New Labour's misogyny

Just how stupid or evil are New Labour's women ministers? That's the question raised by their support for making the purchase of sex illegal.
Basic economics tells us that such a move would be bad for women who sell sex. A simple supply-demand diagram should make this clear. If the purchase of sex were legal, the demand curve would be D*, and the price of sex P*. Now, if the purchase becomes illegal, some men who bought sex at P* would think "yikes! I could get done for this. I'd better stop." Demand would then fall to D' and the price of sex would fall to P'.
Prostitutes would then be worse off. It's the women who would suffer. Exactly how much they'd suffer would depend upon two things:
1. How far the demand curve shifted. The tougher the sentencing for buying sex, or the more rigorously the law is policed, the bigger would be the leftward move in the demand curve, and the bigger the fall in price.
2. How elastic the supply curve is. If lower prices cause lots of women to stop selling sex, the supply curve will be flat  so prices won't fall much - because there'll be fewer women competing for what demand there is. But if supply is inelastic - say because women don't have alternative ways of making money - prices will fall a lot.
What's worse, the main losers here will be the most vulnerable prostitutes - the ones on street corners rather than Chelsea horizontales. There are two reasons for this.
One is that these will bear the brunt of the policing of the law; the Dibble will be arresting men kerb-crawling around King's Cross rather than those visiting flats in SW3.
Also, these women don't have alternative jobs to go to if prices fall, whereas the posher prozzie can always take up PR work or acting, so their supply is more inelastic.
So, criminalizing buying sex would hurt prostitutes, especially the poorest ones.
Which raises the question. Why do New Labour women not see this? Are they stupid or misogynistic? Or is this yet another example of politics as signaling?

Comments

[Nick]

The most vulnerable prostitutes today are no longer the ones on street corners but the ones who are shipped in from eastern europe and elsewhere and who are slaves. Classic rules of supply and demand don't affect them, only the pimps. The pimps do have relatively elastic supply (there are plenty of other activites out there for those without a shred of conscience) and so isn't there an argument that in the long term this will decrease the supply of sex slaves.
Also on a non-economic point, if we believe that prostitution is wrong then surely it is just that both of those tangoing should be breaking the law. It strikes me as deeply misogynist that it is only the more vulnerable party that is breaking the law at present.

[Bruce]

I'm not sure that they'd disagree with your fundamental analysis - that it would reduce demand for prostitutes' services. It's just that in a misguided attempt at "fairness" they have have not thought through the practical consequences of that. Par for the course, of course.

[Matt Munro]

"Which raises the question. Why do New Labour women not see this? Are they stupid or misogynistic? Or is this yet another example of politics as signaling?"

Signalling. The feminised government conceptualise "the problem" as a structural one. Some mouthpiece on Radio 4 was selling is as a way to prevent the trafficking of women to the UK, and their subsequent sale into the sex trade (yeah right, we have porous borders but the real problem is salesmen kerb crawling in Birmingham).
In reality its obviously part of the wider agenda to demonise men. Despite the fact that selling sex is illegal and that on the whole only women are position to sell it, it is of course not the womens fault, as women are only in that position due to exploitation rather than rational economic choice, so it must be the mens fault for buying it. Akin to prosecting drug users, rather than drug dealers.

Would any of you economists care to explain why the supply/demand mechanic which makes polish plumbers cheaper than their UK counterparts apparently doesn't work in the sex business ?

[Tom H]

I assume nobody in government would dispute your "this would lead to prostitutes earning less money from prostitution" conclusion. But they do think (presumably - it would be silly to criminalise it if they didn't) that prostitution is a bad thing, which they'd like to discourage. If so, then "This measure will financially disadvantage prostitutes" results from "This measure will discourage men from using prostitutes", which is *precisely* the outcome the policy is aiming for - because the government believes that using prostitutes is a bad thing, and that prostitution is a way of making money which should be discouraged. (There's a perfectly good debate to be had about whether they're right about that, of course.)

