Johan Fourie's blog

I'd rather be a comma than a fullstop

Archive for June 2017

How our emotional intelligence makes us productive

with one comment

Emotional-Intelligence-1

Economists spend a lot of time investigating the factors that make people more productive. This is because more productive people – producing more, with less – is the reason we can today afford a much higher standard of living than our ancestors – in Africa, India or Europe – two centuries ago.

Many things improve our productivity. Technological improvements like a computer can allow us to use the power of machines to substitute manual labour. Education allow us to build faster and stronger computers. Both technology and education are key if we are to continue building and sharing a prosperous future.

But it is not only technology and education that improve our living standards. There are formal and informal institutions – things like the criminal-justice system, property right regimes and the political system – that create the incentives for us to invest in technology and education. And there are the even less tangible things, like the way we make decisions (often referred to as ‘culture’), or our personalities. Economists are only now beginning to explore the roots of these ‘soft’ determinants.

Psychologists have known for long that our personality affect the way we make decisions. One example: Whether we apply for that senior position may depend on whether we exhibit the leadership qualities that is required to lead a large team. But what determines whether we have those leadership abilities? Is it nature or nurture?

One option is to look at siblings. If genetic traits (nature) were the only source of leadership qualities, then almost all the variation we find in society would be between families. In other words, there should be little variation between brothers, for example, as they have a lot of genetic overlap.

This is not the case, however, at least according to a recent NBER Working Paper written by three economists, Sandra Black, Björn Öckert and Erik Gröngqvist. Almost a third of total variation in personality traits, they note, are within the family. So, if it is not only nature that determine much of your personality, where do these within-family differences come from?

One possibility, they argue, is birth-order. Using a very rich Swedish dataset, the authors find that first-born children are ‘advantaged’ when measured on their ‘emotional stability, persistence, social outgoingness, willingness to assume responsibility and ability to take initiative’. Note: these are non-cognitive abilities, i.e. there is little difference in terms of a first-born and a third-born’s innate ability to do math, for example. It is on the softer abilities, instead, that first-borns clearly outperform their lower-ranked siblings: third-born children, for example, have non-cognitive abilities that are 0.2 standard deviations below first-born children.

These non-cognitive abilities matter. Controlling for many things, they show that first-born children are almost 30% more likely to be Top Managers compared to third-borns. This is because managerial positions, they argue, tend to require all Big Five domains of personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability.

But why does birth-order matter? The authors argue for largely three possible reasons. First, biology. Successive children may have less of the stereotypical male behavioural traits due to the mother’s immunization to the H-Y antigen. But this seems unlikely to explain most of the variation, as the authors also find that birth order patterns vary depending on the sex composition of the older children: third-born sons perform worse on non-cognitive tests when their older siblings are male compared to when they are female.

This suggests that it has something to do with how parents allocate their time and resources, especially in the early years. ‘First-born children have the full attention of parents, but as families grow the family environment is diluted and parental resources become scarcer’, the authors argue. Parents may also have incentives for more strict parenting practices towards the first born to ensure a reputation for “toughness” necessary to induce effort among later born children.

Thirdly, children may also act strategically in competing for parental resources. Siblings compete for possession of property and access to the mother. Older siblings, research shows, tend to take a more dominant role in conflict and have more elaborate conflict strategies. To minimise conflict, parents tend to invest more in the dominant, older sibling.

Using a novel approach, the authors can identify which of these effects is largest. They find that biological factors only explain a small part, and may actually benefit later-born children. It is however in the behaviour of parents that there are distinct differences between first- and later-born children: they find that later-born children spend substantially less time on homework and more time watching TV. Parents are also less likely to discuss school work with later-born children, suggesting that it is the parents that lower their investment which explains the large gap in non-cognitive skills.

What the authors do not do is to link their results with the general improvement in living standards over the last two centuries. We are becoming ‘better angels of our nature’ because we grow up in smaller families with more parental attention and resources, improving our non-cognitive abilities.

It is not only the vast improvement in technology and education that has made us more productive, but also because we have become more conscientious, agreeable, responsible and willing to take the initiative. We are rich, in part, because we are more emotionally intelligent.

*An edited version of this first appeared in Finweek magazine of 1 June 2017.

