In this essay from last year (in Spanish) I outlined the course of scientific discovery presented in One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez and argued that Márquez blames colonial intervention for the lack of progress but expects the problem to disappear given time.
The essay in Spanish: Ciencia Colonial en “Cien Años de Soledad”
Economists have illuminated a number of interesting issues by using numbers–often dollars–to quantify things we don’t normally think of numerically. Some people, however, find this offensive. What’s the rub?
Tyler Cowen uses a parable to explain the significance of money in Discover Your Inner Economist. According to Cowen, it’s a bad idea to pay kids to do the dishes because money signals that other motivations–such as familial obligation and kindness–should not be taken into accout. Robin Hanson and Russ Roberts discuss in an episode of Econ Talk why money makes people uncomfortable–bringing a $100 bill to a friend’s dinner party instead of a bottle of wine might mark you as uncaring (you didn’t invest time) or might simply signal that you see the relationship as commercial.
In my opinion, the key problem with money is that it reminds us of a zero-sum game. In the short term, money is essentially a limited commodity which moves in opposite directions for each party involved. If I give you money, you gain and I loose. We don’t identify with one another’s interest (i.e. “love” one another) but instead are suspicous. When we think according to the “money” schema, we think about zero-sum relationships.
If money is replaced with time, attention, and other “social commodities”, we switch to a “synergistic” schema, meaning that additional value is created when people work together. The game is no longer zero-sum and, instead of welfare moving in opposite directions, we identify with one anothers’ interests and our welfare increases when the other’s welfare increases. If I spend time with you, you don’t “steal” my time and thereby have more. Rather, you spend time as well; both parties invest the same resource and both receive the same benefit (presumably, they enjoy socializing). The shared wine and the appreciation for doing the dishes cannot be quantified and are therefore easier to associate with synergistic cooperation, making them less threatening. They may even make us feel that others are identified with our interests- that they “love” us–and increase our sense of self-worth. Understandably, non-economists are offended by well-intentioned attempts to quantify–and especially dollarize–fields outside of business and finance.
If I’ve properly described the mechanism of dollar distastefulness, it may apply to reducing stress. Quantifying time, monitoring it closely and considering the spending of time to be an economic exchange is appropriate for work and can increase productivity. However, applying the same “time accounting” to our personal and social lives causes us to think of liesure as a zero-sum game. Instead of enjoying the moment, we are suspicious that our time is being taken from us unfairly. We perceive a zero-sum world in which we can only trade a limited amount of time for limited liesure. We’re frustrated by our lack of control.
So, although us economists call time an asset in short supply, it might be better to think of it in terms of experiences.
A friend mentioned to me yesterday that foreign direct investment in developing countries is correlated to corruption. We mused that the causation may run in either direction: perhaps corruption gives rich foreign investors an upper hand, or perhaps foreign investment creates opportunities for corruption. Of course, they could have a common third cause: an abundance of natural resources may lead, as the Wikipedia article mentions, to corruption while simultaneously offering an attractive industry for foreign direct investment.
This got me thinking about the idea of a resource curse. One of the potential problems associated with natural resource abundance is that of the “spigot economy” - government income is derived from selling extraction rights and “opening the spigot” rather than taxing individuals and business who profit through entrepreneurship and investments in capital, human and otherwise. As a result, the government has less incentive to encourage business–and less need to remain on good terms with its citizens. I wonder if military power might yield a similar pattern. Countries which can project military force into other countries can derive their diplomatic capital by turning on the threat of force “spigot” rather than developing productive relationships. They are not dependent on their own economic growth (except inasmuch as it is necessary to sustain their military) to maintain their dominant roles in world affairs. After all, isn’t pillaging cheaper than investing?
Now, to cite some examples… I originally had the US in mind, although it doesn’t seem fully relevant as we don’t do much in the way of plundering. It’s still an interesting thought exercise, though: how would political economy in the US shift if our military was reduced to the size of Germany’s?
Medieval Islamic civilization was well adapted to the conquer-and-plunder model, and managed to expand rapidly as a result, but probably lost political stability in the process. Of course, the medieval Islamic world may have experienced more economic growth than other areas of the world at the same time; Islam certainly lead to greater trade.