Making sure that there *are* alternative sources of income for women who are currently prostitutes is of course something that should go along with any policy which makes prostitution a less viable money-making option. But if the government wants people who are currently prostitutes to stop being prostitutes, then making prostitution more economically unattractive sounds like a good candidate as one of the measures they should adopt.

[Marcin Tustin]

No, it's good for the women, because only their false consciousness makes them think that it is a benefit to them to sell sex.

On a realistic note, slaves wages can adjust to close to zero, as they are already trying as hard as they can to leave slavery. In an environment that depresses the value of prostitution, we would tend to see fewer prostitutes overall, or poorer prostitutes, but the slaves will leave the market last, or be shifted into other employment as slaves. If anything, the proportion of slaves in the body of prostitutes will increase. This is particularly so if they are kept in relatively secure brothels (Once again, police will take down the most visible parts of the trade first).

Finally, given that policing resources are finite, and this measure will nto create revenue that could in principle be spend on policing, the targeting of slave imprisoners and traffickers will likely be reduced if more enforcement resources are spent on prostitution.

In summary: It's all about sending the right signals, baby. The affluent, older voter won't have a clue about the practical outcome.

[Tim Worstall]

Should be noted that prostitution is not actually illegal: it's entirely legal to sell sex currently. Not to solicit, or to run a brothel, but prostitution itself is legal.

[Tom H]

Tim's right: it's not illegal. You can buy it and sell it, but you can't market it or do it in public. It's a bit like smoking in that respect.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Excellent post.

We already have laws against kidnapping and false imprisonment and so on, so whether foreign women are forced to work as prostitutes or as agricultural labourers, there is no need for this sort of thing.

And clamping down on foreign women would of course restrict supply and increase the price that our good old home grown prostitutes can charge.

[Alex]

But don't you understand: it'll be like when we made it illegal to buy drugs, and now look; you can't buy drugs any more! Or that time we declared a war on terrorism, and suddenly there weren't any terrorists any more!

[Tom H]

Yeah, Alex - or that time we made murder a crime, and there weren't any more murders. Or that time we banned stealing, and theft stopped overnight. Making laws against things you want to discourage is completely insane, isn't it?

[chris]

So the real tragedy here is that foreign prostitutes are stealing our local girls' work by engaging in a price-cutting drive?

Perhaps then, there should be a reward-scheme or other incentive-based system for loyal customers of local talent.

[Matt Munro]

"So the real tragedy here is that foreign prostitutes are stealing our local girls' work by engaging in a price-cutting drive?"

A mate of mine (ahem) reakons they are the same price but lack the british sense of humour.

[Katherine]

"In reality its obviously part of the wider agenda to demonise men"

Oh please. I assume that you could possibly mean they want to demonise men who buy sex, which I hope you realise is not exactly the same thing.

And it may not be illegal to buy or sell sex, but ask yourself who mostly are the ones who are arrested and prosecuted. Yes, that's right, the women. Hardly even handed, now is it.

[Morten]

So, the right (feminist?) policy would be for the government to actively promote prostitution to drive up demand? Wow!

[spencer]

Take your charts and line of reasoning with one change. Assume making it illegal causes
women to drop out rather then men to drop out of the market. What do you know, making prostitution illegal is good for women.

Do you have any basis to conclude your assumption is any more realistic than mine?

[Matt Munro]

"And it may not be illegal to buy or sell sex, but ask yourself who mostly are the ones who are arrested and prosecuted. Yes, that's right, the women. Hardly even handed, now is it."

That's because they are the ones that are breaking the law ! Would your definition of "even handed" be that equal numbers of men and women be locked up ?
The seller is prosecuted in the same way that the police know it makes more sense to go after drug dealers, rather than drug users, dodgy car dealers rather than dodgy car buyers, etc etc. The problem I have is that the implicit message here (as ever with nu lab) is that men are "the problem". Why not slack border controls, organised crime, contradictory laws and attitudes to prostitution, ineffective policing, or the fact that many women quite obviously actively choose it as a career ?
It should be legalised and regulated - that's the only long terms solution.

