Review by Choice Review
Robert Skidelsky (Univ. of Warwick, UK), biographer of Keynes (John Maynard Keynes, CH, May'02, 39-5300), and his son Edward Skidelsky (Exeter Univ., UK) pick up on Keynes's belief that, as economic growth reduced scarcity, people would work less, stabilize their consumption while improving its quality, and increase both the time and quality of their leisure. While the authors realize that people have not behaved as Keynes thought they would, they believe it is possible for people to do so. They set out not only to convince the reader that it is possible, but to make the case for doing so. In the process, they survey and criticize a variety of economic literature relevant to their quest, including the happiness literature, John Rawls, Amartya Sen's capabilities approach, environmentalism, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Catholic social thought. In the end, what they want, however, appears a lot like the arguments of mid-20th-century economists across the political spectrum: basic income, expenditure rather than income taxes, and reduction of advertising. The argument is concise without being pedantic, and is quite accessible to undergraduate students, which is perhaps its best audience. Summing Up: Recommended. Students, upper-division undergraduate and up, as well as general readers. R. B. Emmett James Madison College, Michigan State University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by New York Times Review
ROBERT SKIDELSKY is a historian best known for his definitive threevolume biography of John Maynard Keynes; his son Edward Skidelsky is a philosopher. They have collaborated on a book arguing that people in wealthy countries like Britain and the United States work too hard and by doing so miss out on the "good life" - an ethical concept of a life as "worthy of desire, not just one that is widely desired." The inspiration for "How Much Is Enough?" is - unsurprisingly, given the father's preoccupation - an essay by Keynes. It is called "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" and was published in 1930. Since it is by Keynes, it is ingenious and brilliantly written. It is also dated and unconvincing. It predicted that barring another world war or some comparable tragedy, a century hence per capita income would be four to eight times as much because of continued capital investment. So far, so good; despite another world war, G.D.P. per capita in the United States has increased almost sixfold since 1930 (and about the same in Britain), and we still have 18 years to go before the century is up. Keynes thought the increase in per capita production would lead to a sharp fall in the hours of work; by 2030 a person would have to work only 15 hours a week to maintain his standard of living. The "economic problem" would have been solved, and the challenge would be to fill up people's leisure time with rewarding leisure activities. This part of Keynes's paper is wide of the mark. People in wealthy countries like the United States and Britain are working fewer hours per week on average than in 1929, before the Great Depression reduced the amount of available work: roughly 40 rather than 50. But Keynes thought that by 2010 the average would be 20. His essay is very English, because the traditional aspiration of the English upper class was not to work at all. Keynes, middle- rather than upper-class, worked hard all his life, but he was highly cultivated, a member of the Bloomsbury set, a balletomane, an admirer of the "good life" in a distinctively English sense unrelated to material comfort. In recent years, England has become much more like the United States, but I well remember as recently as the 1980s how shabby England was, how terrible the plumbing, how shoddy the housing materials, how treacherously uneven the floors and sidewalks, how inadequate the heating and poor the food - and how tolerant the English were of discomfort. 1 recall breakfast at Hertford College, Oxford, in an imposing hall with a large broken window - apparently broken for some time - and the dons huddled sheeplike in overcoats; and in a freezing, squalid bar in the basement of the college a don in an overcoat expressing relief at being home after a year teaching in Virginia, which he had found terrifying because of America's high crime rate, though he had not been touched by it. I remember being a guest of Brasenose College - Oxford's wealthiest - and being envied because I had been invited to stay in the master's guest quarters, only to find that stepping into the guest quarters was like stepping into a Surrealist painting, because the floor sloped in one direction and the two narrow beds in two other directions. I recall the English (now American) economist Ronald Coase telling me that until he visited the United States he did not know it was possible to be warm. The Skidelskys are correct that because goods and services can be produced with much less labor than in 1930, we could live now as we did then while working many fewer hours. We want to live better than that. And what would we do with our newfound leisure? Most people would quickly get bored without the resources for varied and exciting leisure activities like foreign travel, movies and television, casinos, restaurants, watching sporting events, engaging in challenging athletic activities, playing video games, eating out, dieting, having cosmetic surgery; and improving health and longevity. But with everyone working just 20 hours a week (on the way down to 15 in 2030), few of these opportunities would materialize, because people who worked so little would be unable to afford them. Nor could leisure-activity services be staffed adequately. The implications would be social as well as individual. Productivity would fall because workers would acquire skills at a slower rate. Nations would be defenseless, with soldiers who were on duty only 20 hours a week and had few weapons because the employees of munitions makers were also working only 20 hours a week. And imagine the maintenance of internal order in a society in which police officers, firefighters and paramedics worked only 20 hours a week. The Skidelskys have an exalted conception of leisure. They say that the true sense of the word is "activity without extrinsic