A military supremacy version of the resource curse could help explain the collapse of empires. Then again, this may be limited to situations where plunder is common, or restricted to non-financial elements such as diplomatic capital: military supremacy can be expensive!
As I mentioned in the previous post, Hispanic Studies usually analyzes cultural products (often narratives) to understand how they construct a system of meaning. In William and Mary’s HS lingo, this is the “struggle for interpretive power”– competing with other sources to have one’s cultural products tell the definitive version of shared narratives and thus influence society’s structures of meaning, often with an eye to distributional politics. For example, Benedict Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” (the number one buzzword from my year in HISP 281) talks about how these narratives define who is included in the “nation” which can have serious (including financial) consequences for those individuals when policy is based on these cultural ideas.
Typically, we think of the Hispanic Studies perspective on Economics as characterized by references to economic questions in cultural products. For example, “The House of the Spirits” by Isabelle Allende describes as heroic the price controls and other socialist policies put into practice by Salvador Allende in Chile and blames foreign intervention for the controlled economy’s failure to provide. Most economists today believe that price controls are usually a bad idea and would prefer to blame Salvador Allende for poor management. Some Hispanic Studies majors may simply consider the conclusions of modern economics to be another narrative and may even view the liberal, literary narrative as more valid. (Most of the works we focus on in Hispanic Studies at William and Mary are, similarly, to the left of the political mainstream in economics. Perhaps these works are simply superior to right-wing works in literary terms).
However, I don’t think this is a proper characterization of the Hispanic Studies perspective on Economics. I’d prefer to think of these sorts of references as low-quality economics work done by Hispanic cultural producers (authors). Other cultural producers may do higher-quality economics work. Hispanic Studies majors are a separate group and approach these works critically. Their chief goal is not to make political and economic commentaries, although many do so; it’s to understand the dynamics of the cultural elements of others’ cultural products. In this sense, Hispanic Studies should let economics answer the economics questions and focus on the cultural issues which, if economics addresses at all, it does so with little or no authority.
For example, consider the economic issues of immigration. Economists can approach immigration as a question of maximizing welfare. The current flow of disproportionately low-skilled immigrants into the US greatly increases the welfare of these immigrants. It also increases the welfare of those who buy goods and services produced by these immigrants at lower prices. Those who compete with these immigrants for low-skilled jobs (mostly native high-school dropouts), though, receive lower wages (probably about 3-5% lower). An economist can estimate and sum these consequences and determine if, on the whole, this inflow of immigrants increases the welfare of…
of who? Whose welfare counts and whose doesn’t? US economists sometimes ignore the welfare gain to the immigrants themselves on the presumption that US policy should be directed solely towards increasing the welfare of US citizens (even so, immigration is probably beneficial). Whether increasing the welfare of non-citizens is worth anything is a question economics cannot address (ok, sure, they can tell us whether a higher GDP in Mexico is good for the US, but they can’t tell us whether we should care about a higher GDP per capita in Mexico for its own sake, and if so, how much). Economics seeks to answer questions within pre-established cultural frameworks of meaning which it is powerless to comment on. The very same dynamics described by Benedict Anderson prop up our economic understanding. The results of our economic analysis may depend on whether we tell stories about an “invading army” of immigrants or a tide of economic refugees, or whether we say “illegal immigrants” or “irregular immigrants”. Hispanic Studies can and should critique the cultural elements of economic work.
A few caveats: first of all, Hispanic Studies is often at a loss for addressing these frameworks of meaning normatively. That is, Hispanic Studies might tell us why we do or don’t care about the welfare of immigrants but may not be able to tell us whether or not we should (this would be more appropriate for ethics). Economics, conversely, may actually have a hidden answer: economics could work backwards, assume”rational choice”, and simply watch how individuals weight others’ welfare in their decisions. Similarly, economic methodologies could be applied to measuring happiness (or some other goal) and its correlation with others’ welfare. Even Economics could answer these sorts of questions on its own, though, we would still need Hispanic Studies to fully understand the political (culture-dependent) choices people make. Hispanic Studies would also be necessary from a practical viewpoint if we sought to influence the prevalent frameworks of meaning.
