That is the new Peter Leeson book, and it is just out. Here is the Amazon summary:
This rollicking tour through a museum of the world’s weirdest practices is guaranteed to make you say, “WTF?!” Did you know that “preowned” wives were sold at auction in nineteenth-century England? That today, in Liberia, accused criminals sometimes drink poison to determine their fate? How about the fact that, for 250 years, Italy criminally prosecuted cockroaches and crickets? Do you wonder why? Then this tour is just for you!
Here are the book’s rather spectacular blurbs. Here is a short Peter piece on medieval ordeals. Here is a Reddit thread on whether medieval ordeals actually were an effective test of guilt. And he has this piece on superstition and Friday the 13th in Newsweek. I would like to see a media outlet excerpt his piece on the rationality of gypsy culture.
I would say that Peter has written a very effective book within the Beckerian tradition, namely trying to explain economic phenomena in terms of a neoclassical rational actor model. Nonetheless I am much less of a Beckerian than Peter is, at least for the socially-oriented issues he is considering. Here is a simple typology of approaches:
1. Beckerians and the rational actor model. I slot Peter in here, along with many Chicago School economists, Marvin Harris, and much of public choice economics. An explanation shows how a social outcome stems from the interaction of means-end maximizing individuals, translated into some aggregate result.
2. Behavioral economics. By now this is old news, but these researchers find what I consider to be relatively small deviations from the rational actor model. This is usually done by measurement, rather than through more complete models.
3. Cultural economics, anthropologists, and many sociologists. Peer effects are paramount, and Frenchmen see the world differently than do Americans, not to mention Bantus or Pygmies. This is due to a social contagion of perception that does not boil down to rationality in the sense that economists understand it (you can build a model in which social mimicry at young ages is rational, but that model won’t generate much insight into the particular phenomena we are trying to explain, nor does that model pick up the mimicry mechanism very well). Historical study plus thick description plus economic rationality at various margins (but margins only) plus some statistics is the way to go. Mostly we’re trying to understand how and why other groups of people see the world in fundamentally different terms.
The economists who can best grasp other points of view thus are the masters of explaining macro-phenomena (by which I mean something quite distinct from traditional macroeconomics).
I am much closer to #3 than are most economists. Furthermore, I view economists as patting themselves excessively on the back for #2, when #3 is far more important. Peter has written a very good book mostly in the tradition of #1, though due to his Austrian background with periodic forays into #3. I once wrote to Peter: “Gypsy culture rational? How about Episcopalian investment bankers in Connecticut being rational?” Probably neither are.