As probably many of you I was somewhat...

As probably many of you I was somewhat delighted when I received the Table of Contents alert for the most recent issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP), which typically includes selected papers or sections dedicated to reviewing certain topics deemed to be of general interest to economists. Typically, the JEP is more a reflection of the preferences and interests of the average mainstream economist, but this time it was slightly different as the current issue not only includes a very timely & interesting symposium on the “Economics of Slavery”, but also a very nice piece by Carolina Alves from Cambridge University on how Joan Robinson critically and productively engaged with the works of Marx. I admit, this is not what I had expected and seeing more such initiatives in leading mainstream journals could surely contribute to some change within the discipline.

At the same time, a move like this has been long overdue. On the one hand, economics is somewhat famous for its reluctance to discuss the path-dependent properties inherent in existing economic stratification within regions, nations, and the world. Any change in this regard, and a more open consideration of the fact that today’s discrepancies in wealth and opportunities in many cases derive from historical roots that relate to forced work and other atrocities of our past, would do us well to put things in an appropriate context. On the other hand, alternative theoretical perspectives are too often excluded based on mere prejudice and any change in that regard is also to be applauded.

While I have probably not yet read these contributions carefully enough, my first impression is that these papers live up to the promise. The symposium is, although mainly focused on the US, highly enlightening to read and has taught me some things about how to think about Black economic history, how to quantitatively reflect on the case for reparations associated with the ‘costs of racism’, and how to assess the economic ‘contribution’ of slavery. Regarding the latter, the insights of the symposiums align with the general impression that slavery is not only abhorrent in terms of dignity but also a deficient instrument for creating wealth. As often in historical studies, findings indicate that forced work is detrimental to innovation in and diversification of the economy as the focus on rent-extraction for those who possess and punish distracts from possible opportunities to increase productivity and leaves little room and weak incentives for experimenting with new technologies.

The latter observation that power-relations and the degree of exploitation are key variables for shaping developmental paths of economies is thereby a core insight associated with a Marx-inspired view on economic history. This final point also resonates well with Carolina’s paper, which emphasizes that one key aspect that made Marx intellectually attractive for Robinson was her intuition that his account allows for a sharper and more precise assessment of the role of distributional issues in economic analyses. I have to admit that I share that one intuition with Joan ;-)

All the best,

Jakob

PS: In this topical context, also check out this issue’s Call for Papers section, which features two related calls on “Black Reparations” and “Class, Race and Place in the US South”.