The other day I was trying to further map out the intersection of my two majors, and I approached the problem like this: Economics is, at heart, the study of choices; Hispanic Studies is, ignoring the context of the Spanish-Speaking world, about cultural products, which are essentially about establishing meaning. So, what do we get if we look at choices of meaning?
One possibility is to create a producer-consumer model. Authors, publishing houses, the media and government spokespeople are producers, selling entertainment, information, or stimulation in exchange for the adoption of structures of meaning which play into their hands. Consumers passively sell their beliefs in exchange for entertainment.
This model doesn’t give consumers the credit they deserve. Those who “consume” culture clearly play an active role in creating meaning, and clearly have their own ideas about how to develop their structures of meaning. Perhaps they are the protagonists, seeking to express (through “consumption”, production, and re-production of culture) certain structures of meaning which fit their needs. What drives these selections is not clear–I might naively posit a search for the truth, but structures of meaning are not that clear-cut. Maybe narratives and cultural frameworks are adjusted for the sake of conscience–to justify actions one is already taking, to condemn adversaries, to herald a world in which one’s goals are not merely personal ambitions but also transcendent expressions of “justice”.
Justice? Liberal Hispanic Studies majors seem to like these sorts of terms. We should keep in mind that their political opponents never advocated injustice. Rather, they debate one another and affirm distinct notions of justice. In America, Conservatives wish for a system which “justly” offers each the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own; liberals hope for a system which “justly” provides for all. Would it be too Nietzscheian of me claim that these moral affirmations are simply reflections of one’s own position in life?
These suggestions aren’t entirely fair. Cultural narratives, while often political in implications, are not arbitrary. Basque separatists who argue that Spain was created in the “so-called Reconquista” or with the signing of the country’s first constitution during the war for independence from France are making a political point, but empirically it makes more sense than claiming that Spain was its own nation since Roman times. Of course, this is debatable.
I fear I’m unfairly pushing Hispanic Studies towards the fields of Marketing and Public Relations. Far be it from me! Before you get mad, share your thoughts and criticisms.
The summer after my freshman year, I took a Monroe grant from the Charles Center at William and Mary and explored Don Quixote in Spain:
“Although many of us are familiar with the universal themes in Don Quixote, some evidence suggests that it can also be read as a “national” novel about Spain. Curious, I read Don Quixote in Spanish and spent twelve days bicycling through La Mancha, the region of Spain where most of the story takes place, to better understand the connections between Don Quixote and Spain.
My project was both a scholarly exercise in literary criticism and a broad educational experience in Spanish language and culture. To the extent which is possible I attempt to share my personal experiene through photographs and narration, but my main product is a literary essay arguing that Don Quixote can be read as a book about Spain. The essay begins by examining Don Quixote as a travel guide, concluding that it offers useful advice and commentary to travellers in La Mancha. It further analyzes the book as a psychological novel, judging that it attacks Spain’s imperial self-image. Cervantes argues metaphorically and allegorically that the empire is in decline, much of Spain is not imperial in character anyway, and that ignoring these facts is both counter-productive and dangerous.”
quixote-essay.pdf –The six-page Spanish essay which was the original product of the investigation
quixote-report.pdf — The report I submitted back to the Charles Center on the results of the project
Quixote speech — The text from a speech I gave to formally present my results (five pages). Probably the most readable of the three.
Quixote images at REALIA — A few of the many photos I took during this project are available, fully annotated, as part of the database of the REALIA project.
Here’s another one of my final papers from this semester. The basic idea is that dictatorships attempt to legitimize their power by associating themselves with hierarchical gender narratives. I approach the topic by examining the distinct approaches of two resistence plays: “Death and the Maiden” by Chilean Ariel Dorfman and “Antígona Furiosa” by Argentine Griselda Gambaro.
Antígona y la doncella: la revolución tiene género
As always, please send all comments and criticism!
Here’s an Econ paper I just finished writing: amnesty_and_wages.pdf
It’s not particularly conclusive, but it takes a stab at the question of whether legal status increases immigrants’ wages directly.
Julie Riggs and I put together this photographic/poetic essay after a week in DC with the Hispanic Studies research forum. It ties a few Hispanic Studies issues into Urban Planning and “reads” the city. We’ve made it into a powerpoint for simplicity. UPDATE: the files now include an introduction!
Powered by WordPress.