Work is a Four-Letter Word: The Economics of Work in Historical and Critical Perspective*

Abstract

Introduction The question as to why people work has been answered in a remarkably consistent way in the history of economic thought. People, it has been argued, have only extrinsic motives for work. They work not because they have any desire to perform work for its own sake--indeed they are assumed to much prefer not to work at all--but rather because they wish to fulfill their consumption wants. Most economists have treated work as a functional activity, a necessary evil, rather than an end in its own right, and have given little attention to the possible intrinsic benefits of work. In terms of welfare economics, work has been viewed as important because of its contribution to the production of valuable output. Work matters, it seems, because it furnishes the things that people want to consume. Its role as a shaper of the personality and well-being of people has been somewhat neglected in standard welfare economics. It has been assumed that work is something that must be economized on if human happiness is to be improved upon but here the focus has been on the minimization of an activity (i.e., work) that is putatively devoid of any positive features. The disutility or irksomeness of work has been viewed as a fixed and unchanging feature of human life that is beyond the control of human action. Work, in short, has been seen by most economists as a means only. This article aims to highlight and explain the relatively narrow depiction of work within much of the economics literature. It takes a historical focus in tracing how the conceptualization of work has developed in economic thought. It also gives reasons for why many economists have painted work as an instrumental activity. It is argued that the neglect of work as a direct influence upon human welfare is no mere oversight, but rather has its roots in the conceptual and methodological as well as ideological apparatus adopted in much mainstream economic theory. The neglect of the activity of work is seen to have denied space for mainstream economists to engage with the full range of possibilities for progress in human well-being. In particular, it has resulted in a failure to identify the potential for workplace reform as a means to enhance the well-being of workers. The view that work is irredeemably irksome has brought about a resignation to the idea that human happiness lies with the promotion and achievement of a life of ease or leisure and has prevented the consideration of possible ways to enrich and enliven the work that is required to meet societal needs. The article also considers contributions on work from within the heterodox or non-mainstream economics literature, for example, Marxian and institutionalist. In contrast to mainstream perspectives, such contributions are able to explain the endogenous roots of peoples' preferences for work, and to articulate and advance a case for the achievement of more rewarding forms of work. The heterodox economics literature on work is drawn upon in order to identify flaws and weaknesses within past and present mainstream economic theorising on work. Happiness economics, as it contributes to the understanding of work, is one modern perspective that is singled out for criticism. Its reduction of well-being at work to the subjective feelings of individual workers is seen to create particular problems, and is judged as inferior to a more objective conception of the quality of work. The article argues for an alternative approach to the study of work that encompasses insights drawn from heterodox or nonmainstream economics. The following discussion is organized as follows. The next section offers an overview of the history of ideas on work in economics. The third section seeks to account for the marginalization of work by most economists. The fourth section deals with the consequences of this neglect. The fifth section examines more directly the conceptualization of work in non-mainstream economics. …