FORTHCOMING IN: International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31 (4), 2004 Morris Altman and Louise Lamontagne, “Gender, Human Capabilities and Culture Within the Household Economy: Different Paths to Socio-Economic Well-Being?” International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31 (4), 2004 Morris Altman Department of Economics University of Saskachewan Email: Altman@sask.usask.ca Louise Lamontagne Department of Womens’ and Gender Studies University of Saskatchewan Email: Lamontagnelouise@yahoo.com Contact address: Morris Altman University of Saskatchewan 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5A5 Tel: (306) 966-5198 Fax: (306) 966-5232 Biblio: Morris Altman is Professor and Head of the Department of Economics at the University of Saskatchewan and elected Fellow World Innovation Foundation (F.W.I.F.). He is also Editor of the Journal of Socio-Economics (Elsevier Science). He has published over 50 scholarly papers, including two in the International Journal of Socio-Economics. His most recent book is Worker Sastisfaction and Economic Performance: Mico-Foundations of Success and Failure (M.E. Sharpe Publishers). Louise Lamontagne is associated with the Department of Womens’ and Gender Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. She has published and written on issues of gender, ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic development and wellbeing.

Gender, Human Capabilities and Culture Within the Household Economy: Different Paths to Socio-Economic Well-Being? Abstract: An important hypothesis put forth by Amartya Sen is that a given level of per capita real

income in a population can generate quite different levels of socio-economic well-being depending

on the economic infrastructure of that population and the distribution of income. Sen’s hypothesis

is refined in this paper to reflect the manner in which income is spent and labor is allocated and

utilized within a household specific to particular groups within society and how this impacts upon

both the level of well-being and economic efficiency. The evidence on living conditions and

mortality presented here from early twentieth century New York City, underlies the potential

significance of the household economy as a key determinant of economic well-being. Focusing

simply on per capita income estimates, even corrected for the distribution of income, misses

fundamentally important determinants of human capabilities and economic well-being with

potentially important implications for public policy.

Keywords: Gender, Capabilities, Culture, Household, Functionings, Mortaility, Sen

Econ Lit: D100, D200, D300, D600

Introduction

Amartya Sen has put forth the hypothesis that a given level of per capita real income in a

population can generate quite different levels of socio-economic well-being depending on the

economic infrastructure of that population and on the distribution of income. Sen also argues that

the distribution of income within the household affects the level of socio-economic well-being

across household members. This set of arguments stands in stark contrast to the conventional

wisdom that identifies the level of well-being with the level of real income per person and pays little

heed to the role that the macro-level or household level distribution of income can have in affecting

the level of well-being across different members of society. Sen’s hypothesis is refined in this

paper to reflect the manner in which income is spent and labor is allocated within a household

specific to particular groups within society, and how this might affect the level of economic well-

being across households. This opens the door to the incorporation of long-neglected cultural factors

as a determinant of economic wellbeing. In addition, it is also argued that a given level of income

can yield different levels of productivity with important implications for an understanding of the

potential competitiveness of different cultural groups. This latter argument is a variant of the

efficiency wage story first developed by Harvey Leibenstein to help explain the relatively low

productivity levels that characterize many less developed economies. In this scenario, there is a

positive dialectical feedback between the level of well-being and the level of labor productivity,

with higher levels of well-being improving potential productivity and realized productivity gains

positively affecting the level of well-being. Therefore, in the model presented in this paper, the

level of per capita real income does not completely determine the level of household members’

well-being. There can be considerable variation here depending on how that income is used and

distributed within the household.

Using data drawn from a number of studies, including national statistical and municipal records

as well as secondary data sources, we offer an intriguing case study, which informs the construction

of the theoretical framework presented in this paper, of how the differential use of household

income produced different outcomes, with respect to social capabilities and well-being measured in

terms of relatively lower mortality rates amongst Jewish immigrants to New York City at the turn of

the twentieth century. In particular, we find that the more efficient culturally driven use of

household income by Jewish immigrants had an important effect on their relative well-being. In a

word, Jewish immigrants got a relatively bigger bank for their buck for largely non-economic

reasons. The evidence presented here underlies the potential significance of the household

economy as a key determinant of economic well-being. The traditional approach of focusing

simply on per capita income estimates, misses fundamentally important determinants of capabilities

and economic well-being, with potentially important implications for public policy.

Sen and the Conventional Economic Wisdom

Conventional economics focuses upon real per capita income as the fundamental measure and

determinant of economic well-being. Thus, ceteris paribus, higher levels and increases to per capita

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), for example, are expected to yield improvements to the economic

well-being of at least some, if not all, members of society, and decreasing real per capita income

necessarily results in decreasing levels of material well-being. Sen refers to this as the opulence

approach to economic well-being. This approach implicitly assumes that identical levels of real

income yield identical levels of economic well-being. In part, this assumption is derived from the

identification of real income levels with economic well-being. However, as Sen points out, real

income is a means towards an end. In this case, one must better define what well-being is and to

determine whether, and the extent to which, identical levels of real income yield identical levels of

economic well-being. Sen recognizes, however, that real income can be causally related to levels of

economic well-being. In other words, increasing real income can result in improving the level of an

individual’s economic well-being and visa versa, but this need not be the case according to Sen.

Much depends on how this real income is used. Moreover, the conventional approach tends to

assume that an identical level of real income per household, controlled for the number of household

members and their age distribution, yields identical levels of economic well-being to all members of

the household and identical levels of economic well-being across all households. The former

argument follows from the assumption of the altruistic household head (Becker 1976), who

disperses household income so as to maximize the level of economic well-being of each and every

household member. In contrast, Sen points to the importance of household decision-making being

dominated by non-altruistic household heads who disperse income unequally. In this case, different

household members, especially female, realize lower levels of economic well-being (Sen 1989,

1999c; see also Nussbaum 1999, 2000, 2003).

Unlike the conventional opulence approach to economic well-being, Amartya Sen offers a theory

of entitlements, capabilities, and functionings, where the latter refers to what an individual can be

and can do, whereas the capabilities of an individual refers to the set of functionings that an

individual can choose from or what an individual is capable of being and doing. Entitlements refers

to the control over resources by an individual, which is affected by the level of per capita output

produced in society and its distribution across individuals and within the household. Capabilities

are affected by entitlements. Well-being is viewed here as a measure of what an individual can

achieve (functionings) given that individual’s advantages or real opportunities (capabilities) to

realize a particular level of economic well-being. The capabilities-functioning approach to socio-

economic well-being has focused on specific achievements of individuals, such as low rates of

mortality, morbidity, and infant mortality, high life expectancy, high rates of literacy, the gender

biases of these outcomes, and the manner in which they relate to the means afforded to individuals

(entitlements) to achieve particular capabilities.1

What a person can be and do is positively affected, in this model, by her or his command or

entitlement over commodities. To determine a person’s level of well-being, however, one must

determine what that individual actually does with those commodities or real income over which she

or he has command or entitlements over. Sen argues that real income only provides an individual

with a set of potential functionings. Real income must be converted into beings and doings through

what the individual purchases with her or his real income and how the individual utilizes the

purchased commodities. The level of real income, therefore, places a constraint upon an

individual’s choice of functionings. Higher real income broadens an individual’s scope of choice

whereas lowering the level of real income has the opposite effect. Moreover, the manner in which a

given set of commodities is converted into functionings depends on how the individual converts

these commodities into functionings, upon what Sen refers to as the utilization function. A person’s

choice of utilization function is constrained by a variety of factors, both personal and social. For

example, Sen (1999, 17) argues with regards to the nutritional achievements or functionings of an

individual, the level of nutritional well-being achieved by an individual, given her or his level of

real income or entitlements, “depends on such factors as (1) metabolic rates, (2) body size, (3) age,

(4) sex (and if a woman, whether pregnant or lactating), (5) activity levels, (6) medical conditions,

(6) medical conditions (including the presence or absence of parasites), (7) access to medical

services and the ability to use them, (8) nutritional knowledge and education, and (9) climatic

conditions.” Given these constraints, the level of nutritional well-being yielded by a given set of

commodities depends on what the individual does with these commodities. The latter is a choice

variable and it is affected by the extent and quality of relevant information (Sen 1999, 18). We

argue that these choices are also affected by the culture of the decision makers and the

determination of the decision marker. We also argue that the choice of commodities, whether to

purchase booze or bread for example, is also affected by cultural variables. All told, the level of

realized nutrition is definitely affected by the level of real income. Ceteris paribus, increasing the

level of real income should increase the level of nutrition. Also, the non-choice variables set the

upper-bound maximum to the achievable level of nutrition. Given real income and the constraints

imposed by the non-choice variables only a certain level of nutrition is realizable. But even this

upper-bound maximum need not be achieved if the individual does not choose the ‘right’ set of

commodities from those available and does not apply the ‘right’ utilization function to these

commodities, where these choices are affected by education and more general flows of information,

culture, and the objective function of the decision maker (s).

In Sen’s modeling framework, an individual’s functionings set is the dependent variable which is

a function of an array of variables, the most important of which are the set of commodities

possessed by the individual (entitlements), the manner in which these commodities are converted

into a set of commodity characteristics, and the manner in which these characteristics are used by

the individual. The following equation serves to add some precision to this narrative:

1. , ))(( xcUC =

where C is the capability set, U is the utilization function representing the manner in which the

commodity characteristics are converted into functionings, c represents the commodity conversion

function representing how the commodities are converted into their related characteristics, and x

represents the commodities which an individual can choose from. The latter, in effect, represents an

individual’s entitlements over commodities, where the individual has discretion over which

commodities to purchase or otherwise acquire. The level of per capita income in society and the

manner in which it is distributed affects the level of entitlements. The latter is affected by public

policy. An individual’s functionings (the choice of functionings made), given by F, is a function of

the individual’s C (the capability set):

2. )( ii CfF =

Sen focuses on the utilization function (U) as the key discretionary variable available to the

individual when deciding upon her or his functionings. However, the individual’s discretionary

power U is limited by the characteristics (or personal features) of the individual, such as height,

disabilities, or climate. For example, a person in a colder climate might be able to generate a lesser

level of functionings than a person in a warmer climate, ceteris paribus. It is implicitly assumed

that the commodity conversion function (C) is technologically determined and beyond the realm of

individual choice. More precisely, all individual choice is subsumed under the rubric of the

utilization function. What determines the choice of utilization function adopted by the individual is

an important question that will be elaborated upon in this paper. We argue that one important

determinant of the choice of utilization function is culture which, in turn, can be affected by

educational variables. We also argue that another important determinant of the choice of utilization

function is the individual or individuals responsible for making this choice within the household.

Also important to the level of functioning is the choice of commodities since different combinations

of commodities, given the level of entitlements, yield different levels of functionings. For Sen there

is one set of utilization functions that yield a maximum set of functionings. For example, there is

one particular utilization function that yields a maximum level of nutrition to the individual, ceteris

paribus. In this case, it is quite possible for individuals to choose a utilization function that is

suboptimal or inefficient in terms of the levels of functionings generated.

These set of arguments are illustrated in Diagram One. In this diagram, the level of functionings

is dependant upon the level of entitlements (E) or x in equation 1, where entitlements are given in

terms of real income or purchasing power. For simplicity, we assume a linear transformation

between the level of entitlements and the level of functionings, which is given by T. There are no

good economic reasons to introduce non-linearities into the argument. The slope of T is given by

the utilization function (U) and the commodity conversion function (c). In Sen’s view, there would

be a maximum level of functionings given by a particular level of entitlements. In this diagram, this

is given by T2. For example, at entitlements level E0, F2 level of functionings can be potentially

realized. The maximum level of beings and doings is contingent upon the personal characteristics

of individuals. But given such personal characteristics, whether or not an individual achieves the

maximum depends on the utilization function chosen. The more efficacious the utilization function

is, the greater the slope of T and, ceteris paribus, the higher the level of functionings. It is,

therefore, quite possible for an individual to choose a utilization function that yields T0 or T1 which

yields suboptimal levels of functionings F0 and F1 respectively, given entitlements level E0.

