463. Human nature
Economists
further assume that people are driven only by self-interest. Many economists
recognize that in markets there is collaboration next to competition, but here
collaboration is still driven by self-interest, though this includes enlightened
self-interest in which one makes sacrifices for others as long as in the
end it yields net advantage for oneself. There is still no room, most
economists think, for altruism, which may be detrimental to material
self-interest. The argument is that competition is too harsh, too ‘perfect’, as
economists would call it, to allow for any compromise on maximum profit or
minimum cost. The firm would not survive if it did not grasp every opportunity
for higher profit. I disagree.
As I argued in preceding items in this blog (e.g. 46), the human being
has an instinct for both self-interest for the sake of survival, and altruism
for the sake of social legitimacy and cohesion, with a corresponding ‘moral’ sense
of normativity next to self-interest. Furthermore, competition is seldom so harsh that survival requires
maximum possible profit. Product differentiation, segmentation of markets,
innovation, and durable competitive advantage due to specialized, difficult to
imitate knowledge and other assets, yield some slack to take other objectives
into account.
The conduct
of people is also determined, to a large degree, by behavioural phenomena of
social interaction such as studied in social psychology. Group cohesion
can have both beneficial and detrimental effects (see item 48 on immorality of
the group). Time and time again economists, except Keynes, also neglect other
sociological effects such as herd conduct, which leads to bubbles and
their burst and indeed was a major factor in the current financial crisis.
I propose
that for a proper understanding of markets we must include insights into the
limits of rationality, psychology and sociology, processes that entail radical
uncertainty, and the role of institutions. To some extent these can be found in
non-standard economics, such as behavioural economics for limits of
rationality, evolutionary economics for processes that are not based on
rational foresight, and institutional economics. However, for sufficient depth
and coherence of insight we must move beyond economics into the areas of
cognitive science, social psychology, sociology, and philosophy rather than having
heterodox economists re-inventing wheels in primitive ways, in those areas.
The
partnering of economics and psychology is not new: it was there in the early
economics of Adam Smith, who in his work on morality recognized an inability of
people to focus on the long term, a concern for the well-being of others, in
what he called sympathy, a tendency to overestimate one’s own abilities, and an
inclination to underestimate risks. Let us return to this wider view of human
conduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment