Fishback and Kantor The Adoption of Workers Compensation in the United States 1900-1930

This paper considers the economic factors that shaped the adoption of workers’ compensation legislation. The authors explain the interests of the various parties affected by this legislation. As you summarize this article, you might want to explain the role of risk and assignment of liability in economics. Do you agree with the authors’ assessment of the parties interests and their assertions about how this legislation addressed those interests? Do you think that there were any who were ill served by this legislation? Were you surprised to find that the authors credit the economic factors with having more influence in this legislation than social reform factors? Your response should include a summary of the article you are addressing with a focus on the economic ideas. Any model, theory or principle you discuss should be described and applied correctly and in appropriate circumstance. Your goal is to analyze the argument of the writer rather than the
style. To critique the article, you will want to consider the writer’s underlying assumptions. Are they consistent with the assumptions that are standard for models with which you are familiar? Are they appropriate for the given data, time period, or scope of the analysis? Are there any assumptions that are present but not explicitly acknowledged? What assumption(s) would you exclude and what assumption(s) should have been included? Is the writer's use of economic principles/theories/models consistent with those employed by “mainstream” economists? Are these tools used in a way
that you would expect them to be used and that is appropriate for the given data, time period, or scope of the analysis? Do you see any error in the application of principle/theory/model? If you are going to use principle/theory/model to make your point, be sure to choose the appropriate tool and describe and apply that tool accurately. Are the conclusions consistent with both the assumptions and the theoretical application? Is there a failure of logic? Are you aware of evidence that is
contrary to the writer's conclusions? If this is a situation where there is not much evidence available (common with historic writing), where does the argument fall short to undermine the conclusion?