The focus of much of Sen’s analysis is on the determination and level of entitlements with which

individuals are endowed and their impact on the level of functionings as opposed to the choice of

utilization functions and its impact upon the level of functionings. More specifically, Sen focuses

on the significance of public policy in affecting the distribution of entitlements that, in turn, affects

the capabilities of individuals and thus their potential functionings. The level of capabilities, it is

argued, is only weakly causally related to real per capita income. Indeed, an array of capabilities

and functionings can be related to any given level of real per capita income. For example, there is

ample evidence of poor countries with low average levels of mortality and higher income countries

with high average levels of mortality. This scenario arises, since any given level of real per capita

income can be related to an array of entitlements distributions such that, for example, the average

means to acquire food and medical care can vary widely for any level of per capita income, often

for reasons of public policy (Sen 1981a, 1981b, 1983, 1993, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c; see also

Benzeval and Judge 2001; and Sudhir and Ravallion 1993; Szreter 1997). A classic example of

this is the existence of famines in spite of the adequacy of food supply and absence of famine even

in the face of adequate but relatively poor supplies of food. Famines can occur with adequate food

supplies when a segment of the population is deprived of entitlements to necessary foodstuffs (Sen

1981a, 1981b, 1993). A key point made by Sen on the relationship between per capita income and

capabilities is summarized in his Scientific American contribution (1993, 45): “The fact that a poor

country can achieve improvements in health care and life expectancy that, in many ways, rival those

of wealthier nations has tremendous policy implications. This ability challenges the often-aired

opinion that a developing country cannot afford expenditures for health care and education until it is

richer and more financially sound. This view ignores relative cost. Education and health care are

labor intensive, as are many of the most effective medical services. These services cost much less

in a cheap labor economy than they do in a wealthier country. So, although a poor country has less

to spend on these services, it also needs to spend less on them.” But even more to point, comparing

countries of comparable wealth and therefore of similar relative costs, life expectancy, mortality,

and health indicators vary widely due to differences in public efforts in delivering and distributing

entitlements to the population (Sen 1981b, 1993, 1998).

This argument is illustrated in Diagram Two. The slope of I1 and Im, the income-entitlement

curve, illustrates the positive relationship between income and entitlements. Ceteris paribus, as per

capita real income increases so does the extent of entitlements. But given the level of per capita real

income or GDP, public intervention in the distribution of income and in the manner in which health,

education, and other services are provided also affects the average level of entitlements over

particular goods and services and thus the capabilities and functionings within an economy. Public

intervention in the provision of health care and food supplies yield more entitlements of these

commodities per level of per capita real income, shifting the income-entitlement curve to the right

up to some maximum given by Im, where any further increase in entitlements requires further

increases in per capita real GDP. In this scenario, income level I0 can yield entitlement level B.

Without public intervention, only entitlement level A can be realized with an associated lower level

of capabilities. To put this argument another way, in a scenario with little public intervention in

terms of entitlements, given by I1, to achieve the higher level of entitlements (B) requires a higher

level of per capita income, such as I*. Sen’s argument also implies that redistributing income away

from the rich to the less well off yields higher average levels of entitlements to the latter group with

corresponding improvements in its basic functionings, such as mortality rates, without reducing any

of the basic functionings of better off folk in society. Ultimately, high levels of per capita income

can positively affect the level of entitlements, but low levels of income need not necessarily yield

low levels of entitlements or low levels of basic functionings to society at large.2

In his modeling of capabilities and functionings, Sen also pays considerable attention to the

structure of household decision making as a key determinant of socio-economic wellbeing. A key

point made by Sen is the sex bias against females with regards to socio-economic indicators such as

mortality rates, life expectancy rates, and literacy rates (1993, 1998, 1999a). This sex bias can be a

product of male decision makers allocating entitlements within the household to the advantage of

themselves and their sons. This assumes, in direct contrast to the conventional wisdom that the

household head, typically male, is not altruistic (Becker 1976). Sen also argues that sex biases in

the allocation of entitlements within the household can be a product of the subjective perceptions of

the adult women within the household where women, through the process of socialization, come to

value their own well-being and that of their daughters less than that of the males in the household

(1989, 1990). In terms of the game theoretic literature (Sen 1989; 1990), the household decision

making process between the female and male has been expressed as a repeated bargaining game

which takes the form of a cooperative conflict where there exists an array of possible equilibrium

cooperative outcomes, for example in terms of the distribution of entitlements.

The female and male are assumed to have conflicting preferences in the choice of available and

dominant cooperative outcomes. Both parties however prefer any of these cooperative outcomes to

the dissolution of the game, such as the end of marriage. The solution to the game is influenced by

the relative bargaining position of the female and male where, at one extreme, the male can impose

his utility maximizing solution on the family, which would be to allocate entitlements favoring his

and his sons socio-economic wellbeing. Bargaining positions are influenced by the relative

breakdown position of each party in terms of perceived well-being. If women expect a breakdown

to result in reducing their level of well-being, this enhances the bargaining power of the men.

Men’s bargaining power is also increased if their capacity to issue credible threats against women is

enhanced. Bargaining power is also affected when one party attaches less weight or value to her or

his objective function than the other. In addition, if the perceived contribution of one party to the

household’s utility is relatively greater, this enhances this individual’s bargaining power. Men are

ahead of the game both in terms of perceived self-interest and perceived contribution to the

household’s utility.3 Sen pays particular attention to public policy with regards to the distribution of

entitlements and the empowerment of women as a means of altering the sex biases in determining

socio-economic wellbeing. Extending Sen’s framework, Nussbaum discusses the importance of

women’s rights and related empowerment in affecting women’s overall wellbeing (1999, 2000,

2003). One should also refer to Folbre (2001) on the importance of the household and gendered

household decision making in affecting the wellbeing of the different members of the household as

well as in affecting the market side of the economy.4

Extending the Capabilities-Functionings Model

We build upon Sen’s modeling framework, focusing on the household as a producer of

functionings. This is not far removed from Becker’s (1965) view of the household as a center of

production of household commodities that is a product of the household combining market and non-

market inputs. However, unlike Becker, we do not assume that the household decision making is

best modeling through purview of a representative altruistic and typically male agent. We argue

that households determine how and where their income (entitlements) is spent, independent of

public policy. Moreover, we argue that households determine how the market commodities are

used (transformed) in the household. The latter is affected by how non-market labor is used within

the household in the process of household production. Household production is here defined as the

process of transforming market commodities and non-market labor into services to be exploited by

family members. What the household purchases and how it is transformed affects the capabilities

and thus the functionings of household members. In this sense, a given level of real household

income is related to an array of capabilities, such as the mortality or disease rates for all members of

the household. Of course, consistent with Sen’s modeling of the household, household decision

makers can also affect the distribution of entitlements within the household thereby affecting the

distribution of capabilities and functionings.

Cultural factors, for example, mediate the household decision-making process affecting what is

deemed the most rational utility maximizing allocation of household resources. This includes the

determination of what is purchased as well as the transformation of what is purchased into

functionings. One operational definition of culture specifies culture as (Harrison 1992, pp. 9-10):

“… [defining] group or national value systems, attitudes, religious and other institutions, intellectual

achievement, artistic expression, daily behavior customs, lifestyle, and many other circumstances

[and as] a coherent system of values, attitudes, and institutions that influences individual and social

behavior in all dimensions of human experience.” (See also Altman, 2001a, 200lb). Gary Becker

(1998, p. 4) introduces culture as an independent variable in an individual’s utility function, as one

component of her or his social capital, where social capital, “…incorporates the influence of past

actions by peers and others in an individual’s social network and control system.” Social capital

can have either a positive or a negative affect on utility where the sign of the effect depends on the

type of social capital. Individuals have some choice over their social capital and even over its

cultural component to the extent that they can choose the social network or control system of which

they are part (Becker, 1998, ch. 1). We would argue that individuals, by having a certain degree of

freedom over the choice of transformation function (U) and over what commodities are purchased,

mediated by cultural factors, affect the average level of functionings within the household as well as

the distribution of functionings. Cultural factors can serve to either drive the level of functioning

towards the maximum or to keep it at some sub-optimal level.5

In Diagram One, household decisions determine whether a household is at F0 or F2 level of

functionings given a particular level of income, such as E0. It is also the case here that any given

level of average household entitlements is linked to an array of functionings. For example, at E0 of

entitlements, there exists an array of functionings contained in the JE0 space. Cultural factors can

play a role in determining whether or not the maximum level of functionings is realized. In

Diagram Three, a particular level of entitlements, E0, is linked to an array of capabilities and,

therefore, functionings as a consequence of culture. Different cultures can yield different levels of

functionings and, therefore, different levels of socio-economic wellbeing. In this scenario,

however, the level of functionings can also be increased as the level of entitlements rises, ceteris

paribus. Therefore, real income levels or the distribution of entitlements across households play a

determining role in the level of society’s functionings independent of cultural factors. But this need

not be the case. Higher levels of entitlements may be accompanied by the purchase of more

commodities that do not positively affect the level of functionings, nutrition for example. All told,

individual choice can play an important role in determining a household’s level of functionings,

irrespective of income levels, and cultural factors can be an important explanatory variable here.

In terms of the process of household decision making, cultural factors can affect both the

bargaining power of women and the process of household production. Cultural factors might

impute greater or less value to women and, therefore, influence the level of entitlements they should

expect to receive. Assume that cultural factors impute lesser value to females. In this case, women

end up with fewer resources and are proscribed to particular economic and social roles. Even given

this sex bias, cultural factors can nevertheless affect how the entitlements within the family,

however distributed, are used. Cultural factors can therefore impact upon the health and sanitary

conditions, nutrition levels, and education levels of both females and males even given the existence

of sex biases in the distribution of entitlements. Different cultural settings can yield different levels

of functionings for all household members. A culture that is both more efficient in terms of

generating a higher level of functionings and more sex neutral in nature generates a more egalitarian

distribution of these functionings. An important issue that must be addressed in terms of the

determination of the level of functionings achieved within the household, is who decides what

commodities to purchase and the utilization function to be employed. There is some evidence to

support the hypothesis that when women are empowered within the household, they tend to make

decisions that improve the level of socio-economic wellbeing within the household, such as

nutrition and food security, especially for children. These results hold even when households are

controlled for differences in real income or entitlements (Handa 1994; Kennedy and Peters 1992).

Whether capabilities and functionings are affected by public policy or by household decision

making, it is important to recognize the important potential interrelationhip between the level of

certain functionings and economic efficiency. Enhanced capabilities and functionings can affect

economic efficiency through its potential impact upon productivity. A healthier more educated

environment makes individuals potentially more productive. In this scenario, the choice of a more

nutritious basket of commodities and a more efficient utilization function, for example, yields not

only higher levels of capabilities and functionings, but also potentially higher levels of economic

efficiency. Employers who can tap into this resource will be more cost competitive, ceteris paribus.

For this reason, it is of some importance to join a theory of capabilities and funtionings with a

theory specifying the relationship between the level and type functionings achieved by households

and the economic efficiency of individuals within the household who contribute to the work force.

