Left to their own devices, hockey players invariably skate without helmets. Yet when they vote in secret ballots, they almost always favor a rule requiring the gear. If this rule is such a good idea, why don't players just wear helmets on their own?
Thomas Schelling posed this question in his book Micromotives and Macrobehavior, published in 1978. I had described Schelling, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, as the greatest living economist not to have received the Nobel Prize -- a description rendered obsolete when he won it this month, jointly with Robert Aumann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Although the Nobel committee cited Schelling's 1960 book, The Strategy of Conflict, history will judge Micromotives and Macrobehavior as the more important work. The earlier book was justly praised for framing the debate about nuclear deterrence in the Cold War, while many questions in the later book seemed almost pedestrian. Yet Schelling's answers transformed the way many economists think about the relationship between competition and social welfare.
PHOTO: EPA
Adam Smith's celebrated theory of the invisible hand is the idea that individual pursuit of self-interest promotes the greatest good for all. When reward depends primarily on absolute performance -- the standard presumption in economics -- individual choice does indeed turn out to be remarkably efficient.
But when reward depends primarily on relative performance, as in hockey, the invisible hand breaks down. In such situations, unrestricted choices by rational individuals often yield results that no one favors.
To explain why, Schelling observed that by skating without a helmet, a player increases his team's odds of winning, perhaps because he can see and hear a little better, or more effectively intimidate opponents. The down side is that he also increases his odds of injury. If he values the higher odds of winning more than he values the extra safety, he will discard his helmet.
Yet when others inevitably follow suit, the competitive balance is restored -- everyone faces more risk and no one benefits. Hence the attraction of helmet rules.
As in hockey, many of the most important outcomes in life depend on relative position. Because a "good" school is an inescapably relative concept, each family's quest to provide a better education for its children has much in common with the athlete's quest for advantage.
Families try to buy houses in the best school districts they can afford, yet when all families spend more, the result is merely to bid up the prices of those houses. Half of all children will still attend bottom-half schools.
Schelling's example suggests a radical new perspective on the various ways societies restrict individual choice. Consider the similarity between helmet rules and workplace safety regulations. Because riskier jobs pay higher wages, workers can gain advantage by accepting them.
Just as unrestricted hockey players may feel compelled to discard their helmets, workers who are free to sell their safety may realize that unless they seize the higher wages, they will consign their children to inferior schools. In each case, limiting our options can prevent a mutually disadvantageous race to the bottom.
The logic of Schelling's example also challenges the cherished theory of revealed preference, which holds that we learn more about what people value by watching what they do than by listening to what they say.
If someone chooses a risky job paying US$1,000 instead of a safer one paying US$900, the theory concludes that he must value the extra safety at less than US$100.
Maybe, but only in the sense that a bareheaded hockey player reveals that he values winning above safety. In both cases, we may learn more about what people value by examining the rules they support than by studying their individual choices.
A similar interpretation applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40. Free-market economists often denounce this, noting that many workers would voluntarily work the longer hours that employers would have offered in the absence of premiums. Yet here, too, the incentives confronting workers are much like those confronting hockey players. Thus, as Schelling's fellow Nobel laureate, George Akerlof, has written, individuals can often increase the odds of promotion by working longer hours, but when others follow suit, everyone's promotion prospects remain roughly as before.
The result is often a rat race in which all must work until 8 o'clock each evening merely to avoid falling behind.
Schelling is no fan of heavy-handed bureaucratic interventions. Still, as his examples make clear, there can be no presumption that the self-serving choices of rational individuals produce the greatest good for all.
The invisible hand assumes that reward depends only on absolute performance. The fact is that life is graded on the curve.
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Taiwan shares the same values as those that fought in WWII, and nations must unite to halt the expansion of a new authoritarian bloc, Lai said The government yesterday held a commemoration ceremony for Victory in Europe (V-E) Day, joining the rest of the world for the first time to mark the anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. Taiwan honoring V-E Day signifies “our growing connections with the international community,” President William Lai (賴清德) said at a reception in Taipei on the 80th anniversary of V-E Day. One of the major lessons of World War II is that “authoritarianism and aggression lead only to slaughter, tragedy and greater inequality,” Lai said. Even more importantly, the war also taught people that “those who cherish peace cannot
STEADFAST FRIEND: The bills encourage increased Taiwan-US engagement and address China’s distortion of UN Resolution 2758 to isolate Taiwan internationally The Presidential Office yesterday thanked the US House of Representatives for unanimously passing two Taiwan-related bills highlighting its solid support for Taiwan’s democracy and global participation, and for deepening bilateral relations. One of the bills, the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, requires the US Department of State to periodically review its guidelines for engagement with Taiwan, and report to the US Congress on the guidelines and plans to lift self-imposed limitations on US-Taiwan engagement. The other bill is the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, which clarifies that UN Resolution 2758 does not address the issue of the representation of Taiwan or its people in
US Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral Samuel Paparo on Friday expressed concern over the rate at which China is diversifying its military exercises, the Financial Times (FT) reported on Saturday. “The rates of change on the depth and breadth of their exercises is the one non-linear effect that I’ve seen in the last year that wakes me up at night or keeps me up at night,” Paparo was quoted by FT as saying while attending the annual Sedona Forum at the McCain Institute in Arizona. Paparo also expressed concern over the speed with which China was expanding its military. While the US
‘FALLACY’: Xi’s assertions that Taiwan was given to the PRC after WWII confused right and wrong, and were contrary to the facts, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said The Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday called Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) claim that China historically has sovereignty over Taiwan “deceptive” and “contrary to the facts.” In an article published on Wednesday in the Russian state-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Xi said that this year not only marks 80 years since the end of World War II and the founding of the UN, but also “Taiwan’s restoration to China.” “A series of instruments with legal effect under international law, including the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration have affirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan,” Xi wrote. “The historical and legal fact” of these documents, as well