Malavika Nair and G.P. Manish write,
In recent years, many thousands of so-called “untouchables,” or Dalits, members of the lowest group in the Indian caste order, have risen out of poverty to become wealthy business owners, some even millionaires.
By taking advantage of the greater economic opportunity brought about by market reforms, these Dalit entrepreneurs provide us with an important example of the power of markets, not just to bring about economic emancipation, but to fight deeply entrenched social discrimination.
In Specialization and Trade, I argue that most pre-modern specialization was similar to the Indian caste system, in that you were born into your occupation. Part of modernity is getting to choose your occupation, and markets are an essential component of that.
Feel free to return to the book’s web site to peruse and comment on the reviews. One review, by Herbert Gintis, disturbed me. He is entitled to claim that what is right in the book is not original and what is original is not right. However, I found his tone to be snotty and uncharitable, which lowers my estimate of him considerably.
I think of Europe, namely Italy, where I was told gondola drivers made one 100,000 Euros a year, but only sons of existing gondola driver could obtain a license.
Almost all of the Left’s criticisms (except of those further to the left than the speaker, and of certain favored, purportedly “oppressed” groups) are “snotty and uncharitable.” But shouldn’t they still be refuted, to the extent they’re serious?
I’ve just started reading the book, but it seems well aligned with specialization and trade in previous eras. Although, the withdrawal of Rome from Britain is a lesson in the risks of specialization and trade when there are no longer safe travel. Britain lost the ability of pottery once those who knew how to produce it left Britain or died. And I remember reading that the Romans had a recipe for hydraulic cement that we have yet to reproduce. The towns in Britain were abandoned after the legions left and the industrial farms were unable to move their specialized crop to market and trade for other needs. Subsistence became the rule.
Then as Anglo-Saxon wealth rose, specialized industrial towns sprouted up to provide goods. Mercia was especially active in international trade. It is possible the Vikings were able to cripple Mercia economically in the early 9th century due to raids on coastal trading towns and interference with continental trade, long before they ever set foot on Mercian soil. Listen to the episode of The British History Podcast at the link below. In the episode, the creator updates the rise of urban centers in the Anglo-Saxon period.
It would be something to note that as with villeinage that only appeared in England with the Normans, the restrictions on labor movement as villeins were beginning to be seen as freemen by the 14th century and requirement of sons to follow their fathers trade was a late Middle Ages development:
“(1388) The Statute of Richard II restricts laborers to their hundred and makes it compulsory for them to follow the same trade as their father after the age of twelve. The wages of both industrial and agricultural laborers are again fixed — shepherds, ten shillings a year; ploughmen, seven; women laborers, six shillings, and so on. Servants are permitted to carry bows and arrows, but not swords, and they may not play tennis or foot-ball. And here is the historical origin of the important custom of exacting recommendations: servants leaving employment are required to carry a testimonial, and none are to receive servants without such letter — the original of the blacklist.”
–Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute, Frederic Jesup Stimson (1910)
The laws seriously restricting labor, forcing work, setting wages, etc., came with the Statute of Laborers in 1349, which the Statute of Richard modifies. The Statute of Laborers was a response to the rising cost of labor after the Black Plague reduced the population by an estimated one third.
As with industrial innovation, such as the steam engine, our modernity seems to be less about discovering a new liberty and more about getting that liberty to stick (and spread) for a longer period of time than in the past. We can only hope we don’t suffer the fate of those from the past who lost their common individual liberties to the control of “elites”.
https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/archives/2409
My first introduction to Game Theory came from Herbert Gintis’ book so I have a mild affectation for him, even if his comments in your review were not very charitable.
He does more reviewing on Amazon than any other high profile academic I know of and he’s fairly famous on Amazon for coming down pretty hard on well-received social science books. His review of Nassim Taleb’s books are fairly famous as far as Amazon Book Reviews go.
I get the impression he does not think very favorably of market-oriented thought in general and tends to come down hard on people who cozy up to it, although his biggest axe to grind is the rational expectations stuff because he sees it as at odds with Game Theory.
On a somewhat related note, I would happily read a book by you that was more technical in its orientation and went into more depth of the various economics models that you disparage so commonly on this blog.
I’ve been reading the economics blogosphere for so long that it’s hard for me to get very excited about work that’s written for laypeople since it’s hard to say anything that hasn’t already been said.
But a book that went up one more level and used some math to illustrate what the assumptions in a model actually mean along with your typical commentary would be very interesting to me.
I’m not sure if my tastes are common enough to form a big enough market to make it worth your time, but I wouldn’t surprised if there’s a decent number of people like me that’d enjoy a book like that.
I was also surprised by the ungentlemanly tone of Gintis’s review. He seems to think you are onto something, but he wants a fuller, and more balanced, treatment. But your work is not exactly a textbook. Why must it cover everything? Why should it give lots of space to mainstream textbook ideas?
Gintis seems to really believe that the economy can be fine-tuned by expert economic “engineers”, and that people like Bernanke and Paulson are heroes who rescued us from a second great depression. But that’s not science, it’s belief. He’s entitled to his beliefs, but he should not disparage you for yours.
I don’t get the point with the Dalits. There are hundreds of millions of them aren’t there? A few were bound to be born high IQ, and a few of those were bound to win in the marketplace.
What are we supposed to learn from that? Are there any practical lessons of importance?