The conventional economic wisdom as well as the Sen’s narrative pays little heed to the

potential impact that household decision making has upon the potential productivity of labor. It is

typically assumed by the conventional wisdom that the individual or economic agent is working as

hard and as well as he or she might, irrespective of the level or distribution of entitlements in the

household, the components of the basket of commodities purchased by the household, or the

utilization function chosen by the household. It is also assumed that the economic agent is working

as hard and as well as he or she might irrespective the wage rate or the overall working conditions.

It is effectively assumes that effort per unit of labor input is maximized and, therefore, the quantity

and quality of effort is not a discretionary variable in the process of production. This tradition was

breached by the efficiency wage literature, pioneered Harvey Leibenstein (1957, ch. 8), which

argues that a positive relationship exists between the rate of labor compensation and effort per unit

of time supplied to the process production when effort supply is positively affected by the impact

labor compensation has upon the nutritional intake and overall health of workers. Leibenstein

argues and presents evidence for the hypothesis that, especially with respect to workers who are at

lower absolute levels of calorie consumption (a proxy for nutrition) and health, higher wages tend to

increase their effort supply thereby increasing their productivity. Reducing the wage should have

the opposite effect (see also Bliss and Stern 1978; Dasgupta and Ray, 1986; Stiglitz 1976). This

modeling framework introduces effort as an additional independent variable into the traditional

production function such as is expressed in the following equation:

3. , ),,,( eTKLfQ =

where Q is output, L is labor (adjusted for hours and education), K is capital stock and land, and e is

effort. Ceteris paribus, labor productivity varies positively with wages due to the impact that

changes in wages have upon the health and nutrition of the worker.

The efficiency wage literature tends to assume a direct relationship between wages and nutrition

and health, effort inputs, and productivity. It further assumes that there exists a unique wage,

referred to as the efficiency wage, which minimizes average production costs due to its impact upon

effort inputs. If such a unique wage exists, one would expect that rational profit maximizing-cost

minimizing employers would pay the efficiency wage for otherwise their unit costs would be

relatively high and they would be driven out of the market over time by competitive pressures. In

this case, one would expect, in equilibrium, all employers to pay workers their efficiency wage and

therefore workers who are paid very little and whose working conditions are very bare bone, must

be maximizing their effort inputs. This need not be the case if productivity increases due to effort

increases simply serve to offset wage increases up to the point where diminishing returns set in and

the marginal product of labor is less than the wage. In this scenario, unit costs would not be

affected by improvements in effort inputs. There would, therefore, be no incentive for employers to

increase wages for efficiency reasons (Altman 1996, 2001a). The relationship between unit cost,

wages, and labor productivity in a simple model where labor (and effort) is the only factor input can

be expressed in the following equation:

4. ⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

=

LQwAC ,

where the undefined variables AC is average or unit cost, w is the real wage and (Q/L) is labor

productivity. Average costs will not change if higher wages yield higher levels of effort and

therefore productivity which simply offset the increase in wage. In this scenario, there exists an

array of wage rates consistent with a unique average cost of production as labor productivity

changes with wage rates. This point is illustrated in Diagram Four, where an array of labor costs

such as W0 and W1 are consistent with one average cost, AC. Average cost increases once

diminishing returns to effort inputs kicks in at point WD. This is in contrast to the conventional

efficiency wage literature where one wage rate, given by W1, yields the minimum AC given by

point M along curve EW. The modified approach the efficiency wage literature (Altman 2001a)

suggests no economic imperative to increase wages so as to maximize effort inputs. Only if the

preferences (objective functions) of the employers are weighted towards improving the socio-

economic wellbeing of their employers will wages rise to an effort maximizing extent.

With regards to the capabilities-functionings modeling of the economy, if government provides

more effective health care and food security to a country’s low income population, the efficiency

wage literature suggests that labor would become potentially more productive. However, this

potential need not be realized if workers have no incentive to increase their effort inputs. The

literature on the more developed economies suggest that increases in labor productivity,

independent of increases in the traditional variables, critically depends on the incentive system

within the firm (Alcaly 1997; Altman 2001a, ch. 9; Buchele and Christainsen 1995; Ichniowski,

Kochan, Levine, Olson, and Strauss 1996). The same holds true for the relationship between

improvements in the level of socio-economic wellbeing derived from the more effective use of a

given level of entitlements within the households and increases in labor productivity. Increasing

productivity requires the conversion of increased effort potential into increased effort inputs

(quantity and/or quality) into the process of production. What this demands are adequate incentives

within the production unit that induce workers to realize their effort potential. To the extent that the

required incentives are costly and are simply offset by corresponding increases in labor

productivity, as per equation 4 and Diagram Four, employers face no market pressure to introduce

the necessary incentives. Tapping the potential of a more vibrant and energetic workforce, makes

labor and society better off in terms of entitlements and output, but provides no immediate material

benefits to employers. On the other hand, when employable members of the household also

comprise the unit of production, be it a manufacturing establishment or farm, increased effort

potential that is a product of a more efficient use of a given level of entitlements within the

household can be expected to be more directly converted into increased productivity since, in this

scenario, household members are the direct beneficiaries of any gains in productivity. Ceteris

paribus, such improvements in productivity serve to reduce unit production costs, making such

firms relatively more competitive. If, however, the employees-household members eat up these

productivity gains, unit costs would not change, per equation 4.

A more efficient use of entitlements, be it through government intervention or through household

decision making, creates the possibility of a more productive economy. To the extent that these

potential economic gains are realized by increasing the level of entitlements to workers, this can be

expected to feedback into raising the effected households’ level of capabilities which can further

increase the economy’s productive potential. This feedback effect would cease once household

members achieve optimal levels of nutrition, health, and education. Up to this point, improved

efficiency in the production of functionings yield not only increased levels of socio-economic

wellbeing, but also a potentially more productive and competitive economy. Of course, the same

effect can be expected simply by increasing the level of entitlements to members of society whose

nutritional and health levels, for example, are sub-optimal. But, a critical point made here is that

improvements in socio-economic wellbeing in terms of functionings and in terms of economic

efficiency can occur for a given level of entitlements if more effective use are made by these

through the process of household decision making. Thus entitlement constraints faced by

households are not as overbearing as conventional thinking would have it, especially when one

recognizes the importance of household decision making to the determination of the functionings of

household members.

The Theory Applied: A Historical Narrative on Culture and Capabilities

A comparison of the experience of Jewish and Italian immigrants in Lower Manhattan in the

early twentieth century informs and illustrates the applicability of the capabilities-

functionings/effort-capabilities theory presented above. The comparison between these two

particular ethnic groups is especially informative as it confronts one of the most persistent

narratives in American social and economic history, namely the rapid rise of the Jewish immigrant

through the American ‘human jungle’ at the turn of the twentieth century, and the reasons that may

account for this relative success (Chiswick 1985, pp. 96-98; Kessner 1983, pp. 170-171; Sklare

1971, p. 10). The comparison between Jewish and Italian immigrants is a natural one since they

were the two most important segments of New York City’s new immigrant population between

1880 and 1920, during the period of the so-called Great Migration in American history, and the

relative success of the Russian-Jewish immigrants has been ascribed, at times, to their unfettered

exploitation of the Italian (Willet 1968, ch. 6; Frankfurter and Rosensohn 1920, pp. 20-21).

There was a dramatic surge in Jewish and Italian immigration to the United States between 1880-

1920, and many of these immigrants found their way to New York City. By 1920, Jews comprised

over 28 percent of New York City’s population, nearly 1.6 million people, a marked jump from the

4 percent or 60,000 they accounted for in 1880. The biggest jump, however, occurred between

1905 and 1912, when the Jewish population in New York City appears to have doubled (Dushkin

1921, p. 90).6 Italians, on the other hand, accounted for 7 percent of the city’s total in 1920, about

400,000 people, up from 1 percent in 1880. Not unlike their Jewish counterparts, the Italian born

population in New York more than doubled between the 1900-1910 period. Over the 1890-1920

time-frame the population of New York City increased from 1,515,301 to 5,620,048 (Baily 1999, p.

58).7 Jewish immigration was made up of Jewish populations from a host of countries. During the

Great Migration Jewish immigration was overwhelmingly dominated by population flows from

Eastern Europe, particularly Russian Jews, leaving towns and villages, fleeing persecution, and

mind-numbing poverty.8 Italian immigration, at this time, in many respects paralleled that of

Russian Jews. Most Italian immigrants after 1890 were southern Italians contadini, landless

peasants, also fleeing grinding poverty (Kessner 1977, pp. 15-16.)

This case study suggests the importance of cultural factors in determining the level of socio-

economic well-being as well as in determining the level of the effort potentially available to the

process of production which, in turn, affects levels of socio-economic well-being. Drawing upon

the available estimates for household income and mortality, we find that that the relatively lower

income Jewish households faired much better, in terms of various measures of mortality, than their

Italian counterparts. In the context of the extension of the capabilities-functionings approach

presented above, we argue that a critical determinant of the relative success of these Jewish

immigrants was the ‘Yiddishe (Jewish) Mama’, or the culturally specific role played by the Jewish

mother or homemaker in managing the household at a particular time in American history. In

Jewish tradition, especially amongst observant or religious Jews, household affairs were the

purview of women who exercised tremendous discretion in this area, thus empowering women with

regards to deciding upon the purchase and transformation of commodities and, therefore, in

determining the level of functionings realized in the household. Overall, what the relevant stylized

facts of Lower Manhattan at the turn of the century suggest is that, in terms of various measures of

socio-economic well-being, the Jewish household faired better than its Italian counterpart in spite of

the substantial economic disadvantage faced by the Jewish household and that this was largely a

result of the manner in which the Jewish household was managed.

With respect to income, Jewish households were no better off than their Italian counterparts in

terms of real income. Moreover, a relatively larger slice of the Jewish population was relatively

worse off. One important data set for 1911 (Sumner 1910, pp. 52-53) for the clothing industry in

Baltimore, Chicago, and New York City, which was dominated by New York City and was the

major source of employment for this city’s Jewish population as well as an important sector for

southern Italian immigrants, shows that the households of foreign-born Jews earned only 91 percent

of what was earned by their foreign-born Italian counterparts (Table 1).9 More specifically, Jews

were well over represented in the lowest income categories as compared to the Italian immigrant

families. Jews were under represented amongst the higher income classifications. For example,

about 10 percent of Jewish families earned less than $300 per year as compared to only 3 percent of

Italian families. On the other hand, 31 percent of Jewish families earned over $749 per year as

compared to 41 percent of Italian families. Therefore, in terms of entitlements, the Jewish

population was, on average, worse endowed than their Italian counterparts. This advantage is

compounded once the size of Jewish families, which were on average 8 percent larger than the

Italian, is integrated into the equation (Table 2). The size-adjusted income of the Jewish family is

only 84 percent of the Italian. These findings are reiterated in a later study for New York City,

using a smaller sample, based on 1917-1918 data, which finds that Jews had the lowest weekly

family income compared to various ethnic and racial groups, including Italian and African-

Americans. On average, the Jewish family earned 82.5 percent of what was earned by the Italian

family and only 61 percent of what was earned by the African-American family (Phillips and

Howell 1920, pp. 399, 402).

The Jewish household’s disadvantages are further compounded by the fact that the Jewish

population was more densely located than their Italian counterparts (Table 2). In terms of

population density, the Jewish population was three times more crowded than the Italian, and 92

percent of Jewish families were crowded into tenement housing as compared to 85 percent of the

Italian (Table 2). The Jewish household contained more people per apartment, per room, and per

sleeping room (Table 3; see also, Reports of the Immigration Commission 1911, pp. 326-330).

