As I've remarked before, conventional economic theory can be a dreary topic best used to frighten children and treat chronic insomnia. It is usually when a casual reader of theory steps off the road more travelled and hacks her way through the jungles of experimental/behavioural economics that things start jumping.
Behavioural economics in particular makes an effort to leave the theory of textbooks and to simulate real-world scenarios to test theory against observed behaviour. The resulting disjunction between the prescriptions of theory and what people actually choose has been more helpful in advancing our understanding of what makes humans tick.
Let’s examine a situation that has come to be known as the Ultimatum Game. There are two players in this game and between them they have to divide an amount of R10. The first player proposes how the money should be divided between the two. The second player decides whether to accept this offer or reject it. If the second player accepts the first player’s division, both players walk away with some money. If he rejects the division, they both leave with nothing. This game is played as a once-off event and the two players don’t interact in the future.
The first player can choose any division she likes: an equitable down-the-line split of R5 each, a R6/R4 split slightly in her favour, or a R9/R1 split that leaves the second player with precious little for his time. She could even propose a ‘winner-takes-almost-all’ split of R9.99 for herself and leave the second player with one cent for his troubles.
Conventional game theory tells us the second player should accept any division of the money that’s put to him. The proposed division is essentially of a surplus, and any money he receives for his troubles is more money than he had before the game. If people are really made in the image of rational economic man (homo oeconomicus) they’ll take the money, any money.
The reality is quite different. The second player tends to reject offers that are considered manifestly “unfair” to him. Typically, any proposed division that leaves the second player with R3 or less is rejected outright by the second player. The results are remarkably consistent across most countries and cultures where the game is tested. The notable exceptions are found in societies that bear little resemblance to the modern nation-states we’re used to. The Machichuenga people of Peru were likely to accept any offer put to them, but they are described by anthropologists as “among the most asocial people on earth”, a “people with no economy to speak of”, and uncooperative with either each other or outsiders
Far from exhibiting so-called rational behaviour, most people seem happy to forgo extra money for a chance to “punish” inequitable behaviour. (Many divorce lawyers appear to earn their daily bread from this.) What is going on here?
There are a few theories about this phenomenon. One of the more popular ones is that a rejection of “unfair” behaviour is hardwired into our genes as a result of evolutionary processes. If our ancestors needed to assert themselves against being pushed around in their tribes or if the survival of their families depended on an equitable division of resources, an “unselfish gene” (or some approximation of one) could have evolved naturally.
There are other bits and pieces of corroborating evidence. When people are asked whether they would prefer earning R500 000 in a society where the average salary is R200 000, or R1 million compared with an average salary of R2 million, most choose the former. In other words, most people would prefer to earn less in absolute terms, but more money relative to other members of their society, implying that the relative distribution of wealth matters more to people than their absolute wealth (what you might call a “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses effect”).
In South Africa, the incidence of service delivery protests is clustered around our metros and larger towns. People in Temb'elihle, looking across at their middle-class neighbours in Lenasia, are more likely to demand services than entire municipalities in the former Transkei and Ciskei homelands, even though the latter are worse off in absolute terms than the former. The evidence around us supports the findings of behavioural economists elsewhere - inequality matters to us and we attach a cost to it.
Ivo Vegter has argued that a fixation on inequality is wrongheaded and pulling people out of absolute poverty is what really matters. I agree with him that alleviating absolute poverty should be our first order of business. As a lapsed libertarian myself, I also agree with him that this job is too important to be left solely to the state and that the Gini coefficient tables are a blunt tool for ranking the problems different countries face. But I disagree with him on the importance of tackling inequality within a society and the real social costs that inequality imposes on us.
South Africa is an urban society and urbanisation is set to continue: more than 50% of our population lives in our 27 biggest municipalities and this will probably rise to 60% or more in the near future. As more and more of us are living as neighbours in a modern urban environment we will need to grapple with solutions to the systematic and systemic inequalities of our economy. We need to understand the role that inequality plays in our crime epidemic and how it fuels social unrest and political protest. We desperately need to understand that our self-interest depends on fixing the things that maintain and entrench inequality (including transport costs left by apartheid urban planning, our badly broken education system and current urban planning laws).
Whether we need to do these things out of any sense of moral obligation is another story for another time. I am not peddling my agenda for change on a platform of guilt and moral coercion. I acknowledge that there will always be inequality, in any and every society, but also that social revolution is always a consequence of inequalities that have grown beyond a certain point. I submit that there are acceptable and unacceptable levels of inequality and these aren’t based on political agendas, but on what our brains have evolved to accept or reject. Our system will not automatically self-correct, particularly since our politicians insist on tinkering with it in all the wrong ways.
Our challenge, as responsible members of a society (and not as citizens responsible to the government of the day) is to do what we can to ensure that the national surplus is divided in a way that is acceptable to all of us. The cost of a division that is rejected by an increasing number of us is that one day the surplus won’t be available to any of us. DM
- Analysis: Mid-year population estimates point to Census 2011 problems
- Open letter to the Joburg Mayor
- Analysis: Labour Force Survey
- SA politics, betting edition
- April by-elections: ANC's bad day at the polls
- How much education do we need?
- I bet you we can make gambling better
- Analysis: How do you solve a problem like Apartheid?
