Civilization, I’ve decided, is the ability of a society to sustain positive-sum games. Successful positive-sum games consist of all the players choosing the cooperative option over the selfish option, in the expectation that everyone does. Sure, individuals gain even more if they defect, so although there are incentives to cheat, there is also an incentive for other players to police cheaters.
The most basic of these games are played every day, and we are compelled to play them because they are encoded in laws: We observe property rights, human rights, speed limits and tax laws. We abide by the results of democratic elections. These compulsions are virtually second nature — to most of us the concept of ownership has taken on a physical reality — but once they were not. Modern democracy is now the gold standard of civilization, but it began as an audacious experiment whose benefits were only evident with time.
The more such games a society can sustain, the more civilized it is. Civilization is not to be confused with modernity, though many of these games evolve with the advance of technology: For example, intellectual property rights have become harder to enforce in the digital domain, but after an initial run of selfishness, many of us are recognizing the need to pay for digital delivery of a song or clever software.
To me, the most interesting games are the ones we are not compelled to play by force of law. Civil society contains a whole range of these, both new and old: We turn off cell phones in cinemas, we let passengers off the subway before boarding and we give directions, because reciprocating such behaviour means everyone is better off by a margin far greater than the utility freely curtailed in the short run by the individual. Newstand owners will tell you to pay tomorrow if you don’t have the correct change, and you do pay. You pick up garbage at picturesque spots.
We’re conditioned, as social beings, to act this way, often without rationally weighing the pros and cons first. And yet it is obvious that the aim is to maximize our individual utility in the long run. Civilized societies are inhabited by those smart enough to recognize that the best way to satisfy the instincts is by choosing collaboration over instant gratification in return for a larger reward later. The more people realize this, the fewer defectors there are. The fewer defectors there are, the more such games can be played before those that do defect erode the positive effects.
Of all the societies I’ve drifted through, and there have been plenty, I must nominate the Swedes (and previously, the Norwegians) as the society where the positive-sum game is played most competently. I notice it every day: A lunch place near where I work has an unattended basket of money where you pay and whence you take your change. Recycling is an obsession. Queues are flawless; often they aren’t even needed, because a numbering system takes care of it. Women with babies in strollers are allowed free on busses. There is an extraordinarily low murder rate. Corruption is among the world’s lowest.
Why might this be? Because Sweden is such a homogeneous society, and people who look alike look after each other? But that’s simply not true: in 2002 11.8% of Sweden’s population was foreign born, compared to 11.5% for that “melting pot”, the US. Maybe the benefits of playing the positive-sum game are made clearer to recent immigrants to Sweden. Maybe the winnings from playing in Sweden are stacked in such a way that everyone feels they have a stake in society.
Is there room for improvement? Are there positive-sum games with even greater returns that we are not yet playing because the benefits of collaboration are not transparent enough, or because the incentive to defect is too tempting? Eurof and I have had this conversation intermittently for a decade, in various forms. To put it bluntly: Can something akin to communism’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” evolve naturally? Is such a society within the realm of possible human activity, or does it go against our very nature, our selfish instincts? Remember that we already play positive-sum games to satisfy our instincts; why not just raise the stakes and hence our winnings? Eurof contends it cannot be done, but he can elaborate in his comments if he wishes.
I am cautiously optimistic that such a society can evolve over time, but with two caveats. The first is that we might not ever get there all the way, but that society, Swedish society at least, is moving in that direction. More and more, we are capable of abstracting the process by which effort begets reward. It’s clear that the future will involve more behaviour based on this ability, not less.
Second, there is a minimum quality of life that the overwhelming majority of the population needs to have before you can play for higher stakes. Communism is not for the poor. Sweden is eradicating poverty in its midst, surely, if not evenly,A report released Friday by Rädda Barnen/Save the Children shows 262,000 Swedish children were classified poor in 2001, 34,000 fewer than in 2000. and as it does so there will be progressively fewer desperate people for whom defecting brings a disproportionately large reward increase. The eradication of poverty is a prerequisite for, not a result of communism.
This is where Charles et al will usually retort that poverty is a relative concept, that there will always be poor as long as there are rich. Charles is right. The common assumption, though, is that low wealth disparity in society, though feasible via a policy of progressive taxation, is not desirable because it saps economic incentive. In fact, if it’s not the other way round, the best we can say is that there is very little correlation between income disparity and growth. [PDF] Sweden, for example, has robust growth and low income inequality.
It’s going to take a while before we get there — quite possibly another half millenium or so. But don’t forget that 500 years ago democracy was a ludicrous notion.
Ok boys, the post is all yours. Go rip it to shreds.