Moreover, while many Italian women performed finishing in their homes, unlike the Italian homes

many Jewish residences often doubled as make-shift factories where outsiders came into the home

to aid in production (Dwork 1986, pp. 111-112; Kessner 1977, pp. 132-134; McCreesch 1985, pp.

12-13). This only added to the relative congestion within the Jewish household. The production of

clothing, both in the Italian or Jewish household, served to pollute the household environment

(Green 1986, p. 105). The Jewish immigrant population upon arrival was also reportedly physically

in a much poorer physical condition than their Italian counterparts 10. Taken together, these factors

should have made the Jewish population more vulnerable to disease and, therefore, to lower

capabilities (Rischin 1962, p. 86).

Given their income and housing conditions, one would expect that the Jewish population would

be characterized by a poorer set of capabilities than the Italian unless a differential level of public

support (entitlements) was provided to the Jewish population, which was not the case.11 This type

of analytical prediction would flow even from a Sen-type analysis. A poorer set of capabilities

should result in a lower level of functionings amongst the Jews, inclusive of a lower level of socio-

economic well being. However, the stylized facts of Lower Manhattan contravene the prediction

that the capabilities of the Jewish population should be less than that of the Italian. Indeed, the

Jewish immigrants fared better than both the average for all immigrants into the United States and

all leading immigrant groups from Europe.

In spite of their relatively lower incomes and greater crowding, the Jewish population

experienced a much lower level of disease and mortality in New York City than then other

immigrant populations. This achievement, however, simply repeats the record of the Jewish

population in Eastern Europe. It is important to note that these differences between the Jewish and

the non-Jewish populations were persistently large and these advantages for the Jewish population

in Eastern Europe also took place in spite of the relative average impoverishment of the Jewish

population (Green 1986, p. 105; Kuznets 1975, pp. 67-68; Rischin 1962, p. 86-88).12 Detailed

mortality rates by ethnicity and age cohort are available for New York City for the 1885-1890

period, inclusive. No estimates are available for individuals of Jewish ethnicity, per se. However,

the Russian-Poland category, consists almost entirely of Jews (Billings 1994, p. 18). Mortality rates

by ethnicity and for the ten and above age cohorts are available for the state of New York for 1910

(Dublin 1916). Child and infant mortality rates are available for New York City and Manhattan

respectively (Meyer 1921). The New York State data can only serve as a proxy for New York City

and, more specifically, for Manhattan, where so many of the Jewish and Italian immigrants made

their home. Moreover, the data are not specific data for the Jewish population, but rather for the

Russian born. However, the Russian born were predominantly Jewish in New York City while they

may have comprised less than 50 percent of the New York State estimate of the Russian immigrants

in the 1899-1910 period. But, as Dublin (1916) points out, his estimates can serve only as upper

bound proxy for the mortality rates of the Russian Jewish immigrants since the Jewish population

was known to have much lower mortality and morbidity rates than their Russian-Christian

counterparts. This fact, he noted, was carried over from their Russian point of origin where, in spite

of their relative poverty, the Jewish mortality rate was about half of that of the Russian-Christian

population.13

The first set of estimates, for the 1885-1890 period, consist of average mortality rates per 1,000

individuals for this period and more detailed estimates for the 1890 census year (Table 4). In this

period, which preceded the deluge of impoverished Jewish and Italian immigrants into New York

City, the Jewish (Russia-Poland) mortality rate is about a half of what is found amongst American-

born population, white or black. For 1890, this ratio is three-quarters. The Jewish mortality rate is

also much lower than the American for all age cohorts, except for the very old. The Jewish

mortality rates are even lower when compared to the Italian. This also true for all age cohorts but

for the very old. On average, the Jewish rate is 42 percent of the Italian for the 1885-1890 period

and 53 percent in 1890. The better Italian showing for their older population is largely due to the

underreporting of death rates for their aged, many of whom returned to Italy to die (see below). The

Jewish population’s mortality rates is also well below the mortality rates for New York City’s other

ethnic communities, including the Hungarian, Irish, German, English, Scandanavians, Bohemians,

and French. The author of this census document concludes (Billings 1894, p. 18) that the relatively

low mortality amongst the Jewish population, so many of whom lived in overcrowding tenement

housing, is revealing since, “…it shows that poverty does not necessarily produce a high death

rate.”

The second set of estimates is for mortality rates per 1,000 people for individuals ten years of age

and above for 1910 (Table 5). The standardized mortality rate adjusts the crude death rate for the

differential age distribution of the different component populations. The average standardized

mortality rate for the Russian born population is just below that of the native born American

population, in spite of the greater level of entitlements held, on average, by the native born.

However, more specifically, the Russian born population’s mortality rates is far below the native

born one by a large margin for all but the 45 years and above age cohort. It is important to note that

female deaths tended to be less than the male for all age cohorts. Compared to the Italian born

population, the average standardized mortality rate for Jewish males matches that for Italian males

whereas the death rate for Jewish females is 90 percent of Italian women’s death rate. However, the

estimate for Italian males is highly misleading. It is clear that the Jewish mortality rate for both

men and women was lower than the Italian up to the 45 years and above age cohorts. The Italian

mortality rates, especially for men, bettered the Jewish by a large margin only for the 65 and over

age cohorts. Therefore, the Jews faired much better than the Italians except in older age groups if

one takes the mortality estimates at face value. But the reason for the lower Italian mortality rates

in the 65 and over age cohorts had nothing to do with life in New York City. In stark contrast to the

Jews, the Italians, especially the men, went home to die (Stella 1924, p. 68).14 This dramatically

affects the death rates of the Italian since what the census reports are deaths in the United States.

The Italian deaths that would have been reported had the Italians who were ill not moved back to

Italy would no doubt have been much greater than the reported rates. With this fact in mind, the

Jewish advantage over the Italian is even stronger than the estimates impute. The estimates in Table

5 also show that the Russian born population’s mortality rates bettered (were less than), by a large

margin, the mortality rates of the German born, Irish, and English-Scottish immigrants.

These numbers appear consistent with other contemporary accounts of Jewish mortality patterns

at the time. Abraham Cahan (1898, p. 280), for example, in a piece published in Atlantic Monthly,

quoted from a report to the New York State Senate and Assembly in 1895: “It will be observed at

once that the wards showing the greatest house density combined with a low death-rate, namely the

tenth and seventh wards (New York City), are largely populated by Russian and Polish Jews. This

is, in fact, the Jewish quarter of the city. On the other hand, the wards having the highest death

rate…constitute two of the numerous Italian colonies which are distributed through the city…The

greatest density (57.2 tenants to a house) in the tenth ward (almost exclusively occupied by Jews)

which also has the lowest death rate…The low death rates of the seventh and tenth wards are largely

accounted for by the fact previously mentioned, that they are populated largely by Russian Jews.”

Similarly, The Reports of the Industrial Commission, authored by Kate Claghorn (1901, pp 480-

481) makes the same point: “The Jews…have withstood the physical influences of the tenements

most remarkably, keeping the death rate down perceptibly in wards where they

predominate….There is considerable sickness among the Italians.”

Mortality estimates are available for Manhattan for the five and under age cohort for 1915 and for

the one year and less age cohort for New York City for the years 1915, 1916, and 1917 (Table 6).

The latter infant mortality estimates per 1,000 people for the mainly Jewish Russian-Polish

population was well below that for most immigrant groups, as well as below the infant mortality

rates for the general American mortality rates. With respect to the Italian, the Jewish infant

mortality rate was 73 percent of the latter. The Jewish child mortality rate was also significantly

below the child mortality rates for most immigrant groups, including the Italians. The Jewish child

mortality rate was about 60 percent of both the American and the Italian rate. Available estimates

also allow for a partial decomposition of child mortality rates by leading causes of death (Table 7).

Jewish mortality rates, due to infectious diseases, were about 50 percent of the Italian and 80

percent of the American born. Infectious diseases such as measles, scarlet fever, whooping cough,

and influenza, caused about 13 percent of deaths in the Jewish and Italian communities.

Tuberculosis caused only about 4 percent of child death in these communities. The tuberculosis

related rate amongst the Jews was 70 percent of what it was amongst the Italians. The acute

respiratory related death rate amongst the Jews was only 35 percent of what it was amongst the

Italians. Respiratory diseases such as acute bronchitis and broncho-pneumonia caused 41 percent of

all child deaths amongst the Italians, but only 24 percent amongst the Jews. They caused 20 percent

of the child deaths amongst the American born. The Jewish diarrheal death rate was 43 percent of

the Italian. Such deaths contributed 16 percent to the Italian total and 12 percent to the Jewish. The

frequency and the deadliness of these leading causes of death are closely related to unsanitary

housing conditions and poor nutrition ( Corwin 1952, pp. 48, 138 , Wald 1915, p. 54, Woodbury

1926, pp. 8-21).15

The various estimates available clearly demonstrate the ability of the relatively poor Jewish

immigrant household to overcome its lack of entitlements and overcrowding to produce quite low

mortality rates not only compared to Italian immigrants and other immigrants groups, but also as

compared to the American born population. Another take on the available mortality estimates

which speaks to the importance of culture as a critically important determinant of mortality, is

provided by Meyer’s (1921, p. 39) interpretation of the marked decline in infant mortality rates in

New York City over the course of the first two decades of the twentieth century, which many

experts attributed to purported improvements in the City’s overall health conditions: “This increase

in the foreign element [largely Jewish] tended to accelerate the rate of decline of the infant mortality

rate. It is customary to attribute every decrease in the death rate to an improvement in health

conditions. In this case, however, a not inconsiderable part of the decrease in the infant mortality

rate which occurred in the city during this particular period must be credited to a change in the

racial makeup of the city, and so does not in any way reflect an improvement of health conditions

for infants.”

High mortality rates and the illnesses that gave rise to them are, in part, a product of unsanitary

housing and working conditions and poor nutrition, which reduce resistance to disease (Woodbury

1926, pp. 39-41). A critical determinant of the high mortality rates amongst the Italians was, as

we’ve pointed out, contagious and respiratory diseases, which were most affected by poor housing

conditions and inadequate nutritional levels. One explanation for the impressive achievement of the

Jewish population in terms of relatively low mortality rates was their superior housing conditions

even in the face of relative overcrowding and given the fact that Jewish homes often also doubled as

factories. Superior housing conditions especially with regards to the sanitary or cleanliness aspect

of these conditions contributes to reducing the level of contagious, respiratory (including

tuberculosis), and diarrheal related deaths. Both Jews and Italians, it should be noted, faced similar

working conditions in the garment factories outside of the home. With respect to housing, the

housing conditions of the Jewish population was rated much higher than that of the Italians, with 34

percent of the Jewish housing rated as good as compared to 17 percent for the Italian, and 9 percent

of the Jewish housing rated as bad as compared to 34 percent for the Italians. About 57 percent and

49 percent of Jewish and Italian housing respectively was rated as fair (Kessner 1977, p. 133). One

factor contributing to the superior Jewish housing conditions and, in particular, to the cleanliness of

the individual, was the greater number of private bathrooms per family, even amongst the poorest of

Jewish households in New York City. According to the classic data source on this and related

matters based on a 1907 sample of households, there were 0.28 bathrooms per Jewish household,

0.16 per Italian, and 0.13 per American household. Amongst the lowest income group, the average

for Jewish household is 0.31 bathrooms, for the Italian 0.22, and for the American, 0. The lowest

income cohort contained about 28 percent of all Jewish and Italian households in the sample and

only 16 percent of the American (Chapin 1909, p. 99).