[Miguel]

There is also the possibility of an inverse supply curve. I can think in 2 way that these can ocur:

a) A high-class prostitute planning to work until have money enough to invest (for example, buying apartments to rent) and live of the incomes (attending that is a profession where the "market value" tends to decrease with age, it is a very logical "career plan"). In these case, low prices can mean more years working as prostitute

b) A drug adict street prostitute who have to work enough to pay for her daily dose. In these case, low price can mean that she will attend more clients per day

In these scenarios, not only the prostitutes will be hurted by that measures, but also will be more - instead of less - prostitution.

[Steve Massey]

So will paying for sex with a nice dinner and a trip to the theater be considered illegal too?

[Pseudonymous]

"And it may not be illegal to buy or sell sex, but ask yourself who mostly are the ones who are arrested and prosecuted. Yes, that's right, the women. Hardly even handed, now is it."

Kathrine, can I take it that you agree with this proposal on the grounds that it will only punish men?

Personally this seems very much like punishing people who buy drugs in order to benefit people who sell them.

[Robert]

"So will paying for sex with a nice dinner and a trip to the theater be considered illegal too?"

Who was it who said that the only difference between sex for money, and sex for free, is that sex for money costs less? :-)

Seriously though, if the selling of sex is illegal, then surely both parties in the transaction have a disincentive to trade. Why can we not see a third line Chris? S* (graphically, to the left of the the existing supply line) would intersect with D* at P, or thereabouts, no? Or does the concept of inelasticity only work on one side of the transaction?

[dsquared]

I think this is quite poor economics.

1) it only applies to self-employed prostitutes. Lots of prostitutes are employees who are employed by pimps, who earn profits. If the legislation does not affect the supply of prostitute labour to this labour market, it would leave the income of the prostitutes unchanged and the incidence of the cost of the regulation would be borne by the profit market of the pimps.

2) given 1) above and the reduction in profitability of the prostitution industry, it would reduce the profitability to pimps of importing trafficked women to the UK. Which is sort of the point of the legislation.

3) Chris ignores the fact that this law would open up a new source of illegal income for the prostitutes through blackmail.

Alex - I think it's probably more analogous to the legislation against kerb-crawling which (I think, my memory is a bit hazy on this and I think I only ever read one working paper in the first place) did have some quite beneficial effects.

[jameshigham]

Are they stupid or misogynistic?

Both - it's the nature of the feminist.

[Katherine]

No I don't agree with this proposal on the grounds that it will only punish men. But the argument that somehow this is unfair to "men", overall, is preposterous.

And yes at the moment the women are the ones who are breaking the law, because the law targets them.

I don't actually know whether I agree with this proposal or not, since I haven't seen any decent analysis of the intended result and the liklihood of that result. If it results in a lowering of demand and is joined up with assistance for drug addicted women abused by pimps to get out of prostitution, say, then I can see the upside. But calling it misogynistic is the stupid thing.

[Santos]

I completely agree with Matt Munro and jameshigham. As a white male around the age of 30 I am in the most prejudiced against group in this wishy-washy, man-hating liberal (once great) country of ours. And its all the fault of feminists, bureaucrats... and, um, gypsies. In that order!

Interesting discussion by everyone else though.

[yousureyou'renotafantatic?]

Well done for learning about supply and demand curves (though you do seem to have ignored the fact that the supply would be just as likely - or unlikely - to change as the demand). Letts Revise Economics is obviously all one needs these days.

But this really doesn't go near to explaining the economics of prostitution. Or to understanding its impact on the wider community. Part of the reason for making the purchase of sex illegal is to find a way for the police to control the men who use prostitutes, thus giving them a means of moving them and the prostitutes out of, for example, residential neighbourhoods. The social costs (something you overlook in your analysis) are lower if you can contain the trade in "accepted areas" such as Soho. At the moment the police have few powers with regard to the men who purchase sex and this means they are reliant on going after the prostitutes themselves. As these women don't have the money to pay fines, they end up in prison which is a hugely expensive way of controlling this activity. Fining the men who buy this service would be a cheaper and probably more effective way of policing this trade.