Can you clarify what your utopian neo-Communist (Communitarian?) state would look like? “From each according to his abilities” sounds like progressive taxation to me, which already exists all over the place. “To each according to his needs” sounds like the welfare state to me: a guarantee that basic needs such as food, healthcare and housing will be met by the state. So once you have a welfare state with progressive taxation, what next? Do you start simply increasing the set of things considred basic needs, so that eventually they include broadband internet access and the ability to go on at least one foreign holiday per year?
You’re obviously full of a bit too much good cheer from your Jul-party. don’t be ashamed. i get a bit maudlin and “oh, what’sh it all for, the shwedesh, man, i just ff-fucking love the shwedesh, they’re the greatesht, they’ve, they’ve got it shorted, yeah.” all the time when i get pissed. who doesn’t? apart from everyone in scandinavia.
F my own I, when did we have these conversations? FYI you clearly misunderstood me. A group of 8 or so people can be commies and jolly happy too, but the system falls down under conditions of complexity. I’m afraid you need, really really need, to read some Hayek.
also, which Civilisation do you mean? All the Sid Meier ones aren’t positive-sum games at all. If you don’t invade the Aztecs as soon as you get chariots, they’ll walk all over you.
I agree, although mainly about the Charles is right bit. Eurof’s got a point though –as you’re someone who frequently uses Civilization the game as a metaphor for real life, this is a bit of a surprising definition. I’m reading ‘Civilizations’ at the moment, which claims its all about man over nature. Sounds a little more plausible.
Anyhoo, I fear Eurof is also right abour communism –Marx never explained terribly well why after the revolution everyone would start acting like saints, especially given that she idea of saints would have been given up with the rest of the opiates.
But I’m with you that you don’t need inequality to grow, and with both you and Marx that probably some basic and secure standard of living is required before people are likely to act in a cooperative manner. Nash-types would wrap it all up in language about an environment with the stability that allows repeated games with the same rules.
I would say I think that the requisite standard of living doesn’t necessarily involve a Hummer in every driveway, and there may in fact be little correlation between stefanilization and income. The ‘noble savage’ is twaddle, but some fairly low income societies do manage to have high levels of the kind of trust you need to allow ‘positive sum games’. Meanwhile, Francis Fukuyama argues that France doesn’t.
I was surprised to read some little while back that
at the time of the Bolchevik revolution Russia was
actually the world’s fifth largest economy. The first
four being the United States, Britain, Germany and
France (or maybe it’s Britain, the United States,
Germany and France, not sure of the exact order).
Source: “The Human Web: A Bird’s Eye View of
World History”
Anyway, yes I know that Russia was still at that
point partially a slave economy but nevertheless
the common belief in the primitiveness of the
pre-Soviet state is in context a considerable
distortion.
I wonder when people speak of reducing
poverty exactly how that works. The vast majority
of those called poor in america have possessions
that would nearly push them into the wealthy
column in the global context. Few of those
named ‘poor’ today would be poor by the american
standards of say 1900.
It’s obvious that the definition of ‘poor’ is
a moving bar. I don’t doubt that there really
is progress in Sweden but won’t the drop in the
number of poor described by Rädda Barnen
disappear when the definition is readjusted
upwards some years down the road?
I suspect Stefan isn’t really arguing for Marxism
and that saying what he says doesn’t mean that
he agrees with Karl Marx. But in the event he
does agree, there is an essay by Karl Marx
titled “On the Jewish Question,” where he argues,
as best as I can follow, that the real problem
is individualism and as long as we have individuals
true communism can not be attained.
He then argues, as best as I can follow, that
at some point it will be necessary to kill everyone
that does not share the unselfish mind.
Is communism a positive-sum game?
I have my doubts.
Is capitalism a positive-sum game?
Well, certainly some forms of it are. Especially
those forms where the state supports markets and
acts against great concentrations of power instead
of creating them.
Whatever we are speaking of I think it’s important
to distinguish between the short-run effects and
the long-run impact. For example if nation A is
growing on average at 1% a year, while nation B
is growing on average at 2% a year, and the nations
are otherwise comparable then even if there is
greater disparity in individual circumstances
in nation B than nation A, there will come a point
where the bottom fifth of B will be doing better
than the the middle fifth of A and the argument
that nation A is a ‘better’ nation than B because
of it’s egalitarian nature will cease to be credible.
I’m looking for a both. I willing to tolerate a
society where there is disparity between the
bottom fifth and the top fifth — as long as it’s
not too great. Most places in the world I think
that disparity is excessive, but I also want
nations where wealth grows — where there is a
positive feedback at work. If there isn’t a substantial
positive feedback then the system is a failure —
in my eyes.
Clearly, Stefan, the solution is tax cuts for the rich.
Can fairly low income socities really have that positive-sum game playing level of trust? I think so. We used to have that trust around in the 70s when the country was a mess, much poorer and run by anarchy. But only last week for example I had to familiarize myself with types of steel doors for our tiny apt. But I don’t think it’s because poverty has migrated to urban areas, not because an economic crisis has made most people 2/3s poorer but because it hasn’t managed to make everyone 2/3s poorer. And the disparity is so excessive. Expecting that level of trust at the moment would be childish of me.
