Idea Transcript
The Four Sociologies and Social Stratification Fabrizio Bernardi1 UNED
Journalist: Can “The Da Vinci Code” be considered crime fiction? Paco Ignacio Taibo II: Crime fiction? No, shoddy fiction2.
1. Introduction In this paper, I discuss the “four sociologies” typology put forward by Boudon (2002) and Goldthorpe (2004) with reference to the empirical study of social stratification. The paper’s aim is two-fold. Firstly, I show that in this field the differences among scientific sociology, cameral sociology and critical sociology are very ill-defined and I make an effort to explain why this is so. I then critique expressive sociology of social stratification and give my reasons for why I think there is no real need for a sociology of this kind. The article is structured as follows. A definition of scientific sociology that will serve as a point of reference for the discussion that follows is put forward in the next section. The third section highlights and shows the common points that can be found in the works of John Goldthorpe, as an exponent of scientific sociology; Gøsta Esping-Andersen, as a representative of cameral sociology; and Erik O. Wright, as a defender of critical sociology. I then look into the contributions made by Richard Sennett and Ulrich Beck3 as examples of expressive sociology in the fourth section. The main arguments set out in this article are summarised in the conclusions.
2. The Sociology that Really Matters According to Boudon (2002, 372-373), who bases himself on the Circle of Vienna’s position, scientific sociology “explains a given phenomenon by making it the consequence of a set of statements compatible with one another and individually acceptable, either because they are congruent with observation, or for all kinds of other reasons variable from one case to the other”. Similarly, for Goldthorpe (2004, 98), “the 1
This is a translation of an article originally published in Italian. If you want to quote it, please refer to the original article: Fabrizio Bernardi, Le quattro sociologie e la stratificazione sociale, in "Sociologica" 1/2007, doi: 10.2383/24195. I would like to thank Francesco Scalone who has provided me with various indications on novels dealing with work and social stratification. I would also like to thank Gabriele Ballarino and Marta Fraile for having read a draft version of this article and given me useful suggestions to improve it. I acknowledge the financial support of the UNED with the translation of this article. 2 Interview with the writer Paco Iganacio Taibo II on different kinds of crime fiction on Spanish radio, Cadena Ser (June, 2006). 3 Sennett’s book “The Corrosion of Character” is mentioned by Goldthorpe (2004, Note 2, 103) as an example of expressive sociology. The choice of Beck as an example of expressive sociology is perhaps more problematic given the peculiarly elusive nature of this author’s writings. This classification can, however, be justified in so far as the author regularly appeals to the reader’s “everyday experiences” (Beck and Berck-Gersheim 202, p. XXI of the foreword and p. 203) and the frequent use he makes of literature (Sarte, Musil, V. Wolf and Novalis) almost as empirical evidence to ground his own arguments.
1
primary goal of sociology as social science is the explanation of what would otherwise be ‘opaque’ social phenomena”. Goldthorpe (2000) additionally states in his book “On Sociology” that an explanation in sociology should be comprised of three phases: 1) establishing the existence of the phenomenon the explanadum represents, 2) formulating hypotheses concerning the explanadum’s generative processes at the level of social action, and 3) subjecting the hypotheses to empirical tests. King, Keohane and Verba’s (1994) definition could be added to this one. According to these authors, scientific research in the social sciences is characterised by three aspects. This first of these is that the aim of scientific research is to make inferences that go beyond specific observations or the cases studied. These inferences or generalisations based on the empirical matter under study can either be descriptive and therefore concern the explanadum’s definition (phase 1 of the sequence put forward by Goldthorpe) or explanatory (phase 2). The second feature is that the methods used in research are public and explicit. It is thus possible to compare and replicate the results of the explanadum’s definition (phase 1) and the hypotheses’ testing (phase 3) with other pieces of research, and to replicate them. The third characteristic is that the process of making inferences is imperfect and that generalisations are always subject to a margin of uncertainty. This is why sociology, for it to be scientific, should ensure it provides a reasonable estimation of the uncertainty of the results upon which such generalisations are based. The space limits imposed by the nature of this brief intervention prevent me from going deeper into the epistemological questions that ground the definition of scientific sociology discussed up to this point. It is, however, sufficient to point out that for all the above-mentioned authors the starting point for scientific sociology is recognizing the existence of a phenomenon to be explained. In this regard, Goldthorpe accepts Merton’s (1987) recommendation of establishing the existence of a phenomenon or social fact before daring to explain it. Recognizing the importance of descriptions saves one from the risk of falling into what could be called “mechanismism”, i.e. the obsession with seeking mechanisms for phenomena that are not fully defined and whose consistency is not that that well determined4. King, Keohane and Verba perhaps go one step further 4