end": "The sculptor engrossed in cutting marble, the teacher intent on imparting a difficult idea, the musician struggling with a score, a scientist exploring the mysteries of space and time - such people have no other aim than to do what they are doing well." That isn't true. Most of these people are ambitious achievers who seek recognition. And it is ridiculous to think that if people worked just 15 or 20 hours a week, they would use their leisure to cut marble or struggle with a musical score. If they lacked consumer products and services to fill up their time they would brawl, steal, overeat, drink and sleep late. English aristocrats in their heyday didn't work, but neither did they cut marble or explore the mysteries of space and time. Hunting, gambling and seduction were their preferred leisure activities. Americans value leisure, but it is expensive leisure, and so they have to work hard in order to pay for it. As a result they have less leisure time than if their preferred form of leisure were lying in a hammock, but on balance they obtain more pleasure. The authors offer suggestions for how to change the balance between work and leisure. First, everyone should receive either a wage from the government (with no obligation to work to earn it) generous enough to enable him to work only part time, or a capital endowment at birth; the risk of people squandering their endowment in "riotous living can be reduced by limiting their spending to approved objects (such as education)"; in addition, the schools would educate people for leisure. Second, they recommend imposing a progressive consumption tax, to make consumer products more costly in the hope of discouraging people from working hard to be able to afford them (it could of course make them work even harder). Third, firms should be forbidden to deduct advertising expenditures from taxable income, since advertising encourages consumption. But here is the oddest thing about the book: There is virtually no discussion of how people, their incomes halved, might be expected to employ the vastly greater leisure that the authors want them to have. Besides the sentence I quoted about the musician, sculptor, teacher and scientist - and the description is of their work, not of their leisure activities - there is a suggestion that a good leisure activity is letting one's mind wander "freely and aimlessly," and a list of three recreations - "playing football in the park, making and decorating one's own furniture, strumming the guitar with friends" - offered to refute any contention that the authors' conception of leisure is "narrowly highbrow." If you ask someone to work half as long for half the pay, you should have better answers to his question: What shall I do with my new leisure? Americans value leisure, but it is expensive leisure, and so they have to work hard in order to pay for it. Richard A. Posner is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [August 19, 2012]
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and a continued period of global economic unrest, the Skidelskys, a father-son team composed of University of Warwick emeritus professor of political economy Robert (Keynes: The Return of the Master) and Exeter University lecturer Edward (Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture), tackle age-old questions regarding the relationship between wealth, happiness, and satisfaction in this enlightening read. While the book's scholarly tone and laborious construction may not appeal to the casual reader, the questions posed and the research and conclusions presented are timely, relevant, and thought provoking. The authors begin by disputing economist John Maynard Keynes's 1930 prediction that as per capita income rose and basic needs were met, leisure and free time would increase. In fact, they point out, in modern times, though our income has risen, we work harder than ever, have less leisure than in previous eras, and have less happiness and satisfaction in our lives. The authors turn to historical fiction, philosophy, and political theory, drawing on Faust, Marx's critique of capitalism, and Aristotle's uses of wealth. Their conclusion that concepts like respect, friendship, and community are more likely to contribute to satisfaction and overall happiness than wealth makes for a fascinating, if cerebral, read. Agent: Peter Matson, Sterling Lord Literistic. (June) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Kirkus Book Review
A provocative and articulate discourse on the dismal science and moral philosophy. Eminent economic historian Robert Skidelsky (Political Economy Emeritus/Univ. of Warwick; Keynes: The Return of the Master, 2009, etc.) and his philosopher son Edward (Moral and Political Philosophy/Exeter Univ.) recall when John Maynard Keynes predicted that, in his grandchildren's days, no one would need to work much more than a few hours a week to satisfy our shared human needs. As the great economist expected, production soared, but work increased as well. What happened to the dream of Keynes? Though he thought needs were finite, the sought-after good life expanded. Needs may be satisfied, but not wants or the insatiable desire for more. In seeking to find suitable goods for the blissful life, the authors conflate economic theory with philosophy. They cite Marx and Marcuse, Aristotle and Adam Smith, happiness economists and ecological economists, the dharma sutra and story of Faust. In sum, they posit certain requirements: health, security, respect, individuality, harmony with nature, friendship and leisure. Individually and as a society, we should value these, not perpetual growth. With a statement likely to attract notice, the Skidelskys write, "the capitalist system in our part of the world is entering its degenerative phase." As an alternative to avarice and excess, the authors propose "non-coercive paternalism," including basic income payments to all (as in Alaska), reduction of advertising (how else would we choose our presidents?), a graduated use tax and, possibly, some sumptuary laws. Not for libertarians or the Fox News crowd, but the authors deliver powerful, timely material for Wall Street occupiers, public intellectuals, policy wonks and op-ed columnists.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