These relatively more hygienic conditions in Jewish households were reflected in a large number

of contemporary discussions. Among the most notable, perhaps, were those of William Dean

Howells and Lillian Wald. Howells (1896, p. 139 ), the famed editor of Harper’s Magazine who

spent time in the ghettos, observed: “I found them usually cheerful in the Hebrew quarter, and they

had so much courage as enabled them to keep themselves noticeably clean in an environment where

I am afraid their betters would scarcely have had the heart to wash their faces and comb their hair.”

Wald, a nurse and innovator of the New York City public health system, and leader of the New

York settlement house movement, spent much of her life working with immigrants in New York

City’s teeming tenements. She consistently made the point in her memoirs as to the relative

cleanliness of the Russian Jewish home in the ghetto. For example, she describes her visit to the

impoverished daughter of a learned rabbi (Wald 1915, p. 20): “Both house and people were

scrupulously clean. It was amazing that under the biting pressure of want and anxiety such

standards could be maintained.” Similarly, of her visit to a cigarmaker’s home, she writes (Wald

1915, p. 21): “One Sabbath eve I entered his tenement, to find the two rooms scrubbed clean….”

Although Jewish family income was less than the Italian, the Jewish family was able to make

due. The received view has long held that Russian Jews often starved themselves to ‘make due’ and

this belief has been bolstered by Chapin’s work on the standard of living in New York City. Chapin

(1909, p. 128) finds that the Russian Jews had the highest proportion of underfed families, this

based on his calculation of the need to spend twenty-two cents per day per man in 1907 to achieve

adequate nutrition. He did not look at the calories purchased. Another study that did look at what

was being consumed found that, based on a New York City sample for 1917-1918, the Jewish

household was able to purchase more calories per dollar than did the Italian, effectively squeezing

more out of their lower income.16 To achieve what the authors define as an adequate diet, the

Jewish family spent between $0.40 and $0.50 per man per day compared to the Italian family’s

expenditure of between $0.50 and $0.60 per man per day (Phillips and Howell 1920, pp. 408-409).

Effectively, the Jewish household could realize an adequate diet at about 80 percent of the income

used by the Italian family. Jews spent the largest portion of their food budget on meat and fish,

while Italians focused on grain products (Phillips and Howell, 1920, p. 407, Table 6). Given that

the Jewish household earned, on average, about 80 percent of what the Italian family earned, one

can infer from the above evidence, albeit sparse, that the Jewish household compensated, at least in

part, for its lower market income by the manner in which it managed this income. Of course, a

higher level of income in the Jewish household would have facilitated the task of providing

adequate nourishment to household members. In addition, Chapin (1909, pp. 138-139) himself

suggests that from his sampling of families in New York City, that the Italian household spent about

10 percent of household income for alcoholic drinks to be consumed at home, which was about

twice the percentage spent by the Jewish household. Only amongst the highest income households

did the percentage of income allocated to alcoholic beverages by the Jewish household approach

that of the Italian. This differential is largely accounted for, on average, by the Jewish household’s

greater percentage allocation of its income, as previously mentioned, to the purchase of meat and

fish. To the extent that this expenditure pattern is a representative one, it would suggest that

differences in what was purchased by the Jewish and Italian household contributed to the more

efficient use of market income by the Jewish household to produce an adequate diet. This helps

explain why a lower level of entitlements in the Jewish household did not contribute to higher rates

of mortality amongst the Russian-Jewish population. Indeed, the mortality estimates in

combination with the food consumption information suggests that the Jewish household was not

inadequately nourished, as has been argued in the past, and this, together with their sanitary

practices, made them better able to resist disease than other population groupings in New York City,

including the Italian.

Both the evidence on mortality and living conditions and the literary evidence strongly suggest

that Jewish workers contained the potential to supply more effort per unit of labor input and more

labor time than members of most other immigrant groups, inclusive of the Italians. With regards to

evidence on mortality and living conditions, relatively low mortality rates and related superior

living conditions suggests that the immigrant Jew, over time, was in a better physical conditions and

thus in a better position to contribute a higher level and quality of effort to the process of

production. The idea that morbidity and mortality rates may have impacted the production process

is reflected in the contemporary literature, such as Jesse Pope’s classic work on the clothing

industry in New York. Pope (1905, p. 54) concludes that although the Italian is, like the Jewish

worker, “sober, industrious and dexterous…his productive efficiency is decidedly lower.” This,

Pope argues, is a product of his greater susceptibility to disease and a lower level of endurance.

When asked by the Immigration Commission (Reports of the Immigration Commission 1911, pp.

418, 445) studying the clothing industry which of the new immigrants made better workers,

employers ranked the Russian Hebrew above the Italian, stressing the relative efficiency of the

Russian Jewish worker.

However, at this point there exists no direct unequivocal empirical evidence to support the

hypothesis that Jewish workers were actually more productive than other workers as a product of

differential effort inputs. Nevertheless, the evidence presented here is consistent with the fact that

male and female Jewish workers, paid by the piece, appear to have earned, on a weekly basis, more

than their Italian counterparts in New York’s clothing industry even though they were not provided

with superior complementary inputs, such as plant and equipment and technology.17 In this context,

the available evidence for male workers show that the Jewish immigrants did not arrive in the

United States with any superior skills specific to this industry.18 Moreover, Russian Jewish males

were relatively much more concentrated in the small contract shops, which were relatively less

capital intensive (Sumner 1911, pp. 52-53;Pope 1905, pp. 49, 52 ). Russian Jews males, eighteen

years of age and over, earned 25 percent more than their Southern Italian counterparts, $13.88 per

week compared to $11.17. Moreover, 82 percent of these Russian Jews earned $10 or more per

week in contrast to only 60 percent of the southern Italians (Reports of the Immigration

Commission 1911, p. 376).19

Given that the wage data are based on piece work, they are suggestive of differences in

productivity since, in this case, a worker earns more only if he or she produces more output per unit

of time or works more hours per week. Ceteris paribus, to work harder or more time requires a

greater reserve of effort which a healthier household environment in conducive to. Moreover, the

purported relatively superiority of effort inputs attached to Jewish workers is consistent with the

persistence of the Jewish family firm in New York City men’s clothing industry in face of

competition from the more capital intensive and relatively high tech larger firm. From the evidence,

one may hypothesize that a more efficient labor supply in the small family shop allowed such a less

capital intensive, small size and less technologically advanced firm to compete, as the superiority of

effort inputs could compensate for relatively higher rates of labor compensation and relative

inferiority in capital inputs and technology. Thus, contrary to much of the contemporary and

scholarly literature, it was not by self-exploitation or the exploitation of others that the small Jewish

shop survived on the market place. Rather, it was the realization of the capabilities vested in Jewish

workers in the small shop that appears to have been a key ingredient in its success.

Religion and Cultural Practices as a Determinant of Capabilities

The Russian Jewish population, we maintain, was bound by religious norms that contributed

towards them establishing relatively more sanitary living conditions and helping them meet their

nutritional needs in New York City at the turn of the twentieth century. While the extent to which

Jewish immigrants were willing to give up the ‘yoke of their orthodoxy’ upon their arrival in

America is open to question—many authors would argue that the majority of Russian Jews sought

to maintain their customs and traditions (Riis 1896; pp.58-60; Weinryb 1958, p. 16)—the point has

been made that even if they had been willing to abandon traditional laws, they would not have

necessarily changed their habits because “they failed to understand the difference between habits

that were rooted in Jewish law and those that were not. They retained secondary customs, as they

gave up integral rituals” (Heinze 1990, p. 57). However, the popularity of contract shops with

Russian Jews in the New York garment industry adds weight to the argument that traditional

religious norms were not so easily given up. Pope (1905, p. 52) states how it was in the contracting

system that the immigrant Jew came to dominate the manufacture of clothing. The flexibility

inherent in small contract shops run by their co-religionists “permitted the observance of his social

and religious customs to which he so tenaciously clung…” Indeed, one of the critical functionings

produced by New York City’s Jewish working class households was living a religious Jewish life.

The argument that these religious practices contributed to producing a higher level of capabilities

for the Jewish population, in spite of the disadvantages it faced in terms of entitlements and initial

conditions, is not a new one (Rischin 1962, p. 86-88). Kuznets makes a similar case for the

relatively and substantively lower Jewish death rates in Eastern Europe. Kuznets (1975, pp. 67-68)

argues that: “The low death rate was due to distinctive cultural factors operating despite the

relatively low income position of the mass of the Jewish population. Numerous writers have

commented that such characteristics of family life as absence of drunkenness, high standards of

hygiene, devotion to children, and close family ties were more typical of the Jewish than of the total

population before widespread modernization of the economic and demographic aspects of life.” At

a more general level Green (1986, p. 105) reports: “…it is often remarked that the Jewish mortality

rate was lower than the non-Jewish one, even as compared to other immigrant workers. Various

Jewish customs based on dietary and religious laws may have accounted for this–kosher food

specially prepared and inspected; ritual bathing required by women; yearly top-to-bottom cleaning

of the home before Passover [to which one should add the weekly cleaning required prior to the

Jewish Sabbath]–even if strict adherence to such rules could hardly have been observed in the

immigrants’ cramped working and living conditions. The moderate drinking habits of Jewish

workers and a marked lack of violence were other factors cited as contributing to their longer

life…”20 More specifically, the traditional or observant Jew was bound by Jewish Law to maintain

a clean and healthy household as well as observe days of rest on the Jewish Sabbath. That this was

an ideal to be strived for was made clear in scriptural readings and involved a detailed description of

what constituted clean and unclean, or pure and impure things. However, it also included simple

notions of cleanliness. Indeed, many of the household routines found in the traditional Jewish home

mirrored the practices that were being increasing advocated, on the basis of contemporary science,

by the household economists and by the public health activists (Tomes 1999).

Many American commentators at the turn of the century consistently pointed out the advantages

of such religiously based Jewish ‘habits’. Perhaps the most oft-quoted of these was Jacob Riis

(1896), the most well-known of the chroniclers of the New York City ghettos at the turn of the

century. Riis (1896, p. 59) postulates a relationship between Jewish orthodoxy and prosperity, and

argued: “Their strange customs proved the strongest ally of the Gentile health officer in his warfare

upon the slum. The laws Moses written in the desert operate to-day in New York’s tenements as a

check upon the mortality with which all the regulations of the Board of Health do not compare. The

death-rate of the poverty-stricken Jewtown, despite its crowding, is lower always than that of the

homes of the rich. The Jew’s rule of life is his faith and it regulates his minutest action.” In

addition, one of New York City’s pioneer in public health, Dr. Anne Daniel, stated before a

committee on tenement house conditions (quoted in Rischin 1962, pp. 86-87: “The rules of life

which orthodox Hebrews so unflinchingly obey as laid down in the Mosaic code…are designed to

maintain health. These rules are applied to the daily life of the individuals as no other sanitary laws

can be…Food must be cooked properly, and hence the avenues through which the germs of disease

may enter are destroyed. Meat must be “kosher,” and this means that it must be perfectly healthy.

Personal cleanliness is at times strictly compelled, and at least one day in the week the habitation

must be thoroughly cleaned.”

These Jewish religious norms and values were actualized at the household level by the Jewish

mother. Therefore it was how the Yiddishe (Jewish) Mama managed household affairs, how she

allocated her time and money, which proved to be so effective in the New York City ghetto at the

turn of the last century. Her world was structured by specific religious-and cultural norms that

allowed the Jewish immigrant household to realize relatively low mortality levels, maintain a

healthy Jewish workforce, and effectively, get a bigger bang for the buck. Andrew Heinz (1990, p.