On the one hand, the trend towards “mechanismism” is due to the enthusiasm that reading “Social Mechanisms” by Hedström and Swedborg has caused among many “young” European sociologists, who have mainly been educated in universities that currently form part of the EQUALSOC (http://www.equalsoc.org/ ) network of excellence, and, on the other, to the little prestige given to descriptive studies in journals having a high impact factor. The articles written by Polavieja (2006) and Morillas (2007) can be considered as examples of a certain trend toward “mechanismism”. One should note that in other respects (for instance the expositive rigor and the use of empirical evidence) these articles are of an excellent level and undoubtedly pertain to scientific sociology. The aim of Polavieja’s article (2006) is to explain the cause behind the high incidence of fixed-term employment contracts in Spain compared to other OECD countries. The phenomenon to be explained is defined on the basis of a formal distinction between fixed-term and permanent employment contracts that in several countries (for instance, in the UK and the USA) does not make much sense. Morillas (2007) proposes studying the mechanism through which wealth influences the opportunity of income mobility and thus explain the difference in income progression among whites and blacks in the USA. What is lacking in the article, however, is a precise description of the dependent variables that the article aims to explain: which the average income mobility in the USA is, which social groups have greater mobility and, more specifically, what the difference between white and black people’s earnings mobility is. So as not to limit ourselves to the motes in other people’s eyes, a beam in Bernardi’s (1999) own eye can be quoted. Different explanations as to how a husband’s work career can influence a wife’s work career are subjected to empirical tests in the article in question. However, descriptive data on the most common sequences of
2
when they recognise that a social phenomenon’s description can already be considered as part of scientific sociology, as long as it enables one to make generalisations and is accompanied by an estimate of such generalisations’ margin of uncertainty.
3. The Sociologies of Social Stratification In addition to having taken part in meta-sociological discussions on the types of sociology, John Goldthorpe can undoubtedly be considered as one of the outstanding exponents of scientific sociology in the field of social stratification and mobility (Erikson and Goldthorpe 1992; Goldthorpe 2000). As Goldthorpe (2004) himself recognises, the boundary between scientific sociology and cameral sociology is not as yet very well defined. Goldthorpe’s own intellectual trajectory over the last few years is proof of this. Goldthorpe’s class scheme has recently been adopted as the official scheme for classifing socio-economic conditions by the United Kingdom’s Office of National Statistics and as a basis to construct a common European-wide scheme of socio-economic conditions (Rose and Pevalin 2001). Secondly, Goldthorpe has in the last few years played a prominent role in the Cabinet Office Seminars on matters concerning inequality in educational opportunities and social mobility. He has additionally been invited to take part in a series of seminars in Downing Street on the renewal of the Labour party, where his critiques of the notion of meritocracy have not been altogether welcomed (Goldthorpe 2003). Lastly, one of the latest research projects promoted by Goldthorpe and Wing Chan (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/status.html) on the relationship between social stratification and cultural consumption is arousing widespread interest in the media and generating an intense political debate, which has even reached parliament. This debates centres on the suitability of and justification for public expenditure on culture, which is mainly enjoyed by individuals having a higher social status5. Let us now consider Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s (1993; 2004) contributions to the field of social stratification. Among the most important sociologists concerned with social inequality, Esping-Andersen is probably the one whose orientation towards cameral sociology is most pronounced. As a matter of fact, beyond his fundamental interest in social policies and welfare regimes, a large part of his academic publications are the result of reworking research papers and reports commissioned by international organisations or governmental bodies such as the OECD or the European Commission6. Esping-Anderson’s sociology can therefore be considered as cameral sociology not so much or not only because public policies are his main research topic but also because the author is willing to study the “hot” issues of today’s political debates. Having stated this, it cannot be doubted that Esping-Anderson’s sociology is also at the same time scientific according to the criteria set out in the second section. For instance, Espingwomen’s career paths are not provided. In other words, the article analyses diverse mechanisms underlying a phenomenon whose consistency is fully specified. 5 The information regarding his participation in the Cabinet Office’s Seminars and the political impact of the research on cultural consumption comes from personal communications with the author. 6 For instance, Esping-Anderson (2002) is based on a research report commissioned by the Belgian government within the framework of activities promoted to coincide with the Belgian presidency of the European Commission. A paper subsequently published in Esping-Andersen (1996) was originally put together for the UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development) to prepare for the World Social Development Summit of 1995. Lastly, Esping-Andersen (1999), particularly in the first chapter, once again takes up various ideas set out in a paper put together for the OECD conference “Towards 2000: The New Social Policy Agenda” held in 1996.
