Isn't the word "debunk" great? First, it's one of those that has no "positive" form, like "unkempt." So if you debunk something you can never rebunk it. And how did it get bunked in the first place?
Second, it sounds a lot like what it means: throwing something/someone out of a comfy bed. Sometimes ideas take root and form a body of knowledge that everyone "knows," yet which is false. That's the origin of "myth," something that in time grows larger than life through the overemphasis and exaggeration of certain perceived characteristics in which there may be a kernel of truth. For example, the strength of Atlas or the patience of Job.
Every society has its own myths. The U.S. is no exception. We tend to share a mental image of our farmers, for example, as self-sufficient families tilling the soil of a few dozen acres of land they own. This was true once but it's been untrue, in the main, for at least two generations, as the share of farming done by agrobusiness concerns has grown by leaps and bounds. Still, we cling to the idea of the small family farmer, which makes realistic adjustment of our agricultural policies very difficult.
Another myth from which we suffer in making public policy is that "small business" is the engine of our national economic prosperity. We hear "small business" and, egged on by our politicians who know that giant corporations don't evoke the same warm, fuzzy feelings that "family businesses" do, we think of the mom-and-pop store. But those aren't the businesses that statisticians are referring to when we're told, for example, that "small business" creates the great preponderance of jobs in the U.S. That statistic is based on inclusion of businesses whose annual sales may be in the multimillions.
Occasionally, economists attempt to correct this false impression. A recent example, and one well worth reading, is James Surowiecki's "Big Is Beautiful," in The New Yorker of October 31. Among Surowiecki's telling points: (1) Small businesses generally are less productive than those giant corporations with their economies of scale. (2) If "small business" (however defined) truly creates many jobs, it also destroys most of them because a huge percentage of small businesses don't survive their first year; and those that do often aren't really interested in becoming supercompanies, they're just looking for a basic income for their family and an independent way of life.
Nothing wrong with that. As a matter of public policy, we may indeed want to facilitate small businesses if we believe it is desirable that this avenue to independence be open and accessible. We should not, however, base planning for our economic recovery and growth on false assumptions about the role of small business in our economy. The small business myth has found a comfortable warm bed at the heart of our political thinking about economic matters; it's time for it to be debunked.
Comments