The principal criticisms made of Debt are that David Graeber has not adequately understood the internal debates among economists, that he attaches too much importance to the origins of economic ideas as a measure of their value, and that his recommendation for debt relief is impractical.
The fact that Graeber and his detractors come from different disciplines (anthropology* and economics,* respectively) makes it difficult for the two to engage in a substantive debate.
Graeber’s ideas have been well received by economists outside the mainstream.
Debt: The First 5,000 Years was a controversial book at the time of its publication; while David Graeber’s ideas have been ignored by most economists, a few have expressed opposition or support. Among those who chose to critically engage with Debt, Noah Smith* and Mike Beggs* offer the most detailed criticisms.
Smith, an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University and a popular economics writer, says that many monetary economists already recognize that credit* preceded barter.* He suggests that Graeber accuses economists of misleading the public without understanding the diversity of views within economics. Smith also argues that Graeber’s proposal for debt cancellation in response to overwhelming debt levels would make lenders very unwilling to lend in the future, and would reward those bold enough to take out large loans rather than those in need.1
“5,000 years of anecdotes is no substitute for real political economy. ”
Mike Beggs, Jacobin
Beggs, a political economy* lecturer at the University of Sydney, says Debt is a “valuable contribution,”2 but rejects Graeber’s use of history as a tool for undermining economic theory. “Economics studies a system, and origins of its parts might mislead about their present functions and dynamics,” he writes. “The answer to bad economics is good economics, not no economics.”3 In opposition to Beggs, the economist J. W. Mason* has claimed that the ‘big ideas’ related to economics that are presented in Debt are legitimate. “Debt backs up each of them with an enormous wealth of historical material, though sometimes less than clear theoretical statements,” Mason writes.4
Graeber has been accused by many of his detractors of being unwilling to accept any criticism. Because they are not anthropologists,* Graeber’s critics have been unable to dispute the anthropological evidence he cites to dismiss the Myth of Barter;* because he is not an economist, Graeber lacks the technical knowledge to engage with the claims of economists such as Mike Beggs who accuse him of overlooking constructive solutions to debt crises from the field of economics. The result is that both Graeber and his critics are left to argue over minor points rather than the merits of the book as a whole or its broader implications.
Graeber’s main response to arguments like those of Noah Smith that debt relief makes lenders unwilling to lend is that this has been disproven. As Graeber points out, history has had many instances of debt relief, and the practice of lending continues. Furthermore, “big players” (that is, the wealthy or giant corporations) forgive and restructure* one another’s debts frequently.
Graeber and his critics argue primarily over petty scholarly points. The book was published so recently that there has not yet been time for a book or an academic work of equal academic weight to offer an opposing school of thought. The debate is largely confined to the Internet.
In the left-wing quarterly Jacobin magazine, Mike Beggs wrote that Debt is “another move in an interdisciplinary* struggle: anthropology against economics.”5 This is an accurate description, as a gulf has existed between the conclusions of anthropology and economics for approximately a century. However, there is a clear space for cooperation between Graeber’s camp and economists outside the mainstream. As J. W. Mason has written: “Admittedly it takes some unpacking, but Debt’s key themes are in close harmony with the main themes of heterodox economics* work going back to Keynes.”6 It is likely that future economic scholarship will incorporate the anthropological perspective.
1. Noah Smith, “David Graeber: Debt Is Bad, or Something?,” Noahpinion, February 13, 2013, http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/david-graeber-debt-is-bad-or-something.html.
2. Mike Beggs, “On Debt: A Reply to Josh Mason,” Jacobin, September 20, 2012, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/09/on-debt-a-reply-to-josh-mason/.
3. Mike Beggs, “Debt: The First 500 Pages,” Jacobin, August, 2012, 7–8.
4. J. W. Mason, “In Defense of David Graeber’s Debt,” Jacobin, September 18, 2012, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/09/in-defense-of-david-graebers-debt/.
5. Beggs, “Debt.”
6. Mason, “In Defense of David Graeber’s Debt.”