3
Anderson (1993) sets himself the objective of establishing whether or not post-industrial transformation favours the emergence of a service proletariat as a new social class. A generalisation of the specific results from several of the countries under study and an assessment of the uncertainty underlying such generalisations appear in the book’s conclusions. There is no doubt, therefore, that Esping-Andersen’s (1993) book can truly be considered as being among the set of “classic” comparative studies on social stratification, along with the ones authored by Shavit and Blossfeld (1993), Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992), and Breen (2004). The aforementioned authors’ books (which in our classification exercise on types of sociology could be considered as exponents of scientific sociology) have in common having contributed to responding to questions mainly of a descriptive nature. Erikson and Goldthorpe (1992) analyse whether the associations between classes of origin and destination have diminished. Shavit and Blossfeld (1993) look into whether inequalities in educational opportunities have been reduced. Breen (1994) examines whether or not Erikson and Goldthorpe’s (1992) results are confirmed for the most recent years. In the same line, Esping-Andersen (1993) questions whether a new kind of proletariat is being formed. Finally, in his latest contribution to the field of social stratification, Esping Andersen (2004) investigates the causal mechanism underlying inequalities that are transmitted from one generation to the next. An attempt not only to describe but also to provide an explanation for the persistence of the influence exerted by parents’ social classes on the level of their offspring’s educational attainment is explicit in this article7. Lastly, we have to consider E.O. Wright as an outstanding representative of sociology oriented to a normative critique of the way the capitalist system works8. This author has dedicated a good part of his academic career seeking to re-launch Marxist social class analysis (Wright 2005). Although his identification with Marxism justifies identifying Wright as a main exponent of critical sociology in the area of social stratification, in reality his empirical works should be considered as scientific as those of Goldthorpe and Esping-Andersen. For example, Baxter and Wright (2000) address the “glass ceiling” hypothesis and studied gender inequality in access to the top of the occupational hierarchy in three countries. The essential characteristic that makes this work scientific, apart from the attempt to draw a general conclusion from the results of the empirical research (“the glass ceiling effect does not exist”), is the critical assessment of the research’s limits and of the possible sources of distortion in the results. Along the same lines as the criteria put forward by King, Keohane and Verba (1994), the authors make an effort to specify the uncertainty underlying their conclusions. Similarly, Wright and Dwyer (2003) rework and enlarged a research report on the structure of America’s occupational structure, which was directed by Joseph Stiglitz and published by the Clinton administration’s Department of Labor. This article, which could be considered a typical contribution of cameral sociology, describes and establishes with extreme rigor the phenomenon of the occupational structure’s asymmetric polarisation. At the same time it also offers a series of critical reflections on the political and normative implications of the aforementioned structural change. 7
The above does not preclude the possibility of criticizing the empirical analyses conducted by EspingAndersen, which at times are based on a very small number of cases or on questionable statistical model specifications. However, the possibility of replicating the analyses is precisely what makes them scientific according the criteria set out in the second section. 8 Space limits prevent me from showing that the Bowles’ and Gintis’ sociology —or better said Marxistinspired critical economics—, who are the authors of the classic “Schooling in Capitalist America”, can also be considered as fully scientific.
