NEDERLANDS   |   ENGLISH

Email   Print

The altruism in economics

Standard economic theory states that people are interested only in their own material gain. But new insights from behavioral economics show that altruism rather than avarice is our primary motivation.

Jeremy Mercer | May 2009 issue

With this wealth of new findings, the challenge is to build new economic models that will eventually translate into viable policies. Among the vanguard on this quest is the University of Massachusetts’ Gintis, who, as the lead author of Moral Sentiments and Material Interests, has literally written the book on altruism and economics. The fact that Gintis champions a more nuanced economic theory can be partly attributed to his eclectic background. He was a Marxist in his youth and an adviser to Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s, but he also studied advanced mathematics and received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Forty years of research has led him to a blunt conclusion: “Altruism isn’t irrational,” he says, “because if it were, the only rational people would be sociopaths.” Of course, there will always be unscrupulous individuals who are devoid of altruism, but they’re the exceptions rather than the rule.

Gintis proposes a theory called “strong reciprocity,” arguing that bonds of trust and cooperation within a community often serve as greater motivation than material reward. The theory is based on the premise that humans evolved in small groups with strong social contracts and plenty of contact with strangers. Cooperation within the tribe was advantageous so long as free riders were punished. It was also the best gambit on encountering strangers. Cooperation, particularly in times of famine, was the only means of survival, so altruism became a favored evolutionary trait.

What this means, Gintis says, is that while financial incentives are important motives—perhaps even the most important—they can be trumped by a person’s selfless instinct. This instinct is responsible for some of humanity’s greatest achievements. “Movements for civil rights, civil liberties and political democracy in authoritarian states are responsible for creating modern liberal democracies,” writes Gintis, “yet participation in such movements cannot usually be explained in terms of self-interest.”

No shortage of real-world evidence exists to buttress Gintis’ theory. Successful non-proprietary projects, such as open source code or the emergence of socially responsible investments, wherein people accept lower returns to fund ethical projects, can’t be explained by standard economic models. So while a new theory like strong reciprocity isn’t a panacea, it could expunge the cynicism corrupting economic thought. Gintis offers a simple prescription: Teach business and economics the same way as law and medicine. “Doctors and lawyers learn that a moral code is a vital part of their profession, and that their profession is part of a broader human puzzle,” says Gintis. “This doesn’t prohibit them from making a good deal of money.”

It could work. Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke University in North Carolina, explored how society can foster honesty in his book Predictably Irrational. He conducted experiments that showed cheating could virtually be eliminated by prompting students with the Ten Commandments or asking them to sign an honor code before taking tests. “When faced with the opportunity for material gain, people will bend the situation so it aligns with their moral values,” says Ariely. “Setting ethical benchmarks, so long as they are repeated at the right moments, keeps people from straying into dishonesty.”

One of the grand creeds associated with standard economic theory is trickle-down economics, the idea that wealth flows down through society. But it appears that what has been trickling down is plain old greed and cynicism. It’s worth noting that in the 19th century, this construct was known as the “horse-and-sparrow model.” Feed a horse enough oats and it will eventually deposit some on the road for the sparrow. Standard economic theory feels an awful lot like that lump of sparrow’s lunch.

For 200 years, economics has slandered humanity. The claim hasn’t been that there are a few bad apples like Bernard Madoff, who has pleaded guilty to perpetrating the biggest financial fraud in history, but that everyone is a bad apple who will cheat, bully and manipulate to maximize personal wealth. Fortunately, we now have a critical mass of studies and a swath of real-world evidence that debunks this malicious smear. The truth is, there are a great, great many good apples out there.

As depressing as this recession is, it does provide an opportunity to review and rewrite certain economic principles. As Duke University’s Ariely says, “It’s a very sad event for the world, but it’s been very good for behavioral economics because now more people are willing to listen.”

And the voices for change are rising on all sides. In Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor declared, “Capitalism needs to be underpinned with regulation and a moral purpose.” In Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd published an essay insisting that “neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced [have] been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy.” And in the same speech in which he praised workers’ selflessness, President Obama condemned the “greed and irresponsibility” that weakened the American economy.

In economic jargon, an “externality” is an unexpected cost or benefit that falls beyond the scope of the original transaction. The externality of the current recession that benefits us all is that it takes an eraser to the false notions that have been scrawled across the economic chalkboard. A fleet of economists is studying altruism and cooperation, and the blossoming of behavioral economics has filled both the halls of academia and the corridors of power with men and women who look beyond outdated models of human behavior.

It’s not that this new breed of economists will be Pollyannas or usher in a financial revolution, but they could help us transcend the poisonous lies of standard economic theory and build a truer foundation for our fiscal policies. And if this comes to pass, what comes trickling down from the economic heights will be far more appealing than the sparrow’s lunch of greed and cynicism we’re currently being served.

Jeremy Mercer is a former crime reporter from Canada who still believes in the goodness of people.

Getting to the heart of money


<< PREVIOUS   1 2 3
view as a single page



Tools: Discuss | Email | Print | RSS | Weekly Newsletter
Save/Share:
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blue Dot
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
Comments (12)

Well, not quite so.