106) describes how the role of Jewish women in the home was summed up by the term, baleboste,

“which literally means, ‘owner of the home’ and implies the control of a household. As the

masculine ideal in the traditional Jewish culture of Eastern Europe was that of the scholar whose

total attention focused on the study of Torah and Talmud, the complete direction of domestic affairs

was considered the prerogative of women. As the term baleboste implied, the role was not to be

underestimated.” Moreover, the behavior of the baleboste was contextualized and in part structured

by the larger Jewish Community within which the household was managed. Social context and

social approbation for deviations from proper household management represented a powerful

monitoring and enforcement mechanism of behavior which turned out to be both health and

efficiency enhancing. In many ways, the social community had the effect of the modern day health

inspector, enforcing an informal consensus, partly framed by Jewish law and community

experience, as to what constituted the proper standard of care and cleanliness within the Jewish

household.

Conclusion

The capabilities-functionings approach to socio-economic well-being developed by Amartya Sen

is extended in this paper to incorporate the importance of the household management as a

determinant of the level of functionings irrespective of the level of entitlements with which a family

is endowed. In the revised model, the manner in which the household exploits its market income

and its non-market labor is a critical determinant of a household’s level of socio-economic well-

being. One critical determinant of household management is culture which, in turn, is affected by

religious norms and education. To maximize the level of functionings, household management

must be efficient. In this scenario, low level entitlement families can best higher level entitlement

families in terms of realizing a higher level of functionings if the former make relatively more

efficient use of their entitlements. A higher level of entitlements, therefore, need not translate into a

higher level of functionings. Much depends on how the household is managed. Apart from this,

more efficient and effective household management, by producing higher levels of functionings in

terms of health and nutritional levels, can positively affect the potential efficiency of labor by

affecting the potential quantity and quality of effort that workers can input into the process of

production. One may, therefore, postulate a positive feedback effect between the level of

functionings in the household and the potential efficiency of labor, up to the point where

diminishing returns to functionings takes effect.

The case study of New York City’s immigrant Jewish and Italian population provides insight on

key aspects of the revised capabilities-functionings approach to economic well-being. Estimates for

mortality rates clearly demonstrate that the poorer and more overcrowded Jewish population fared

much better than most groups, including the American-born and the Italian immigrant populations.

We argue, from the literary evidence, that this success was largely a product of how the Jewish

household was managed. And the successful management of the Jewish household, especially in

terms of high levels of sanitation and adequate nutrition, was a product of the behavior of the

‘Yiddishe Mama’, which was mediated by the cultural-religious milieu of which she was part.

Although raising the level of entitlements would have made life easier, relatively high levels of

socio-economic well-being can be achieved by squeezing the most out of a given level of

entitlements. And simply increasing the level of entitlements, although potentially of great

importance, need not yield adequate levels of functionings in terms of different measures of socio-

economic well-being such as mortality and morbidity, if these resources are not properly managed.

Therefore, cultural variables can play and have played a critical role in determining the level of

functionings which, in turn, invariably affect the potential level and quantity of effort available to

the process of production and, thereby, potentially, the level of labor productivity and labor income.

Moreover, to better understand the determinants of different levels of socio-economic well-being

across ethnic-cultural groups and across historical time, it is imperative to garner a better

understanding of culturally specific practices within the household as they relate to the production

of functionings. The household is, after all, the focal point for the transformation of entitlements,

and related capabilities, and labor time and effort into the determinants of socio-economic well-

being.

Even when a household faces severe entitlement constraints beyond its immediate control, what

the household does within these constraints in terms of the household’s level of socioeconomic

wellbeing is not completely determined. A degree of freedom remains so long as household

members have some choice over the allocation of household labor, what can be purchased on the

market, how these commodities are used by and distributed within the household. The choices

made, given the entitlement constraint, determine the level and distribution of functionings and

overall wellbeing within the household. Thus households with identical entitlement constraints can

be characterized by dramatically different distributions and levels of functionings of wellbeing.

Household choice is therefore is a critical determinant of socioeconomic wellbeing. Entitlements

do not impose a binding constraint on the determination of individual and household wellbeing.

Notes

This paper is a joint work. The authors’ names are listed alphabetically. They wish to thank

participants of the IAREP/SABE Conference, Baden, Austria, July, 2000 and the ASSA Meeting,

New Orleans, January 2001, where earlier versions of this papers were presented. The current

version of this paper was prepared for the Conference, “Justice and Poverty: Examining Sen’s

Capability Approach,” 5-7 June 2001, Cambridge, UK, while Morris Altman was a visiting scholar

with the Center for North American Studies, John Hope Franklin Center for Interdisciplinary and

International Studies, Duke University. This paper has benefited from comments and suggestions

by Simon Szreter.

1. See Sugden (1993) for a summary discussion and critical appraisal of Sen’s analytical

approach to the determinants of socio-economic well-being.

2. The literature on income distribution is weighted in favor of the hypothesis that more equal

distribution of incomes are consistent with higher levels of per capita income and higher

rates of economic growth. This supports the argument put forth by Sen that low income

countries can ‘afford’ to redistribute entitlements, up to some point, towards the less well

off. The same can be said of like policies in the higher income economies (Aghion, Caroli,

and García-Peñalosa 1999; Altman 2001b).

3. This formulation of household decision making is based on Altman (1999).

4. Also see also Oughton and Wheelock (2003) for an alternative but related modeling of the

household applying Sen’s Capabilities Approach and, more specifically, how this speaks to

small business formation in contemporary developed economies.

5. In Altman (2001c) it is argued that cultural variables can affect the quantity and quality of

effort inputted into the production process thereby affecting the competitiveness of firms

and the level of incomes that individuals can earn.

6. Kuznets (1975, pp. 42) explains: “…of the total gross immigration of some 1.6 million

Jewish immigrants from Russia [to the United States as a whole] over the thirty-four-year

period [1817-1914], about two thirds are concentrated in the last twelve year, 1903-1914.”

7. The Italian born population represented 2.6 percent of New York City’s population in 1890,

4.2 percent in 1900, 7.1 percent in 1910, falling to 7 percent in 1920 (Baily 1999, p. 58). In

contrast, the percentage of the Jewish population residing in New York City for these years

are: 12.7, 11.4, 20.5, and 27.8 respectively (derived from Dushkin 1921, pp. 81, 89, 90 and

Baily 1999, p. 58). In 1900, 66 percent of the Italian population resided in Manhattan. By

1920, this percentage diminished to 47 percent (Baily 1999, p. 126). The percentage of the

Jewish population residing in Manhattan at this time was about 45 percent (Dushkin 1921, p.

89).

8. Jewish immigrants from Tzarist Russia comprised 76 percent of all Jewish immigrants to the

United States in the 1881-1914 period, 78 percent in the 1903-1907 period and 79 percent in

the 1908-1914 period. In the 1881-1914 period, about 1.6 million Jews immigrated to

America, off which 66 percent arrived in the 1903-1914 sub-period (Kuznets 1975, pp. 39-

42). Jews were driven out by ever-present anti-Semitism, increasingly violent and deadly

programs, poverty and limited economic opportunity (Kuznets 1975). See Marks (1994, ch.

1) for a discussion of a similar pattern of Jewish immigration into Britain at this time,

especially into London.

9. Dwork (1986, p. 112) makes the point that, of all industries where Jews found work, the

clothing industry was the most important employer of Jews. On this see also Kahan (1978,

p. 238). Selekman, Walter and Couper (1925, pp. 15-16) and Green (1997, pp. 46-47)

document that New York City dominated the American clothing industry at this time.

10. The poor physical condition of Russian Jewish immigrants, particularly as compared to their

more robust Italian counterparts, frequently drew notice in government reports and

commentaries. Jesse Pope (1905, pp. 47), described the Russian Jewish male as the “most

helpless and inefficient immigrants that have ever entered this country.”

11. The development and extent of New York Jewish charities in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth century have been well documented, see especially, The New York Jewish

Community Register for 1917-1918 (Kehillah 1921, passim) Less well known, however, is

the extent of Italian mutual aid societies in New York City, which have been estimated to

range from several hundred to several thousand by 1910. (Baily 1999, p. 203, fn. 34).

12. Marks (1994, pp. 23-24, 48-51), in her study of the Jewish immigrants to East London finds

that the Jewish population here, although at least as poor as their non-Jewish counterparts

both in East London and elsewhere in Britain, were characterized by much lower infant

mortality rates in the 1895-1910 period.

13. Jewish death rate in European Russian per 1,000 people was about 17 in the 1896-1904

period compared to a Russian-Christian death rate of about 32. In Galicia (that part of

Poland controlled by the Austrio-Hungary, pre-World War One) was about 18 per 1,000

people in the 1895-1910 period, compared to about 26 for the Christian population (Kuznets

1975, Table VIB).

14. It is also important to note that Italians retuned back to Italy at a rate of 43 percent of those

who first immigrated to the United States in the 1880s, 48 percent in the 1890s, and 53

percent in the 1901-1910 period (Baily 1999, p. 59). There is good reason to believe that

few Jewish immigrants returned to their point of origin. In 1921-1922, for example, only

3.5 percent of the Jewish immigrants returned as compared to 43 percent of the Italian

immigrants (Stella 1924, p. 30).

15. A 1922 U.S. study referred to by Woodbury (1926, p. 109) also finds that infants of Jewish

mothers have the lowest mortality rates from all causes, and “by far the lowest mortality

from both gastric and intestinal and from respiratory diseases and the next to lowest from

epidemic diseases” whereas Italians have higher than average rates for respiratory and

epidemic or contagious diseases. The study is interesting in that it also examines artificial

feeding and finds that both Jews and Italians have a relatively low percentage of babies

artificially as opposed to breast fed, the Jews having the lowest percentage together with

Polish immigrants. However, this study notes the “practically equal prevalence of artificial

feeding among the Jewish and Polish infants, accompanied in the case of the Jewish group

by a very low, but in the case of the Polish group by a very high, death rate (Woodbury

1926, p. 113). It should be noted that the Italian infant mortality rate in Meyer’s study was

overall lower than that of native born parents, but that in the contagious and respiratory

category the Italian rate was considerably higher than that of native born (Meyer 1921, p.

35, fn. 1).

16. The authors also find that the Italians spent a greater portion of their income on food and a

larger percentage of the Italian families, nearly 50 percent, in the study were deemed to have

an adequate caloric intake of 3,000 calories per man per day as compared to only 30 percent

of Russian Jews (Phillips and Howell 1920, p. 407, Table 7).

17. No direct evidence is readily available for capital intensity in New York City’s clothing

industry. But we estimate that for the United States as whole, for 1914, the regular

factories’ capital to labor ratio was 14.5 times greater than what it was in the smaller

contract shops (Department of Commerce 1917, p. 9, Table 11).

18. From the Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911, p. 287), it is clear that of the male

employees in the clothing industry in New York City, 67 percent of the Italians worked in

clothing manufacturing in their country of origin as compared to 66 percent of the Russian

Jews and 59 percent of other Jewish immigrant workers.

19. The Jewish family, as previously noted, earned less than the Italian. This in spite of the

higher weekly income of Jewish males. This discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that

there was a lower labor force participation rate, for market work, amongst Jewish women

and children.