4
4. The Expressive Sociology of Social Stratification In his book “The Corrosion of Character” (1999), Sennett defends the thesis that new capitalism —based on flexibility, mobility and risk— radically undermines the sense of continuity in an individual’s existence. It, thus, weakens the points of reference that are essential to form a coherent stable character, such as having a sense of the past and a relative degree of security in the future. Sennett’s book is therefore a descriptive book that aims to identify the effects of structural change in a post-industrial, post-fordist society on individual biographies. However, it is not the lack of explanations or causal mechanisms that make “The Corrosion of Character” a “non-scientific” sociology book according to the criteria specified above. Rather the problem resides in what Merton (1987) reminds us is the first step of a scientific study: the necessity to establish the existence of the social phenomenon under study. What procedure does Sennett follow to make inferences from the biographies of his four or five interviewees and “from their everyday experience of the world that surrounds them” (p. 11) to the totality of the flexible new capitalism? To what extent are the experiences of the protagonists in Sennett’s book representative of our time’s collective experience? If we go back to the criteria put forward in the second section, Sennett does not clarify which method he has used in his research. Rather he explicitly recognises that this method is opaque and to a great extent reduced to his intuition as to how the surrounding world works. At the same time he does not make the slightest effort to provide us with an estimate of his generalisations’ uncertainty. It can be seen in Table 6 in the Appendix (p. 154) that only 15% of workers have a work timetable that allows them to change their time and place of work and that an additional 5% do shift work9. The data Sennett publishes in his book therefore suggest that only one in five US workers had a flexible time schedule at the beginning of the 1990s. This is just one example of the difficulty of reconciling the generalisations made by Sennett with the empirical evidence presented in the book, though it does not mean that the thesis put forward by “The Corrosion of Character” is necessarily wrong. However, the method (or lack of it) with which he describes the effect of new capitalism on the process of constructing individual character raises certain doubts about the real existence of “the flexible man”. In other words, we could be before a book that deals with, analyses and researches into the causes of a phenomenon that might not really exist. Beck’s case is somewhat different. Let us focus on his thesis of the death of social classes. At the beginning of the essay that has made this thesis popular, Beck puts forward an apparent paradox. On the one hand, the results of various pieces of empirical research indicate that “the structure of social inequality in developed countries displays a surprising stability” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002, 30, emphasis in the original). On the other, “questions concerning inequality are no longer perceived and politically handled as class questions” (Ibid.). According to Beck, this contradiction can be resolved if we consider the spreading of the process of individualisation since the postWorld War II period. At this point in Beck’s argument, the key elements of the individualisation process are two: the relative degree of well-being linked to the 9
It is interesting to note that the data commented on by Sennett on the same page in which he cites Table 6 (p. 57) have nothing to do with the data appearing on table 6. In the text, Sennett affirms that “around 70% of American companies allow workers to perform a week’s work by choosing a timetable to be at the factory or the office” (p.57). The source of this data is unclear. The pages and tables number quoted refer to the Italian edition of the book.
