There has been much hype about a recent book by sociologist Catherine Hakim, [amazon_link id=”1846144191″ target=”_blank” ]Honey Money[/amazon_link]. I’ve not read it, but neither am I encouraged to do so by the almost universally bad reviews.

Meanwhile, a book called [amazon_link id=”0691140464″ target=”_blank” ]Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful [/amazon_link]by respected labour economist Daniel Hamermesh has landed on my desk. It’s a short and sober book mainly documenting the existence of a wage premium earned by those who are rated as being above-averagely attractive (rather than explaining why it exists, contrary to the subtitle). The data are mainly North American, although some other countries are included, and cover decades as long ago as the 1970s.

Hamermesh reports that there is a 4% premium for a good-looking man as compared to an average-looking man; a 4% penalty for a below-average looking woman as compared to an average-looking woman. Of course there are questions about the data. ‘Beauty’ is assessed by looking at pictures and rating them on a 5-point scale; but on the other hand there is consistency between different people’s assessments of beauty. The regressions also need to control for a wide range of other factors that affect earnings, such as education, age, health and so on.

The existence of the pay premium makes sense of the large market for beauty-enhancing products, of course. Why not invest in face cream if it pays off in higher earnings or a promotion? The economic evidence seems pretty clear.

So does that mean sociologist Hakim is vindicated in (apparently) advising her readers to make an effort to gussy themselves up, increasing their ‘erotic capital’ to do better in the work place? Well, what I’d have hoped for from a sociologist is an analysis of the reasons for the existence of the beauty premium and in particular the extent to which the premium is a social construct rather than reflecting, say, evolutionary basics such as a link between health and beauty. Economists can help here by repeating the kind of work reported by Hamermesh in Beauty Pays for a range of cultures and for different time periods. But the fundamental question is whether the ‘beauty premium’ is an exogenous given or the product of a social norm that can change. As a feminist, I’d rather concentrate my energies on making society better than on shopping for beauty products.

[amazon_image id=”0691140464″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful[/amazon_image]