20. Marks (1994, pp. 66-76) makes a similar point in her discussion of Britain’s immigrant

Jewish population at the turn of the last century. She concludes (p. 76), with regards to the

role which culture played in generating the relatively low infant mortality rates amongst East

London’s impoverished Jewish population that, “…the knowledge they gained in keeping a

kosher kitchen and the regulations this placed on food preparations and personal hygiene set

them apart from their neighbours.”

References

Alcaly, Roger E. (1997) “Reinventing the Corporation,” The New York Review of Books 40: 38-

45.

Aghion, P., E. Caroli, and C. García-Peñalosa (1999) “Inequality and Economic Growth: The

Perspective of the New Growth Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1615-1660.

Altman, Morris (2001a) Worker Satisfaction and Economic Performance: Micofoundations of

Success and Failure. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.

Altman, Morris (2001b) “Economic Growth and Income Equality: Implications of a Behavioral

Model of Economic Growth for Public Policy,” Canadian Public Policy 27: S87-S118.

Altman, Morris (2001c) “Culture, Human Agency, and Economic Theory: Culture as a Determinant

of Material Welfare,” Journal of Socio-Economics 29, forthcoming.

Altman, Morris (2000) “A Behavioral Theory of Economic Welfare and Economic Justice: A

Smithian Alternative to Pareto Optimality,” International Journal of Social Economics 27:

1098-1131.

Altman, Morris (1999) “A Theory of Population Growth When Women Really Count,” Kyklos 52:

27-43.

Altman, Morris (1998) “High Path to Economic Growth and Development,” Challenge: the

Magazine of Economic Affairs 41, 1998: 91-104.

Altman, Morris (1996) Human Agency and Material Welfare: Revisions in Microeconomics and

their Implications for Public Policy. Boston, Dordrecht, London Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Baily, Samuel L (1999) Immigrants in the Land of Promise: Italians in Buenos Aires and New York

City, 1870-1914 Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.

Becker, Gary S. (1965) “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Economic Journal 75: 493-517.

Becker, Gary. S. (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago and London:

University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Gary S. (1998) Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Benzeval, Michaela and Ken Judge (2001) “Income and Health: The Time Dimension,” Social

Science and Medicine 52: 1371-1390.

Billings, John S. (1894) Vital Statistics: New York City and Brooklyn Covering a Period of Six

Years Ending May 31, 1890. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Bliss C. and N. Stern (1978) “Productivity, Wages and Nutrition. Part I: the Theory and Part II:

Some Observations,” Journal of Development Economics 5: 331-98.

Buchele, Robert and Jens Christainsen (1995) “Worker Rights Promote Productivity Growth,”

Challenge: the Magazine of Economic Affairs 38: 32-37.

Cahan, Abraham (1898) “The Russian Jew in America,” Atlantic Monthly 82: 263-287.

Chapin, Robert Coit (1909) The Standard of Living Amongst Workingmen’s Families in New York

City. A Russell Sage Foundation Study. New York: Charities Publication Committee.

Chiswick, Barry R. (1985) “The Labor Market Status of American Jews: Patterns and Determiants,”

in Winston A. Van Horne, ed., Ethnicity and the Work Force, Vol. IV, Ethnicity and Public

Policy Series. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin System: 96-123.

Claghorn, Kate Holladay (1901) “The Foreign Immigrant in New York City,” Reports of the

Industrial Commission, Vol. 15. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing

Office: 465-492.

Corwin, E.H.L. (1952) Infant and Maternal Care in New York City: A Study of Hospital Facilities.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Dasgupta, P. and D. Ray (1986) “Inequality as a Determinant of Malnutrition and Unemployment,”

Economic Journal 96: 1011-1034.

Department of Commerce (1917) Census of Manufactures: 1914, Clothing, Bureau of the Census.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Dublin, Louis I. (1916) “Factors in American Mortality: A Study of Death Rates in the Race Stock

of New York State, 1910,” American Economic Review 6: 523-548.

Dushkin, Alexander (1921) “A Statistical Study of the Jewish Population of New York,” The

Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918. New York: Kehillah (Jewish

Community) of New York: 75-90.

Dwork, Deborah (1986) “Immigrant Jews On the Lower East Side of New York: 1880-1914,” in

Jonahtan D. Sarna (ed.), The American Jewish Experience. New York/London: Holmes and

Meier: 102-117.

Fan, Jessie X. (1998) “Ethnic Difference in Household Expenditure Patterns,” Family and

Consumer Sciences Research Journal 26: 371-301.

Farber, Bernard, Charles H. Mindel, and Bernard Lazerwitz (1981) “The Jewish American Family,”

in Charles H. Mindel and Robert W. Habenstein (eds.), Ethnic Famlies in America: Patterns

and Variations, 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier Science: 350-385.

Fishberg, Maurice (1911) The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment. New York: Walter Scott

Publishing Company.

Folbre, Nancy (2001) The Invisible Heart : Economics and Family Values. New York: New Press.

Frankfurter, Felix and Samuel J. Rosensohn (1920) Survey of the New York Clothing Industry:

Report Prepared for the Advisory Board and Impartial Chairman, Amalgamating Clothing

Workers of America, Clothing Manufacturers’ Association of New York, Inc. Papers of the

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, File number: 5619/195/11. Ithaca, NY: Kheel

Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University.

Green, Nancy L. (1986) The Pletzl of Paris: Jewish Immigrant Workers in the Belle Epoque. New

York, London: Holmes and Meier.

Green, Nancy L. (1986) Ready-To-Wear Ready-To-Work: A Century of Industry and Immigrats in

Paris and New York. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Handa, Sudhanshu (1994) “Gender, Headship and Intrahousehold Resource Allocation,” World

Development 22: 1535-1547.

Harrison, Lawrence E. (1992). Who Prospers: How Cultural Values Shape Economic and Political

Success. New York: Basic Books.

Heinze, Andrew R. (1990) Adapting to Abundance: Jewish Immigrants, Mass Consumption, and

the Search for American Identity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Howells, William Dean (1896) Impressions and Experiences. New York: Harpers and Brothers:

127-149.

Ichniowski, Casey, Thomas A. Kochan, David Levine, Craig Olson, and George Strauss (1996)

“What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment,” Industrial Relations 35: 299-333.

Kahan, Arcadius (1978) “Economic Opportunities and Some Pilgrims’ Progress: Jewish Immigrants

from Eastern Europe in the U.S., 1890-1914,” Journal of Economic History 38: 235-251.

Kehillah (1921) The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918. New York:

Kehillah (Jewish Community) of New York.

Kennedy, Eileen and Pauline Peters (1992) “Household Food Security and Child Nutrition: The

Interaction of Income and Gender of Household Head,” World Development 20: 1077-1085.

Kessner, Thomas (1977) The Golden Door: Italian and Jewish Immigrant Mobility in New York

City 1880-1915. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuznets, Simon (1975) “Immigration of Russian Jews to the United States: Background and

Structure,” in Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (eds.), Perspectives in American History,

Vol. 9. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press: 35-124.

Lamontagne, Louise (2004) “Waiting for Elijah: Structuring the Community and the Small Firm in

the New York City Men’s Garment Industry, 1900-1920,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department

of History, University of Toronto, forthcoming.

Leibenstein, Harvey (1957) Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth. New York: J. Wiley

and Sons.

Marks, Lara V. (1994) Model Mothers: Jewish Mothers and Maternity Provision in East London,

1870-1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

McCreesh, Carloyn Daniel (1985) Women in the Campaign to Organize Garment Workers, 1880-

1917. New York/London: Garland Publishing.

Meyer, Ernst Christopher (1921) Infant Mortality in New York City. New York: The Rockefeller

Foundation International Health Board.

Nussbaum, Martha (1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha (2003) “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice,”

Feminist Economics 9: 33-59.

Oughton, Elizabeth and Jane Wheelock (2003) “A Capabilities Approach to Sustainable Household

Livelihoods,” Review of Social Economics 61: 1-22.

Phillips, Velma and Laura Howell (1920) “Racial and Other Differences in Dietary Customs,” The

Journal of Home Economics 12: 396-411.

Pope, Jesse (1905) The Clothing Industry in New York. Columbus, MO: E.W. Stephens Publishing

Company.

Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911) Immigrants in Industries (in Twenty-Five Parts),

Part 6: Clothing Manufacturing. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Riis, Jacob (1896) “The Jews of New York,” Review of Reviews 13: 58-62.

Rischin, Moses (1962) The Promised City: New York’s Jews, 1870-1914. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press.

Schuh, Edward G. (2000) “The Household: The Neglected Link in Research and Programs for

Poverty Alleviation,” Food Policy 25: 233-241.

Selekman, B.M., Henriette R. Walter, and W.J. Couper (1925) The Clothing and Textile Industries.

New York: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and its Environs.

Sen, Amartya (1981a) “Public Action and the Quality of Life in Developing Countries,” Oxford

Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 43: 287-319.

Sen, Amartya (1981b) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya (1983) “Development: Which Way Now?” Economic Journal 93: 745-762.

Sen, Amartya (1989) “Cooperation, Inequality, and the Family,” Population and Development

Review (Issue Supplement) 15: 61-76.

Sen, Amartya (1990). “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts,” in: I. Tinker (ed.), Persistent

Inequalities: Women and World Development. New York and Oxford: Oxford University

Press: 123-149.

Sen, Amartya (1993) “The Economic of Life and Death,” Scientific American 268: 40-47.

Sen, Amartya (1996) “A Matter of Choice: Is Culture Merely an Adjunct to Development?” The

UNESCO Courier (September): 10-13.

Sen, Amartya (1997) “From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality,” Southern Economic

Journal 64: 384-401.

Sen, Amartya (1998) “Mortality as an Indicator of Economic Success and Failure,” Economic

Journal 108: 1-25.

Sen, Amartya (1999a) Commodities and Capabilities, first published, 1987. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Sen, Amartya (1999b) “Economics and Health,” The Lancet 354: 20.

Sen, Amartya (1999c) Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.

Sklare, Marshall (1971) America’s Jews. New York: Random House.

Stella, Antonia (1924) Some Aspects of Italian Immigration to the United States. New

York/London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1976) “The Efficiency Wage Hypothesis, Surplus Labour and the Distribution of

Income in LDC’s,” Oxford Economic Papers 28: 185-207.

Sudhir, Anand and Marin Ravallion (1993) “Human Development in Poor Countries: On the Role

of Private Incomes and Public Services,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 7: 133-150.

Sugden, Robert (1993) “Welfare, Resources, and Capabilities: A Review of Inequality Reexamined

by Amartya Sen,” Journal of Economic Literature 31: 1947-1962.

Sumner, Helen L. (1910) History of women in Industry in the United States, Vol. 9, Report on the

Condition of Women and Child Wage Earners in the United States. Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office.

Szreter, Simon (1997) “Economic Growth, Disruption, Deprivation, Disease, and Death: on the

Importance of the Politics of Public Health for Development,” Population and Development

Review 23: 693-629.

Tomes, Nancy (1999) “Spreading the Germ Theory: Sanitary Science and Home Economics, 1880-

1930,” in Judith Walzer Leavitt (ed.), Women and Health in America: Historical Readings,

second edition. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press: 596-611.

Weinryb, Bernard (1958) “Jewish Immigration and Accommodation in America,” in Marshall

Sklare (ed.), The Jews: Social Patterns of an American Group. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.

Willet, Mabel Hurd (1968) The Employment of Women in the Clothing Trade, first edition, 1902.

New York: AMS Press.

Woodbury, Robert Morse (1926) Infant Mortality and Its Causes: With an Appendix on the Trend

Mortality Rates in the United States. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company.