5
economic growth of the post-war period and the simultaneous consolidation of the welfare state (pension system, unemployment benefit and national health system). According to the German author, economic well-being and protection from social risks have progressively freed individuals from the social structure’s conditioning. The individualisation process therefore produces a dissolving of the identities and lifestyles linked to social classes and to the subculture of status (Ibid., 31). Up to this point, Beck’s argument seem clear enough. To sum up, the individualisation process emancipates individuals from the social relations that once defined their identity as life-long members of a given social group and is hence responsible for a progressive erosion of social classes’ subjective dimension. Nonetheless, a few pages later, Beck (Ibid., 37) adds a new element to his argument. He affirms that the risk of becoming unemployed and poor is becoming generalised and that it goes beyond the limits set in the past by social classes and level of education. In this specification of the theory of individualisation, unemployment and poverty less and less affect one group for a long period of time, but are distributed across society at particularly phases of people’s lives. Thus socio-economic inequalities do not follow the logic of social classes any more but generally take the form of temporary periods of inequality in people’s individual biographies. In this regard, Beck suggests that the individualisation process also weakens the influence of social class as a conditioning factor of individuals’ life chances. At this point of the argument, thus, social classes lose importance even in their objective dimension. It is interesting to note that the processes underlying the erosion of social classes as conditioning factors of objectives life chances (the spreading of unemployment and poverty) operate against the grain of the factors that have allowed the subjective dimension of classes to be weakened (the increase in economic wellbeing and the spreading of a system of social protection)10 . The last turn in Beck’s argument appears when the author affirms that in spite of the fact that class inequalities are being reduced, the individualisation process leads to an increase in inequality given that the experience of inequality and poverty is becoming generalised among all social groups. It is worth noting that if it were true that all members of society go through temporary episodes of unemployment and poverty, the high level of inequality observed at a specific moment would disappear if inequality were observed over the whole individuals’ life-courses. It is therefore difficult to keep the thesis of the individualisation of poverty and the thesis of the increase in inequality together. Moreover, comparative empirical research has denied that the risk of poverty and unemployment is becoming generalised among all social classes (Layte and Whelan 2002; Blossfeld, Mills and Bernardi 2006). To conclude, one gets the impression of being in front of a professional three-shell game trickster when one reads Beck. Just when the reader is sure to have understood the argument A (crisis in the subjective dimension of classes), the author rapidly transforms it into B (crisis of classes as a conditioning factor for objective life-chances due to processes that are the opposite of those that have made A possible). And just when the reader is reformulating the jump in the argument, Beck adds another half-turn with C 10
This contradiction could perhaps be resolved by introducing a distinction between “positive” individualisation, which frees individuals from traditional conditioning factors and places them in a position to choose their own lifestyles, and a “negative” individualisation resulting from the rise in poverty and unemployment, which obliges individuals to continuously redefine their own biographies. However, Beck seems to be more interested in formulating contradictions than in resolving them.
6
(increase in inequality when the starting point to arrive at A affirmed just the contrary). In the end, the reader gets the feeling that, as in real life, there is no ball under the movement of the three shells; or, the metaphor aside, that there is no solid argument underlying Beck’s jumps in argumentation.
5. Conclusions In light of the foregoing discussion, it can be affirmed that the works of Goldthorpe, Esping-Andersen and Wright belong to the same vein of the “sociology that really matters” in Boudon words. It should be noted that the “scientific” Goldthorpe has recently also served as a policy advisor, that the “critical” Wright is also “scientific”, and that Esping-Anderson’s focus on policy does not prevent his sociology from also being scientific. Why therefore do the borders between scientific, critical and cameral sociology turn out to be so ill-defined in the case of social stratification? What is the reason behind this peculiarity? Again, the answer to this question cannot be very deep. I will limit myself to two brief considerations. First of all, when compared to other research area, the field of social stratification and mobility approaches the ideal of “normal science” in the Kuhnian sense of the concept. Most importantly, a succession of “paradigms” has oriented research in this field ever since the post-World War II period (Cobalti 1995; Ganzeboom, Treiman and Ultee 1991; Kerckhoff 1995). This has ensured that researchers having different approaches finally end up trying to respond to a series of common research questions, using the same method and often the same data. Secondly, this research area is characterised by a long-standing tradition of studies which are essentially descriptive and have made a large amount of accumulated empirical evidence available on the existence and change over time of different kinds of inequality (such as educational opportunities, social mobility and homogamy) (Hout and DiPrete 2006). This shared descriptive corpus of knowledge probably represents the necessary condition that allows cameral and critical sociology to attempt to define the underlying mechanisms behind the phenomena studied and therefore to approach scientific sociology. To conclude, we only have to respond to the question that was already broached in the introduction: does expressive sociology really matter? Some time ago, an Italian colleague told me that Boudon’s typology turns out to be useful in the case of shoddy and inconclusive degree theses that supervisors have to deal with from time to time. He explained that in these cases the last resort was to defend such theses as an example of expressive sociology. However, putting this anecdote aside, I would say that literature and the cinema are better equipped to capture the spirit of the times than expressive sociology. Literature and the cinema differentiate themselves from expressive sociology in as far as they clearly and explicitly offer a subjective partial view. The liberty of telling a particular story without the need of building it up as a general category (the “flexible or individualised man”) or making reference to classical sociological theories and other authors’ publications gives greater force and depth to manage to illuminate any aspect of reality and approach the experience of a specific phenomenon. The paradox of expressive sociology seems to be in that its pseudoscientific and academic nature limits and stifles its expressive possibilities. If expressive sociology should be purely assessed on the basis of subjective literary criteria, when it comes to issues concerning changes in work and social structure, it turns out to be more enjoyable and stimulating to read Philip Roth than Richard Sennett, or to read the chaotic, torrential and explicitly partial Paco Ignacio Taibo II than the ambivalent Ulrich Beck. Going
7
back to the words of the Mexican writer quoted at the beginning of this paper, instead of talking about expressive sociology it may perhaps be more appropriate to talk about shoddy sociology.
