quote:

---

The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.

...

...one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.

Ouch.

Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
Using economic theory, one would assume that sex workers in Alberta are either being paid far more for their services, or they are leaving the business altogether.

---

Or they lack the skills required for alternative employment.

quote:

---

Supply and demand also does not seem to explain why it is generally men who purchase sex from women or other men. Economic theories do not explain prostitution very well IMO.

---

Microeconomics probably would do it quite well. For some reason or another, men would appear to derive greater personal utility -- that is a greater satisfaction of their preferences -- from using prostitutes than women. Could be a number of reasons. Just as speculation: men could have greater disposable income to waste on it; men could have a more deeply ingrained sense that it's alright; men and women could have different concepts of personal integrity.

Lots of things could be the reason, but as far as explaining the mechanism of why it happens, economics would probably do a very good job. Economic theory doesn't have to be applied strictly to the bling, it's a good set of tools for describing all kinds of behaviour.

ETA: Other possible reasons that the number of prostitutes isn't declining is that the costs of switching occupations is too high. Or at least perceived as being too high by those in the business. Could be from threats to their personal safety if they tried to leave, or a precipitous decline in their income, etc.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: NWOntarian ]

quote:

---

Or they lack the skills required for alternative employment.

---

quote:

---

For some reason or another, men would appear to derive greater personal utility -- that is a greater satisfaction of their preferences -- from using prostitutes than women. Could be a number of reasons. Just as speculation: men could have greater disposable income to waste on it; men could have a more deeply ingrained sense that it's alright; men and women could have different concepts of personal integrity.

---

I doubt it has much to do with money per se. Certainly women today have enough money to purchase prostitute's services and they most certainly have more money than previous generations of women, yet prostitution has historically and primarily been about men purchasing women's services. I suspect feminist theories do a better job of explaining these differences.

"Personal integrity" sounds like it deviates significantly from the economic theory I had in mind. I was thinking mainly about supply and demand as the key causal mechanisms. Your microeconomic theory sounds more like social psychology. Maybe microeconomics can attempt to explain this behaviour, but supply and demand become intervening variables. When this happens, is it still economic theory?

There is, of course, an economic dimension. I mean, there is an exchange of $ for services. But other causes govern the behaviour IMO.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cartman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
You would need to explain why men as a group find greater utility in these purchases than do women. Where does this come from?

---

An excellent question, and I agree that it's one that social theories would need to be used to explain. I'm just saying that the basic mechanism is that there could be some kind of incentive -- or lack of disincentive -- for them to engage in exploiting prostitutes. Could be monetary, could be cultural.

quote:

---

Your microeconomic theory sounds more like social psychology. Maybe microeconomics can attempt to explain this behaviour, but supply and demand become intervening variables. When this happens, is it still economic theory?

---

It can be quite close to social psychology, because it's a study of personal choices. Check out the book Freakonomics, by Stephen (Steven? I can never remember) Levitt, or some of his work. I think you can find a few of his studies -- particularly his study about abortion rates -- online. A lot of his work has little if anything to do with money, but with social trends and analyzing incentives and disincentives for particular behaviour.

But my point wasn't that economics can provide the definitive answer. Just that the tools that economics provides can be useful in analyzing problems regarding individual behaviour.

quote:

---

It can be quite close to social psychology, because it's a study of personal choices. Check out the book Freakonomics, by Stephen (Steven? I can never remember) Levitt, or some of his work. I think you can find a few of his studies -- particularly his study about abortion rates -- online. A lot of his work has little if anything to do with money, but with social trends and analyzing incentives and disincentives for particular behaviour.

---