definition, simplifies economics to a point
of inaccuracy.  Another facet of this argument is that econometrics
respresents the male ideal of mathematical logic.  As such, any use of
econometrics is chauvanist by definition--because it does not admit the
validity of any other type of logic (musical, intuitive, artistic, etc.).
          I think the use of neoclassical models is a nice exercise but not
particularly productive for a number of reasons:
1.  The theory has been proven repeatedly to be mathematically incorrect.
 Given that, any use of choice theory implies an acceptance of the use of
theory which does not work.
2.  There are better ways to force the mainstream to debate their own
defective theories.  Doug's book is one example--I think debates where the
mainstream becomes defensive and makes wildly inaccurate attacks on the work
of economists seeking to break the mold is much more productive **and
interesting** than a polite exchange of models.  By placing the debates
within their agenda, what gets discussed is their agenda, not the agenda of
intellectuals seeking to change the world.
3.  I agree with most of the feminist critique, but would add to it.  By
building feminist work in the vision of men who are sexist, one adopts sexism
into the models.  For instance, when women enter traditionally male
occupations, they tend to adopt male attitudes and become sexists themselves.
 It then becomes a fight for those women to maintain the right to continue to
function as feminine.  All things feminine tend to be denigrated in our
society at the same time women are expected to do feminine things.  So, for
instance, women are expected to have manicured nails, but are knocked for
those same nails in blue collar work because it makes them afraid to get
their hands dirty.  It seems to me that using mathematical models which have
been used to prove that women chose to be discriminated against in an attempt
to disprove women's desires for discrimination falls into the same
hypocritical pattern.
4.  The addition of power to econometric models does not accurately reflect
the subtle ways in which power is used in our society.  As with all other
variables, power can only fluctuate within narrowly defined limits in a
mathematical model, and therefore these models do not accurately incorporate
the power they seek to represent

maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx