 Why economists dislike a lump of laborTom Walker (lumpoflabor@gmail.com) Review of Social Economy, 2007, vol. 65, issue 3, 279-291 Abstract: The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called one of the “best known fallacies in economics.” It is widely cited in disparagement of policies for reducing the standard hours of work, yet the authenticity of the fallacy claim is questionable, and explanations of it are inconsistent and contradictory. This article discusses recent occurrences of the fallacy claim and investigates anomalies in the claim and its history. S.J. Chapman's coherent and formerly highly regarded theory of the hours of labor is reviewed, and it is shown how that theory could lend credence to the job-creating potentiality of shorter working time policies. It concludes that substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it. Keywords: lump-of-labor fallacy; hours of work; full-employment policy (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:65:y:2007:i:3:p:279-291 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/00346760701635809 Access Statistics for this article Review of Social Economy is currently edited by Wilfred Dolfsma and John Davis More articles in Review of Social Economy from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to econpapers@oru.se.
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.