Sorry not to pitch in but my power supply blew up and so I’m having to improvise my internet access. Let me respond randomly:
Ayse, of course, is writing from Turkey, and her apartment is not tiny.
Eurof, we had these conversations in London around 1996, mainly. Or at least I was trying to.
As for Civilization the game: It is compatible with positive-sum game playing, except that the purpose is to play the game better than your rivals so that you can beat them to a pulp. That’s what you do when you buy libraries and marketplaces.
Felix: I’ve been thinking about that. My guess is that we can behave in ways that maximize society’s untility as a way of maximizing our own. Using the markets, this would mean not buying SUVs but using public transportation. It would mean opting for environmentally friendly products. It would mean, if you’re a doctor, to specialize in looking for an AIDS cure rather than performing breast enlargements. It would mean looking for and eliminating rent-seeking activities, and there are many. And using IT a lot more to make government transparent, including for public scrutiny of tenders, and the posting of results. These behavioral changes are made both by consumers and producers in a virtuous circle.
Agreed with Charles that a threshold average income and low income inequality are not the only rperequisites for positive-sum game playing to flourish. Other factors can galvanize a socieity too: For example, war, with the allies in WWII making an admirable job of it. Some more traditional societies benefit from relgious belief as a deterrent from defection.
Mark: Poor as in not comfortable. And yes, if keeping up with the Joneses is important to you, it helps if the Joneses don’t make that much more or less than you. Luckily, despite the received wisdom (and I used to assume what you do) that wealth disparity allows greater GDP growth, the evidence points to there being an inverse correlation, if any.
Finally, Mark, you don’t have to call it communism if it offends you. Call it capitalism. I don’t mind.
Stefan,
I’m not certain what you mean by this:
“Luckily, despite the received wisdom (and I used
to assume what you do) that wealth disparity allows
greater GDP growth, the evidence points to there
being an inverse correlation, if any.”
I do not think that GDP growth is any simple
function of disparity in wealth. The poorest
peoples on this planet tend to have the greatest
disparities — their wealth curves tend to look
like exponential functions. If that’s what you’re
looking at I certainly understand your speaking
of inverse correlation.
But if I take your statement literally it would
also seem to be saying that the most rapid
growth would occur when there is no disparity
or something close to that.
The empirical experience of the Soviet Union,
China, the eastern european Warsaw Pact states,
Cuba, North Korea, and actually many other states
all run counter to that. But I understand that
you’re hypothesising that all these peoples
failed because they were too poor. And that if
a truely ‘rich’ people attempted it it would
work.
Now here’s a point where I’m confused. You said,
“And yes, if keeping up with the Joneses is
important to you, it helps if the Joneses don’t
make that much more or less than you,” which
is a relative definition of ‘poor.’ In other
words what makes people poor isn’t any absolute
thing but simply that they are aware of others
who have more.
But if this is what ‘poor’ means, then China,
the Soviet Union, etcertera, were not poor
and then the failure of these states would
testify against your hypothesis.
If instead by ‘poor’ you mean something
absolute, as your hypothesis seems to require,
then I think that meaning has to be very
clearly articulated, because I think most
people when they say ‘poor’ have a large
relative component to it, and in particular
your statements, both above, and even this:
“Poor as in not comfortable.” Which at first
sounds like an absolute statement, but
is it really?
Jame,
When you said,
“Clearly, Stefan, the solution is tax cuts for
the rich.”
I did not understand what you said, but now
I believe it was a comment to Stefan on what
I’d wrote and that you believe that I am advocating
that.
Actually I’m not. It’s been my thinking that extraordinary disparities between the very
wealthy and the ordinary man are destructive
on many levels including economic growth.
I believe you need to reward people for their
efforts and that as soon as you start rewarding
people for satisfying the needs of others, disparities
will begin because some will want to do such and some
won’t and one will do better than another even if
both want to do it. I believe that disparities
are inevitable and in fact desirable.
What I’m opposed to is extreme disparities,
‘absurb disparities’ which have no foundation
in the real differences between what people can
and do do. As it happens I imagine that these
‘absurb disparities’ are, within a nation, almost
always the artifact of successful efforts to
prevent others from doing some activity and that
they are usually dependent on the support of the
state to maintain the barriers.
But this is getting off the subject of Stefan’s
(and possibly your) idea.
Actually, Mark, I was just being an asshole because I didn’t have time to think of anything clever.
If I may try to speak for Stefan, I think he (and I) used to believe that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. You’re right to point out that many poor countries are highly skewed, with a small number of super-rich families and a mass of poverty. But in relative terms, the United States has become such a country. As the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has had to fight harder just to tread water: it now takes both parents to work to maintain the standard of living, when before it took but one. Meanwhile the definition of ‘rich’ has changed to a point that mere mortals would find difficult to really believe.