Entitlements

Functionings, Entitlements, and CultureDiagram One

T0

T1

T2

F0

F1

F2

E0

J

Entitlements

Real Income and EntitlementsDiagram Two

B A

I0

Im

I1

I*

Capabilities

Culture, Entitlements, and CapabilitiesDiagram Three

Culture BCulture A

E0

Labor Cost

Average Production and Labor Costs

Diagram Four

W0

AC

WD

W

W1

EW

Table 1

Family Income in the Clothing Industry in Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, 1911

Nativity and Ethnicity of Household Head Percent of families having a total income Number of sample families Under 300 301-499 500-749 750-999 Over 1,000

Average family yearly income

Native-born of foreign father: Bohemian & Moravian 24 621 0.0 33.3 41.7 25.0 0.0 Foreign-born: Bohemian and Moravian 173 769 1.7 19.1 42.2 19.0 18.0 Hebrew 366 682 9.6 25.1 34.7 16.9 13.7 Italian, South 145 749 2.8 18.6 37.2 22.8 18.6 Lithuanian 55 702 7.3 23.6 36.4 16.3 16.4 Polish 20 694 20.0 25.0 30.0 10.0 15.0 Grand total 783 713 6.3 22.6 37.3 18.6 15.2 Hebrew/Italian 0.91 3.43 1.35 0.93 0.74 0.74 Hebrew/Grand total 0.96 1.52 1.11 0.93 0.91 0.90

Source: Derived from, Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911), Table 42, p. 308.

Table 2

Family Size, Population Density and Housing in New York City, 1900

Ward Primary Total Density per Average Nationality population acre family

size

Percentage of primary Nationality of families in tenements

4 Italian 8,344 202 4.8 73.7 6 Italian 18,929 187 4.9 87.3 7 Russian-Jew 89,206 433 5.3 93.2 8 Italian 28,777 163 4.7 92.0 10 Russian-Jew 71,041 652 5.3 89.3 13 Russian-Jew 64,164 589 5.3 93.6 14 Italian 33,595 311 5.0 86.1 15 Italian 22,845 101 5.0 79.0 Total Average Average Average Russian-Jew 224,411 529 5.3 92.1 Italian 112,490 172 4.9 85.4 Russian-Jew/ 1.99 3.07 1.08 1.08 Italian

Source: From Kessner (1977), Table 16, p. 132.

Table 3

Apartment Density in Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, 1911

Nativity and Ethnicity of Household Head Number of Average number of persons per: sample households Apartment Room Sleeping room

Native-born of foreign father: Bohemian & Moravian 25 4.6 0.9 2.4

Foreign-born: Bohemian and Moravian 219 5.2 1.0 2.3 Hebrew 407 5.4 1.5 2.8 Italian, South 162 5.1 1.4 2.6 Lithuanian 62 5.7 1.6 2.4 Polish 20 5.2 1.7 2.7

Grand total 895 5.3 1.3 2.6

Hebrew/Italian 1.07 1.12 1.09 Hebrew/Grand total 1.02 1.17 1.09

Source: Derived from, Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911), Table 62, p. 328.

Table 4

Death Rates by Age Cohort Per 1,000 Broken Down by Disease in New York City, 1885-1890

Average Death Rates Per 1,000 for the 1885-1890 Period

Average Death Rates Per 1,000 for the 1890 Census Year

Total Under 15 yrs. Over 15 yrs. Total Under 15 yrs. 15 to 20 yrs. 20 to 25 yrs. 25 to 35 yrs. 35 to 45 yrs. 45 to 55 yrs. 55 to 65 yrs. Over 65 yrs. Nativity of Mother

United States (white) 29.9 53.3 20.4 29.2

46.9 4.9 7.0 9.7 12.6 20.7 34.4 93.4 United States (black) 33.3 75.7

23.6Italy 35.3 76.4 12.3 40.0 84.2 7.9 13.5 11.0 15.4 19.9 38.3 88.4 Russia-Poland 14.9 28.7 6.2 21.2 40.3 3.3 4.7 7.0 9.9 20.6 31.3 102.8 Hungary 22.4 47.2 8.5 29.3 58.7 7.9 5.5 8.1 12.0 30.8 40.2 102.2 Ireland 32.5 50.9 28.0 32.2 43.3 7.8 13.8 20.7 30.8 40.9 63.3 133.1 Germany 24.3 47.0 17.0 22.1 36.9 4.3 7.7 11.1 16.9 22.7 43.3 84.5 England & Wales 27.7 50.5 20.8 27.6 43.3 5.6 10.0 13.0 19.3 29.8 42.7 127.8 Scandanavia 23.5 57.3 13.4 28.3 62.6 7.7 11.9 14.4 19.2 28.3 49.4 85.2 Bohemia 43.6 82.6 20.3 36.2 62.2 5.7 13.1 18.5 20.3 23.5 58.4 89.7 France

23.3 47.0 17.9 24.1

42.5 7.0 5.3 10.2 15.3 28.1 44.3 111.5

Russian Death Rates/Other United States (white) 0.50 0.54 0.31 0.73

0.86 0.66 0.67 0.72 0.79 1.00 0.91 1.10

United States (black) 0.45 0.38 0.26Italy 0.42 0.38 0.51 0.53 0.48 0.41 0.35 0.64 0.65 1.04 0.82 1.16 Russia-Poland 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hungary 0.66 0.61 0.73 0.72 0.69 0.41 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.67 0.78 1.01 Ireland 0.46 0.56 0.22 0.66 0.93 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.50 0.49 0.77 Germany 0.61 0.61 0.36 0.96 1.09 0.76 0.60 0.63 0.59 0.91 0.72 1.22 England & Wales 0.54 0.57 0.30 0.77 0.93 0.58 0.47 0.54 0.52 0.69 0.73 0.80 Scandanavia 0.63 0.50 0.46 0.75 0.64 0.42 0.39 0.49 0.52 0.73 0.63 1.21 Bohemia 0.34 0.35 0.31 0.58 0.65 0.57 0.36 0.38 0.49 0.88 0.54 1.15 France 0.64 0.61 0.35 0.88 0.95 0.47 0.89 0.69 0.65 0.74 0.71 0.92

Source: Billings (1894), Table 15, p. 15 and Table 16, p. 18.

Table 5 Deaths per 1,000 in New York State, 1910

Native Born of Native Parentage

Russian Born Russian/Native Born Italian Born Russian/Italian Born

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Ages 10 and over Crude rate 13.8 12.4 7.7 6.8 0.56 0.55 9.0 9.5 0.86 0.72 Standardized rate 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.3 0.95 0.99 12.9 13.7 1.02 0.90 10-14 2.5 2.6 1.6 1.4 0.64 0.54 2.7 3.4 0.59 0.41 15-19 3.6 3.2 2.6 1.8 0.72 0.56 5.5 5.7 0.47 0.32 20-24 5.0 4.7 3.8 2.9 0.76 0.62 6.2 6.1 0.61 0.48 25-44 6.9 5.7 5.1 5.3 0.74 0.93 6.6 7.0 0.77 0.76 45-64 18.8 14.3 20.1 16.0 1.07 1.12 19.3 17.9 1.04 0.89 65-84 77.3 68.2 78.4 69.8 1.01 1.02 64.6 63.8 1.21 1.09 85 and over 268.9 242.3 255.8 257.8 0.95 1.06 120.3 214.3 2.13 1.20

German Born Russian/German Born

Irish Born Russian/Irish Born English-Scottish Born

Russian/Eng-Scottish Born

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Ages 10 and over Crude rate 27.7 22.8 0.28 0.30 40.3 34.9 0.19 0.19 22.6 20.8 0.34 0.33 Standardized rate 17.9 14.4 0.73 0.85 25.9 23.5 0.51 0.52 16.6 12.4 0.79 0.99

10-14 5.8 1.6 0.28 0.87 na 5.1 0.27 3.7 3.3 0.43 0.42 15-19 3.4 2.7 0.76 0.67 8.1 3.9 0.32 0.46 5.8 5.8 0.45 0.31 20-24 4.5 4 0.84 0.73 9.4 4.1 0.40 0.71 4.3 3.8 0.88 0.76 25-44 10 6.3 0.51 0.84 18.5 12.0 0.28 0.44 8.7 7.6 0.59 0.70 45-64 27.7 18.4 0.73 0.87 46.3 40.7 0.43 0.39 24.6 21 0.82 0.76 65-84 90.4 83.1 0.87 0.84 101.6 107.4 0.77 0.65 86.6 79.9 0.91 0.87 85 and over 263.4 264.4 0.97 0.98 286.1 307.6 0.89 0.84 261.9 279.6 0.98 0.92

Sources and notes: Derived from Dublin (1916). The standardized death rates are constructed by adjusted the average crude rate for differences in the age distribution between the native and foreign born groups.

61

Table 6

Child Death Rates per 1,000

Infant Mortality in New York City Death Rates for Kids Under 5 in Borough of Manhattan

Russian-Poland/Other Nativity of both 1915 1915 Parents

1915 to 1917 averageRussian-Poland/Other 1915 to 1917 average Nativity of Mother

United States 107.6 0.67 United States 40.0 0.62 Italy 98.5 0.73 Italy 42.5 0.59 Russia-Poland 72.3 1.00 Russia-Poland 24.9 1.00 Austria-Hungary 82.3 0.88 Austria-Hungary 26.3 0.95 Ireland 115.5 0.63 Ireland 36.8 0.68 Germany 108.1 0.67 Germany 32.3 0.77 England 92.5 0.78 England 40.5 0.61 Sweden 79.1 0.91 Sweden 28.2 0.88 Bohemia 97.8 0.74 Bohemia 22.3 1.12 Scotland 76.5 0.94 France 22.4 1.11 France 94.5 0.77

Source: Derived from Meyer (1921), pp. 34, 134 and 135.

63

Table 7

Child Death Rates (Under 5 Years of Age) Per 1,000 Broken Down by Disease in the Borough of Manhattan, 1915

Nativity of Infectious Pecentage Russia/other Turberculosis Pecentage Russia/other Acute Pecentage Russia/other Diarrheal Pecentage Russia/other Mother Diseases of Total of Total Respiratory of Total of Total

Diseases

United States 3.8 9.4 0.79 2.1 5.2 0.52 7.9 19.9 0.77 8.0 20.0 0.38 Italy 5.8 13.5 0.52 1.6 3.9 0.69 17.6 41.4 0.35 7.0 16.3 0.43 Russia-Poland 3.0 12.3 1.00 1.1 4.6 1.00 6.1 24.5 1.00 3.0 12.0 1.00 Austria-Hungary 3.6 13.9 0.83 1.1 4.2 1.00 6.1 23.1 1.00 5.2 19.8 0.58 Ireland 5.7 15.3 0.53 1.9 5.2 0.58 6.1 16.6 1.00 7.2 19.6 0.42 Germany 3.4 10.4 0.88 1.4 4.5 0.79 5.1 15.9 1.20 4.8 14.9 0.63 England 3.5 8.6 0.86 2.1 5.2 0.52 3.8 9.5 1.61 9.1 22.4 0.33 Sweden 1.5 5.4 2.00 1.5 5.4 0.73 2.3 8.1 2.65 6.1 21.6 0.49 Bohemia 3.0 13.3 1.00 5.0 2.2 0.22 5.4 24.4 1.13 4.0 17.8 0.75 France 2.1 9.5 1.43 0.0 0.0 3.2 14.3 1.91 1.1 4.8 2.73

Source: Derived from Meyer (1921), p. 134.

66