I think your arrogant and ignorant first line ("stupid or evil..?") betrays the lack of thought here.

[redpesto]

The problem with the proposal is the same one as with why prostitutes are targeted in the first place. One explanation is that the women are targeted because they offer extra-marital sex in a culture that privileges marriage and monogamy. Alternatively, it's because they are getting paid for something which 'ought' to be for free (via marriage and monogamy again). Thirdly, they offer recreational sex (from simple to kinky), in a culture that still has residual links to the idea that sex is for reproduction. Some feminists assume the woman is literally 'bought' when she agrees to have sex for money, as opposed to engaging in a contract for a service (S&M dominatrixes don't offer genital sex, yet are still targeted because of the sexual/eroticised activities they provide). The link to trafficked women simply ups the emotional ante in this case.

So, on one level, for some feminists (as well as sexual/cultural conservatives and political/religious figures), the exchange of money changes everything (implicitly reducing the woman's status to that of victim), even where consent is required and agreed - though that doesn't stop them denouncing prostitutes as a threat to the social order in the same breath. (Put crudely, the proposal would allow a man to pay a woman minimum wage to wipe his arse, but not far more if it constituted some kind of sexual scenario.)

[olly onions]

greetings
http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2007/09/discoveries-shed-new-light-on-primitive.html

[Matt Munro]

"I completely agree with Matt Munro and jameshigham. As a white male around the age of 30 I am in the most prejudiced against group in this wishy-washy, man-hating liberal (once great) country of ours. And its all the fault of feminists, bureaucrats... and, um, gypsies. In that order!

Interesting discussion by everyone else though."

Go back to starbucks and read your guardian.......

[El H]

Idle thought, but if the government wants to get rid of prostitution, maybe it could use the laws that already exist?

Brothel keeping is illegal. And yet brothels not only exist (quite openly) - they advertise in my local newspaper. You don't see smack dealers or gun runners advertising in the local rag, so why brothels?

Can't help feeling that what may happen here is that the purchase of sex is criminalised, and the government goes away and congratulates itself on another problem solved, but that the new law will simply remain as unenforced as the current ones, and the horrors of human trafficking will remain unchanged.

I offer no opinion on whether it is a good idea in principle. Diane Taylor and Julie Bindel both know of what they speak, having worked with those involved in prostitution for years, and yet the come to diametrically opposed conclusions. But if it is to be done, let's see it done properly...

[aDM]

Here we go again - more 'its all the feminists fault' bleating. Yes thats right its a secret feminist conspiracy to annoy men who are all so terribly hard done by.

[Geoffrey Roberts]

Feminists are hypocrites though. One central tenet of feminism is that women are equal to men and that women have a right for sexual liberty too.

The problem is two-fold:
1) Jealousy - we see strippers, Domiatrices, High-class hookers, prostitutes etc as making a lot of money for an "immoral" trade.
2) Misguided notion of sexplotation. We are using a pre-feminist notion that sex is used by men to gain control over women; when in fact - all through history and especially in the post-feminist age - sex is a tool for women to use. (Or men should they wish to sell it, think Dolce and Gabbana ads).

I do think that we need a clear set of rules. Kerb-crawling should be illegal and punished as it is dangerous driving. Soliciting should be illegal and punished as it is a form of begging and it constiutes harassment.

Buying or selling sex is not a crime. But forcing others to sell sex for your gain is a crime. But the laws regarding brothels are silly. Selling sex is a dangerous business. It makes sense to have regulated brothels (like Germany) so that famous pop stars can be caught on camera leaving them... and that the sellers of sex are safe(r).

[aDM]

Bullshit. Turn a blind eye to 'acceptable losses' and make it what you want. What sexual liberty? The comodified raunched up Larry Flynt kind? Some women go along with that because they fear rejection or use sex as a means to an end - politically throughout history they've had to. Dressing it up as feminism is bullshit.

If the legality of it works as well as you say it does why has Amsterdams recent law changes proven you wrong?