I strongly urge you to read Kevin Phillips (who is a GOP tactician) book The Wealth of Democracy. This is no Michael Moore hyperbolic pinko rant. The breadth and depth of the research is breathtaking. And his conclusions are sobering. It has made me a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt and even Nixon comes out looking OK, so it’s not bashing the Republicans. If you read that and still believe the rising tide in America has lifted our boats for the past 30 years, then I’m ready to listen.
Stefan, if I have misrepresented you, tough luck.
You have a well thought out post. But I have to point out when you make the claim that Sweden is a more multicultural place than the United States because of the large foreign born population. Most of the large foregin born population form the link you supplied are actually from other parts of Europe. And from Europe, most of the foreign born are from other parts of Scandinavia. This is like America saying, most of our foreign born population is very well adjusted – only they turned out to be from Canada. The fact is that the majority of America’s immigrants do not come from developed countries like in Scandanavia, but from poor countries, especially South America, and Asia.
So we have correspondingly lead to more problems related to many other socioeconomic problems.
For the premise of your topic, that a positive sum game is some kind of precursor to the enlightened socialism practiced by Sweden is overstated I think. This positive sum game is also practiced in America, and too a larger degree. But in America it is not the government beauracracy that dictates this cooperation but the people’s private associations. As the noted 18th century traveler Alexis De Tocqueville wrote “Americans are forever forming associations with one another.” We form a lot of institutions on our own, and are mistrustful of making laws for everything. And you seem to think that Americans do not think in Positive sum frame of minds. But when I go and vote, I vote for the person who will be the best for America. Nobody in America thinks, “well as long as the President takes care of New York, I don’t care what he does in the rest of the country.” In reality, more Americans vote more for the common good than the swede. The swede votes for whoever can grant them the most entitlements. A republican candidate can support free trade, and the voters will agree with him, even though in their direct vicinity, free trade would hurt their industry. In this respect American voters are more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Many Europeans think that the steel trade was becuase the EU “stood up to America.” In reality, most Conservatives were deaply disapointed with President Bush for these steel tariffs and wanted them repealed. I think you have to rethink the positions of most Americans before making generalizations about us and celebrating yourself. Sweden is a small country, and its economy has been able to carve a niche for itself. America is a very large country, and which contain difffernt industries in various stages of decline or rise. So you will see large disparities between states, although oin the whole, the average American is wealthier than the average swede.
Anyway just my 2 cents. keep up the interesting work.
Dear G,
I’ll just take my favourite among all your quotes:
“Nobody in America thinks, “well as long as the President takes care of New York, I don’t care what he does in the rest of the country.” In reality, more Americans vote more for the common good than the swede. The swede votes for whoever can grant them the most entitlements.”
What planet are you from and how do you manage to know the motives guiding the entire US and Swedish electorate? I know lots of New Yorkers who seem to be about as interested in the welfare of Kansas as they are in that of Chad.
Yeah, G, and what about the bit about “A republican candidate can support free trade, and the voters will agree with him”? Don’t understand that at all. Why would the voters agree with a Republican supporting free trade, when they don’t agree with a Democrat supporting free trade? (Clinton pushed through Nafta in the face of public opposition.) Certainly Bush doesn’t seem to think that the public would support him in free trade: not only the steel tariffs, but the farm bill, the abortive energy bill, etc etc are all very anti-free trade. And the US has made it clear that agricultural subsidies are completely undiscussable in any FTAA negotiations. So I see NO indication whatsoever that the Republicans give two hoots about free trade — when it comes to actual decisions, that is, as opposed to high-minded rhetorical proclamations.
Felix, the Republican stance on trade recently is a reaction to the fact that most of the world has benefitted from American largesse over the decades, but it hasn’t always been a two-way street.
In other words, the rest of the world has had a free-ride.
It is quite amusing to hear about Europe’s ire at being cut out of the (American taxpayer funded) $19billion bidding for Iraq reconstruction. To think that Europe can’t have a free-ride on that one, too!
I’m so sick of European attitudes that my anti-Europeanism has only grown. I think I’ll vote for Bush for just that reason.
Let’s play Decipher the Blog Comment, shall we?
most of the world has benefitted from American largesse over the decades, but it hasn’t always been a two-way street.
I think what that means is this:
The voracious American consumer has been spending like there’s no tomorrow, much to the delight and relief of exporters around the world. Unfortunately, Indian and Brazilian consumers have been less voracious, meaning that US exporters haven’t had such a great time of things.
Or do I have this wrong?
Charming John, you and Bush are just the kind of people we need in this world. Less tolerance, more xenophobia, less free trade and more invasions. Go vote for Bush, he’s your man.