What the author misses is that the act of saving thei co-worker was in the self interest of the firefighters. Just because you are helping someone does not mean you are altruist. What makes you one is to live by what others expect from you, not what you want do do yourself. The selfishness exists, it might not be always about the money, it might be about other interests.

posted by fabiolr on 5/29/2009 10:36 am

Fascinating - I think there are additional dimensions to this question of self-interest in economics that have yet to be fully explored. For those curious to learn more, the folks at EconTalk.org have recently hosted a series of podcasts addressing Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

posted by danboarder on 5/31/2009 5:34 am

Economics didn't get the nickname "dismal science" from the idea that people respond to their own self-interest, which many people find perfectly reasonable and not at all dismal. It came from the early nineteenth century theory that the ability of society to provide for its members would inherently be outstripped by its population growth, causing famine and a return to barbarity. And that theory, which came from Thomas Malthus, not Adam Smith, has been disproved as it didn't take into account the efficiencies that would come from technological advances.

It's entire possible to make the important point that altruism exists without attacking economics as a science. It's a shame this article didn't take that constructive approach.

posted by SteveFoerster on 6/ 2/2009 10:03 pm

Excellent article! This finally begins to undermine the 200 years of a weak paradigm. Blamed on Adam Smith, as per usual, it took selfish people to make avarice the ethical foundation for economics.

Macroeconomics cannot sustain itself while demeaning it's smallest parts: People.

Improving the foundational paradigm of economics by weakening the ethic of self-service and empowering that of altrusim will create a huge wave of sustainable economics into the future.

In the usual play, most people will continue to hold tightly to what they are familiar with, but will eventually find that this is not a force that can be denied. It is an essential part of the human psyche that must be expressed.

We're still a long way from a healthy balance, which I believe will only be attained in sustainable communities that are industrious, hold local social norms, and are globally connected.

Share this with your legislators!

posted by Caune on 6/ 3/2009 8:48 am

RE: SteveFoerster's comment

I believe we're headed for a return to the environment in which Smith and Malthus lived (although it may take a couple of decades to arrive).

The idea that efficiencies that arose from technological advances is common wisdom, but I think we need to recognize how much of that efficiency was enabled by plentiful, inexpensive energy (in the form of oil, in the case of the US). Our economy is founded on the idea of annual growth, which only occurs by efficiency (in tiny proportions) and energy (which will be dwindling). If you finance your company (or nation, or globe) with debt that is to be repaid with more money at a later date, you had better be able to generate more work to produce that money. That work is a result of energy put into the system. That energy is ... from oil. When oil reserves dwindle to the point that it is uneconomical to extract the resource, we will return to the environment where growth is limited.

I hope we can avoid the "dismal" future that is easily extrapolated from a population much much larger than Smith or Malthus could have accurately imagined.

posted by satchel on 6/ 4/2009 6:36 pm

Now the basic tenets of economics are being reconsidered. A growingbody of experimental work by behavioral economists proves altruism notonly exists but is one of our primary motivations, even in financialaffairs. And if some progressive economists have their way, we may beon the cusp of a more humane era in which altruism, not avarice,becomes the trait our economic system nourishes. "It is increasinglyobvious that people are motivated by morality; people are motivated byethics," says Herbert Gintis, an emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts and one of the leading economists studying altruism. "We may be seeing a possible renaissance of economic theory."

Economics has long been known as the "dismal science" for itsruthless view that people are motivated solely by their financial ormaterial interests. The roots of this theory can be traced to AdamSmith, who proposed that individuals acting selfishly form an"invisible hand" that creates the best society possible. "By pursuinghis own interest," wrote the 18th-century Scottish philosopher in TheWealth of Nations, "he frequently promotes that of the society moreeffectually than when he really intends to promote it." A centurylater, political economist John Stuart Mill inspired the term "Homoeconomicus" by invoking man as "a being who inevitably does that bywhich he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniencesand luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labor and physicalself-denial." -----------------------------

It is not a good idea to get caught up in dichotomous thinking and then continue the silliness of the past N thousand years.

First the two are not mutually exclusive. Second, it is not important right now to try to determine if there really is altruism or if it is merely self-interest in the future.

Some might be altruistic because they believe in being that way and that, because that is what they were taught growing up. Some might believe in what seems like altruistic behavior because they are thinking ahead instead of wanting to gobble up everything right now.

Finally, the real reason why altruism was ignored could simply be that the necessary mathematics to include it in economics models was just too difficult and not because people did not think of it.

We still do not know enough about how the brain works to be able to model things accurately, but we do not have to wait in order to be able to model observable behavior. It never ends.

posted by hubeyh on 6/ 5/2009 5:18 am

pehaps I missed it.but I heard no mention of the mathematician "John Nash" whose economic therory was based on an 'everyone gains'scenario. This was decades ago. He also won The Nobel Prize in Economics.

posted by cparhamrp on 6/ 9/2009 5:54 pm

Thanks for the great article. Americans need to hear more about the positive potential of economics, especially in these times. Readers will be interested to know that behavioral economics has a follower in high places, specifically Peter Orszag, director of President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, and, according to the article, Obama's chief advisor on the budget. See "Money Talks," by Ryan Lizza, in the May 4 issue of the New Yorker magazine. I was very disappointed when Obama choose Larry Summers as his chief economic advisor, but hope Orszag can appeal to the "better angels" of the President's nature. Another recent article in the New Yorker relates to medical economics and the devastating effect of profit first medicine: "The Cost Conumdrum," by Atul Gawande.

posted by Singleton on 6/12/2009 7:46 am

There is some interesting revisioning in economic indicators.