6. Bibliography Baxter, J. and Wright, E.O. 2000 “The glass ceiling hypothesis. A comparative study of the United States, Sweden and Australia.” Gender and Society 14: 275-294. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. 2002 Individualization. London: Sage. Bernardi, F. 1999 “Does the Husband Matter? Married Women and Employment in Italy”. European Sociological Review 3: 285-300. Blossfeld, H.P, Mills, M. and Bernardi, F. (eds) 2006 Globalization, Uncertainty and Men’s Occupational Careers in Modern Societies. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edwar Edgar. Boudon, R. 2002 “Sociology that Really Matters.” European Sociological Review 3: 371-378. Breen, R. (ed.) 2004 Social Mobility in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Colbati, A. 1995 Lo studio della mobilità. Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. 1992 The Constant Flux. A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Esping-Andersen, G. 1993 Changing Classes. Stratification and Mobility in Post-Industrial Societies. London: Sage. 1996 “Positive Sum Solutions in a World of Trade-offs?” In Welfare States in Transition. National Adaptations in Global Economies edited by Gøsta EspingAndersen, G. London: Sage. 1999 Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 Why we need a new Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004 “Untying the Gordian knot of social inheritance.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 21: 115-139 Ganzeboom, H., Treiman, D. and Ultee, W. 1991 “Comparative Intergenerational Stratification Research: Three Generations and Beyond”, Annual Review of Sociology 17: 277-302. Goldthorpe, J. 2000 On Sociology. Numbers, Narratives and the Integration of Research and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003 “The myth of education-based meritocracy.” New Economy 10: 234-239. 2004 “Sociology as Social Science and Cameral Sociology: Some Further Toughts.” European Sociological Review 2: 97-105. Hout, M. and DiPrete, T. 2006 “What we have learned: RC28's contributions to knowledge about social stratification.” Research in social stratification and mobility 24: 1-20. Kerckhoff, A.
8
1995 “Institutional arrangements and stratification processes in industrial societies.” Annual Review of Sociology, 15: 323-347. King, G., Kehoane, R. and Verba, S. 1994 Designing Social Inquiry. Pricenton: Princeton University Press. Layte, R. and Whelan, C. 2002 “Cumulative disadvantage or individualisation? A comparative analysis of poverty risk and incidence.” European Society 2: 209-233. Merton, R. K. 1987 “Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebook: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Materials.” Annual Review of Sociology 13: 1-28. Morillas, J. R. 2007 “Assets, earnings mobility and the black/white gap.” Social Science Research, (in stampa). Polavieja, J. 2006 “The Incidence of Temporary Employment in Advanced Societies: Why is Spain Different?” European Sociological Review 22: 61-78, Rose, D. and Pevalin, D 2001 “The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification: Unifying Official and Sociological Approaches to the Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Class”, ISER Working Papers. Paper 2001-4 Colchester: University of Essex. Sennett, R. 1999 L’uomo flessibile (The Corrosion of Character). Milano: Feltrinelli. Shavit, Y. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (Eds.) 1993 Persistent Inequalities: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder: Westview Press. Wright, E. O. (Ed.) 2005 Alternative Foundations of Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, E.O. and Dwyer, R. 2003 “The Patterns of Job Expansions in the USA: A Comparison of the 1960s and 1990s.” Socio-Economic Review 1: 289-325.
9