- DA draws the line in demarcation battle
- Dear guardians: Please stop 'protecting us'
- Meet your meat
- Analysis: The future of South Africa’s labour market, post-Marikana
- The mystery of the wards that do not bark
- Analysis: Municipal by-elections
- March municipal by-elections: little change to the status quo
- Analysis: Gauteng 2013/14 provincial budget
- 2013 budget analysis: Still stuck in the lean years
- 2013 budget: Help us to help you, Mr Gordhan
- Analysis: 2012 Q4 GDP figures
- Living while female is the worst crime of all
- Free State of municipal chaos and lip service delivery
- The meaning of numbers: Labour Force Survey, Q4
- Census 2011 numbers: New concerns over the results' accuracy
- Analysis: January by-elections - ANC tastes first blood
- Phillip has left the building
- Analysis: Land rights and the mining sector in 2013
- SA party financing: Show us the money
- 2013: the Year of the Citizen?
- Vertigo: The dizzying roller-coaster ride of an adult comic
- December by-elections: winning the Mangaung war and losing the battles
- Joburg: Growling with flavour
- November by-elections: heavy cloud but no rain
- Census 2011: Telling stories
- Census 2011: The (incomplete) (probably inaccurate) sum of us
- Analysis: Medium-term budget and the medium-term outlook
- Eternal sunshine of the finance minister: Budgeting and the call for a social compact
- Off the books: SAPS liability fund hidden - and growing
- In a spin: Felix Baumgartner's mission to the edge of space, and back
- On the street where you lived: What next for Schubart Park?
- Analysis: The state of municipal capacity
- Service delivery and development: Hot or not?
- The Marikana effect: A sharp drop for the ANC in September's by-elections
- The dark side of the Force
- Reserve Bank Quarterly Bulletin: Damned if you cut, damned if you raise
- Vote now, vote often
- Analysis: Zen and the art of municipal finance figures
- Analysis: Labour market dynamics in 2011
- GDP Q2 2012 - no cure for wild mood swings
- Tinkering with the great machine: how do we get the society we want?
- The eLibrary Project: Baby steps into better education
- Curiouser and curiouser: surprises in the August by-elections
- Labour Force Survey: All quiet on the employment front
- Public education doesn't need fixing; it needs to be euthanised
- Analysis: Municipal audits - what progress has been made?
- Dear Minister of Sport and Recreational Drugs…
- June by-elections: double-digit losses for ANC
- SA's Q1 GDP - those muscles are only Photoshopped
- Racism killed the Rainbow Nation
- April by-elections: the DA leaves the ANC feeling blue
- The migratory patterns of the South African human
- T20: nasty, brutish and short - and lots of fun
- Open letter to Comrade Vavi
- March by-elections: it was all (ANC) yellow
- SA's Pyrrhic victory in Test series against NZ
- NZ vs SA Third Test - Don't rain on our parade
- Manufactured outrage and the art of being under political house arrest
- Proteas batting battle is a drag on the bowling triumphs
- New BEE legislation: make it work or go to jail
- Proteas vs Black Caps – a fairer fight at Hamilton
- The market: don't take it personally
- Judge Nicholson throws book, kitchen sink at Gerald Majola
- SA vs NZ Test - a slow start to a delicate balance
- Municipal finances and budgets: money's too tight to mention
- Malemadness – what happens now?
- Budget 2012: Cosatu wins, everyone else loses
- 2012 Budget: there is no new policy under the sun
- Budget 2012: Ask not what your budget can do for you...
- By-election trainspotting just became interesting again
- February by-election: reading the parties' palms, not the voters'
- Labour Force Survey numbers: running out of hope
- Test cricket: it's never going to survive unless it gets a little crazy
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. de Villiers: the baby-faced captain with the ruthless streak
- You have a dream, I see sex
- Devastating Dale Steyn - a mid-career retrospective
- Colour-blind spots in Cape Town and racism
- The accident-prone tourists: Sri Lanka in South Africa
- By-elections: the DA and Cope learn how to steal ANC marbles by and by
- As more survive HIV, quality of that life become central
- If you build it, they will come: sports facilities and local government
- Shared honours for a short but deep Test series
- Hot time, summer in the city: SA vs Aus 2nd Test preview
- Helen Zille and the case of the bad law
- South Africa vs. Australia, Day 2: murder on the grassy knoll
- If one-day games are cricket on steroids, T20 adds a turbo-booster
- Why inequality matters
- As season starts SA cricket suffers under admin blunders - again!
- Begging China for money, and begging the question
- To cut or not to cut, that is the Reserve Bank's question
- Population estimates and the war against HIV/Aids
- Another municipal year passes - along with wasted chances
- Youth wage subsidy: a response to comments
- DA's proposed youth wage subsidy - a mostly sane, constructive affair
- How not to strike for Dummies: Samwu edition
- Justice Mogoeng and Zapiro: political satire of character assassination
- Gwede Mantashe and the Deathly Bills
- The youth wage subsidy: a closer, not very pleasant look
- Analysis: SA municipal finances? The horror. The horror.
- Quarterly Employment Statistics: SA still far off 2008 peak
- SA municipalities: Mess, royal mess and a gigantic mess
- Analysis: What ANC decline? A different view.
- Local elections 2011: Beyond ANC and DA numbers
- Analysis: The carnage of small parties in the land of Cortinas and Carnival City
- Analysis: The new Tshwane and what the post-election picture could look like
- Analysis: Working SA's local electoral system
- Analysis: Shapley values and SA's local coalition politics
- Analysis: The nascent rise of the independent ward councillor