Written by Johan Fourie

June 23, 2017 at 07:49

We are shopping less, but buying more

leave a comment »

CheckersMini

One of the things I realised soon after marriage, is that my wife and I share different strategies when it comes to grocery shopping. I like to stock up, buying bulk on the cheap, while she prefers to visit the store more frequently, acquiring only what is necessary for the next few days. This of course means that we never run out of canned beans, but often out of milk.

Such choices are at the heart of economics. Understanding how, why and when a buyer chooses a product or service is often the difference between a thriving and failing business. That is why every successful firm, from banks to health insurance to mobile communications companies, spend considerable resources these days analysing ‘Big Data’ to understand and ‘nudge’ the behaviour of their customers.

Even general retail, a sector often caricatured as unaffected by technological change, now has to adjust to the new technological possibilities, like sensing technologies that track the movement of customers as they browse a store. Not only can technology help retailers to optimise store lay-out, but, with a little leap of the imagination, they can have advertising that can recommend new products when a new customer walks past based on the content of their previous purchases, of their existing basket or of the purchases of their friends that is connected to them on social media. (Imagine buying shampoo, and being prompted: Your friend, Herman, purchased Organics in this store five days ago.) And then there is a plethora of other technologies that are likely to revolutionise the shopper’s experience, from mobile payments (in South Africa: wiCode or SnapScan), to digital receipts (another South African upstart: Pocketslip), to online shopping.

There is no doubt that these new technologies will shape the way we make decisions about what, how and where to buy our groceries, but technology is not the only thing that affects our spending behaviour. A new NBER Working Paper by three authors affiliated to US universities, identifies an interesting trend in the US over the last four decades: the rise of spending inequality, or a widening gap between how much different households spend when they go shopping.

We usually measure inequality by comparing peoples’ incomes. But presumably we are also interested in how people spend their incomes: are there huge differences between how much some households spend vis-à-vis others, and do these differences change over time? In fact, it seems like this is indeed the case: the difference in household spending patterns in the US seem to be on the increase. Some families seem to be spending a lot more than others.

One suggestion for the rise in income inequality is the impact of technology. But this is where the authors find an interesting result: the reason for the rise in spending inequality, they argue, is not because of growing differences in consumption caused by greater levels of income inequality (i.e. the rich still consume more than the poor, but this gap is not increasing), but instead because Americans go shopping less frequently. They explain it as follows: if a household starts buying groceries once a month instead of once a week, their consumption may not change (they stockpile to smooth their consumption), but the measured spending inequality will change because some households in surveys will appear as if they spend a lot, while others will appear as if they spend nothing. This difference was less dramatic when households went shopping every week, and so it appears as if inequality is on the rise.

Using various datasets, the authors find two distinct trends to support this theory: first, the number of shopping trips that Americans make has been steadily falling since 1980. In contrast, the average expenditure per trip has been steadily rising. Americans are making fewer, but larger, shopping trips on average. Second, the quantity of goods Americans buy have been rising, while the amount of time spent shopping has declined. All of this, the authors conclude, points to higher levels of stockpiling by Americans.

What explains this changing behaviour? Surprisingly, it is not technology innovation, which is often considered the source of most disruption. Instead, the authors show, the increasing stockpiling is a result of the emergence of warehouse stores, like Costco, that sell larger quantities of goods at lower unit prices. “As these stores have expanded throughout the country since the 1980s, it has become easier for households to stock up in ways that were not feasible in the past, consistent with the decreased frequency of shopping that we observe.”

Technological improvements like mobile payments, digital receipts and online shopping is aimed at reducing transaction costs, making it easier and cheaper for consumers to do their grocery shopping. Such lower costs should result in a higher frequency of shopping. And yet, the trends, at least for the US, point in exactly the opposite direction: fewer visits to the supermarket, with consumers preferring to buy in bulk and on the cheap.

Perhaps South African consumers behave differently. Perhaps the digital revolution will reverse these trends quickly; once your fridge can order canned beans automatically from the local supermarket when supplies run low, we won’t need to buy in bulk. But any retailer worth their salt would do well to be aware that the promise of technology can often overshadow deeper forces pulling in the other direction. Technology reduces transaction costs, but the benefits of buying bulk seem to outweigh the costs. Now to convince my wife.

*An edited version of this first appeared in Finweek magazine of 18 May.

Written by Johan Fourie

June 13, 2017 at 05:48