I’m giving the Institute of Economic Affairs‘ 2019 Hayek Memorial Lecture on December 3 in London. The title: “Poverty: Who’s To Blame?” And unlike in the U.S., lectures in the U.K. have abstracts! Here’s mine:
Abstract:
Who, if anyone, is morally to blame for the continued existence of severe poverty? I argue that governments in both poor and rich countries bear primary responsibility. Governments in poor countries are blameworthy for stifling development with socialist and populist economic policies. Governments in rich countries are blameworthy for severely restricting immigration, which prevents citizens of poor countries from immigrating to escape their governments’ bad economic policies. Especially in rich countries, however, the severely poor frequently bear secondary moral blame for poverty due to their own irresponsible behavior, most notably idleness, impulsive sex, and substance abuse. The popular view that we should morally blame ordinary people in poor countries for their countries bad policies, but shouldn’t blame ordinary people for their own bad behavior, is doubly wrong: Individuals can and should choose to behave responsibly, but have near-zero influence over government policy.
Related: My old post “I’m Too Busy Fighting Tyranny to Feed My Family.”
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Nov 13 2019 at 12:51pm
Suppose one already thinks that governments in developing as well as developed countries should inhibit growth less, including allowing more immigration. And suppose they also approve of good behavior by both poor and non-poor people. What is the point of framing this in terms of “blame?”
nobody.really
Nov 13 2019 at 2:02pm
Typo: “their countries’ bad polices….” Want you lookin’ sharp when dealing with the Brits.
Feel free to delete this post.
nobody.really
Nov 13 2019 at 2:17pm
On freedom and determinism:
Do we observe blameworthy behavior–idleness, impulsive sex, and substance abuse–evenly distributed throughout society? If not, can we really conclude that this behavior is freely chosen, rather than a manifestation of circumstance?
KevinDC
Nov 13 2019 at 3:25pm
Well sure, of course we can. (Not saying that we must, only that we can.) Caplan’s argument is that idleness, impulsive behavior, etc, greatly increase your likelihood of ending up in poverty, or escaping from poverty. Under this hypothesis, you wouldn’t expect to see that kind behavior “evenly distributed” across society. On the contrary, we would expect to see that behavior most highly concentrated among those in poverty. Of course, if poverty causes behavior, rather than behavior causing poverty, we’d also expect to see that behavior among those in poverty as well. So we don’t get much purchase for either theory by observing that impulsiveness and idleness are more frequent occurrences among the poor – both theories would predict that.
Alexander Turok
Nov 13 2019 at 6:09pm
“Do we observe blameworthy behavior–idleness, impulsive sex, and substance abuse–evenly distributed throughout society? If not, can we really conclude that this behavior is freely chosen, rather than a manifestation of circumstance?”
You’re making the assumption that one’s “position in society” is completely random and unaffected by personal behavior. If this is the case then of course poverty is a manifestation of circumstance, you’re assuming what you set out to prove.
nobody.really
Nov 13 2019 at 2:24pm
2: What does “moral blame” mean?
Hypothesis A: It’s rationalization for the status quo. It’s the Santa Claus philosophy–If you don’t have much, that merely proves you’ve been a naughty boy.
Hypothesis B: It’s instrumentalism. The overwhelming drivers of a person’s wealth and lived circumstances are variables over which the person exercises no control whatsoever. But because they have no control over these variables, society finds no benefit in acknowledging these dynamics. Instead, society focuses almost exclusively on variables over which a person DOES exercise control, exaggerating the consequences of their efforts.
This is akin to affective forecasting, a cognitive bias wherein people have exaggerated beliefs about how the outcomes of various contingencies will influence their future happiness, even though research reveals that few of these contingencies actually have much effect. People who win lotteries and people who lose limbs shortly revert to their prior level of happiness, regardless of these contingencies.
Embrace of “moral blame” may to inaccurate conclusions–but presumably adaptive ones. It may be false to assume that the object you lost on the dark street must be below one of the streetlamps. But if that’s the only place where you have any hope of finding the object, it may be an adaptive assumption.
Phil H
Nov 13 2019 at 10:40pm
Once again, Caplan has this completely wrong. The correct thing to do is blame Canada…
More seriously, here’s a quick argument against:
In the past gay people’s homosexuality “caused” them to have very poor quality of life. Blaming gay people for this didn’t make their lives any better; in fact, it made them worse (because their poor quality of life was a direct result of the attitudes of other people). Blaming those poor people for doing some bad thing won’t make their lives any better; in fact, it will make their lives worse, because some part of their poor quality of life consists in the contempt of others.
Caplan will respond that there’s a difference; gay people can’t turn straight, but poor people can behave more conscientiously. However, the laws of statistics say that there will always be a bell curve for good behaviour and bad behaviour. There is always going to be someone down there in the bottom 10%, however absolutely well/badly behaved they may be. Caplan’s recommendation is for eternal “blame”. I don’t see that as a humane way to organise a society.
Compare the People Who Walked Away from Omelas by Ursual Leguin.
Jonathan S
Nov 13 2019 at 11:36pm
Wouldn’t Caplan’s primary causes of poverty be the same causes of concern for gay people in the past?
Populist policies prevented gay people from behaving in their preferred way in anti-gay societies. Anti-immigrant policies prevented gay foreigners (and any other foreigners) from migrating to gay-friendly societies.
You correctly responded to your own objection to Caplan’s secondary cause of poverty. Poverty is much, much more fluid than sexuality. Just compare the percentage of people who have had sex with both males and females versus the percentage of people who have been in multiple income quintiles.
7.7% of the population has had both male and female sexual partners: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160601131959.htm
vs.
57% percent born into the lowest quintile escape the lowest quintile later in life: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf
Alexander Turok
Nov 14 2019 at 1:12pm
“In the past gay people’s homosexuality “caused” them to have very poor quality of life.”
As shown by the scare quotes, it was only an indirect cause, the direct cause was the behavior of others. If this behavior was not reasonable, they can indeed be blamed. If other people’s behavior was reasonable, or if the poor quality of life was a direct result of the individual’s behavior, the individual can indeed be blamed.
Philo
Nov 14 2019 at 9:43am
You ask: “Who . . . is morally to blame . . .? I argue that governments . . . countries bear primary responsibility.” I object: “governments” aren’t a “who”! You should tell us how the blame is to be divided up among people, who are the only real moral agents. But, as you say: “Individuals . . . have near-zero influence over government policy.” So everyone escapes moral responsibility for government activity.
Some sort of individual responsibility does creep into your account: “the severely poor frequently bear secondary moral blame for poverty due to their own irresponsible behavior . . . .” But even harming oneself—let alone failing to make oneself as well off as possible–is not normally considered a basis for moral blame, which applies only for actions that harm others.
So, secondarily, poor people are doing it to themselves (imprudent, but not morally blameworthy); primarily, governments are to “blame,” but they aren’t really moral agents. In general, moral culpability for poverty does not exist.
Comments are closed.