It is hard to believe we're still making policy based on GNP and GDP - so clearly incomplete and misleading.

Check out Mark Anielski's The Economics of Happiness.

Also, Riane Eisler has a great new book - they came out at about the same time - on the economics of caring. She also wote The Chalice and The Blade.

The REAL Wealth of Nations.

These are both good reading and chock full of useful information that needs to be widely disseminated.

posted by Barbara Ashley Phillips on 6/17/2009 6:16 pm

sorry for the delayed response, i was busy hoarding money! :)

it is interesting article indeed.

it takes 200 years for the british to wipe out any self image (forget pride and respect) an indian or anyone else could have in indian values, teachings or heritage.

it takes the wealth of old india and new america to usher in the jet age of mass production and en masse consumption of material, even at the cost of the spiritual.

it takes centuries and lot of mistakes for the west to realize that taking armed forces everywhere doesn't always work; or even insulting civilization, or other monolithic, frozen-in-time religions doesn't work; making a junkyard of environment doesn't work.

so now, manufacturing (of everything but weapons) is done by china, hand work done by india (and the likes), so the west has a much cleaner environment, much more debt, but very little to pay, and stockpile of weapons to keep the debt collectors out.

so now, after making the biggest blunders of economic history like enron, worldcomm, crash of 2007 all because of greed, unbridled greed, we come to the conclusion of a 40 years' research - "hey, think about your fellow human being also, else who will you show off to!"

and now, the newly ushered indians in the age of development, reaping the fruits of greed and selectively free economy will be taught by the masters of greed that altruism is the way to build your economy.

what!! we can't learn from own mistakes? can we dominate the world with our satyam like greed and IT super power, and make our lives miserable with material things, do our own research for 40 years and write books, hold seminars, teach MBA colleges, that we made a mistake to think of an employee as a resource to be managed, a RFD tagged asset!

so please open YOUR (developing world) economy for GM food, our clinical research, our missionaries and what not.

it has always been held by indian wisdom from ancient times, that money gives no joy, it is only for living in this world as a means, things are not consoling (except to a little child who has got mean friends)

vidyA dadAti vinayaM, vinyAdyAti pAtratwaM | pAtratwAt dhanaM Apnoti, dhanAt dharmaM tataH sukhaM ||

or - knowledge gives humbleness (at least true knowledge does), - from humbleness comes worthiness (ever wanted to hire an arrogant bastard? even the mafia wants honest non-arrogant killers!), - from worthiness comes money (someone may actually hire you for some work and pay), - from money (one can do) good deeds, - from there comes joy.

so the joy comes not from money, but doing good with the money! and this could be done in the process of making money, by being human and not a rabid dog after a stinking bone with rotten meat.

another gem goes - earn what you haven't got, save what you earn, invest what you save, and do good with the increased wealth!

how much of research has gone into these gems? maybe 1500 years of watching society, human behavior closely with no multi-trillion agenda, but a simple wish to see the immediate community in harmony.

posted by shashikgp on 6/30/2009 10:15 pm

Mr Jeremi Mercer

I salute you for a brilliant article posted by you. This is surely one of the best articles I have read in the recent past. In my own way I call it as Selfless Professionalism.

One can always fool others but can seldom try on self. There are many who do it in complete ignorance of its disastrous returns / results they end up with.

Material Returns is every ones dream as Human Being is often described as a Selfish social animal. However as said in some spiritual talks if one can draw Moral values for self every thing becomes Heavenly and marvelous. Material Returns follow without saying.

To keep it short I end my comment to say that this is beautifully taught in one of the Top Hindu Scriptures Bhagvad Geeta as Karma Yoga or Work without any expectation of results.

Ranjeev Manrao CEO - RM123 Management, Business & Strategy Consultants 00 91 22 27660987 / 00 91 9870466892 / Skype - ranjeevm123 www.linkedin.com/in/ranjeevmanrao ranjeevm1234@hotmail.com Vashi - New Mumbai Founder of Linked In Group - New Mumbai Business - 123 (NMB123)

posted by RM123 on 7/ 1/2009 3:47 am

"Economics didn't get the nickname "dismal science" from the idea that people respond to their own self-interest...came from Thomas Malthus, not Adam Smith."

Actually, the term "dismal science" came from neither...it was coined by Thomas Carlyle in the middle of the 19th century during a series of debates with Mill about the economics of slavery.

See: The Secret History of the Dismal Science. Part I. Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century

www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

posted by dadyer on 7/ 7/2009 1:28 pm

Post a comment

You must be a registered user to comment. If you are already registered Click here to login or Click here for our fast, free registration.