Two new recent studies delve into the key question of whether we are playing a zero sum game: Do gains for one individual or group come at the expense of others?

Many people and (apparently) societies harbour an “image” or “wordview” of limited good. Total societal output is limited and all our efforts and exchanges, rather than creating value, merely reallocate it.

A new working paper⁽¹⁾ explores whether this hypothesis first proposed by anthropologist George Foster can help shed light on the contemporary social, political, and cultural dynamics of the United States.

We find that a more zero-sum mindset is strongly associated with more support for government redistribution, race- and gender-based affirmative action, and more restrictive immigration policies. Furthermore, zero-sum thinking can be traced back to the experiences of both the individual and their ancestors, encompassing factors such as the degree of intergenerational upward mobility they experienced, whether they immigrated to the United States or lived in a location with more immigrants, and whether they were enslaved or lived in a location with more enslavement.

People are becoming more zero-sum in their thinking, and weaker economic growth may explain why Older generations grew up with high growth and formed aspirational attitudes; younger ones have faced low growth and are more zero-sum.

In another discussion paper⁽²⁾, Wim Naudé explores exactly the same idea:

The consequence of degrowth is a zero-sum society: redistribution, instead of production, becomes the basis of the economy. In such a context, more degrowth will only make problems worse.

He argues that we already live in a degrowth world, and we do not like it. The notion that a degrowth economy can generate the technological progress necessary to tackle ecological and social crises and challenges is far-fetched, and need to look forward to scenarios for moving beyond “degrowth”.

Houston, we have a problem!

We are living in (we are in fact the byproduct of) a system with limited resources. That’s a fact. Even if we could scape in a not too far future, exploit the moon, the asteroids, and beyond, those who remain on Earth will continue to face a (fundamentally) limited budget. Our psychology, on the other hand, seems to be tied to two (fundamentally) different images or wordviews: unlimited growth or zero sum competition. The first one is a long term naivete that forces us into a headlong rush. The second one is self defeating Universe 25.

It is of “fundamental” importance that we improve the knowledge and understanding of these subtle questions, and…

New ideas, please!

____________________

(1) Chinoy, Sahil, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira, and Stefanie Stantcheva. ‘Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides’. Working Paper. Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2023. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31688.

(2) Naudé, Wim. ‘We Already Live in a Degrowth World, and We Do Not Like It’. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, 3 June 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4467952.

Featured Image: Francisco de Goya, Fight with Cudgels (Duelo a garrotazos)