Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy 9819951682, 9789819951680

Citation preview

Christian Aspalter

Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy

Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy

Christian Aspalter

Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy

Christian Aspalter BNU-HKBU United International College Zhuhai, Guangdong, China

ISBN 978-981-99-5168-0 ISBN 978-981-99-5169-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

One of the … themes that comes up again and again, and with ever stronger emphasis … is neglect by academic economics of hard, systematic, empirical analysis in favor of elegant but vacuous formal, mainly mathematical, theoretical exercise. … this shift from factual inquiry into abstract speculation … [has become] even more pronounced. (Wassily Leontief, 2019: vii) Leontief, Wassily (2019), Essays in Economics: Theories, Theorizing, Facts, and Policies, Routledge: London.

Foreword

For a short time in modern history and in a minor part of the world, the global North, i.e. in the post-World War II developed world, there was not much talk about inequality. In this region, based on a combination of peace, organized labor markets, full employment, welfare state systems, and high economic growth, an understanding of society moving towards more and more equality prevailed. In Europe, this was dubbed Les Trente Glorieuse, the glorious thirty years from the end of the war to the first oil crisis chock in the mid-1970s. Since then and particularly since the Great Recession in 2008 inequality has been back on the agenda and practically everyone, with the important exceptions of business, Conservatives and Liberals, has voiced serious concerns. Hence, international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, otherwise not known for being progressive, are seriously concerned about the devastating effects of increasing inequality, and so are many politicians, e.g. Barak Obama: ‘A dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility … I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: Making sure our economy works for every working American.’ Also, ‘Inequality is the root of social evil,’ Pope Francis has tweeted, while describing the unrestrained pursuit of profit as ‘the dung of the devil,’ ‘a new tyranny.’ Academic observers, likewise, have pointed out that inequality is not only bad for people, but also for business and generally for the cohesion of society (Atkinson, Piketty, Rodrick, Stiglitz, Wilkinson and Pickett, to mention just a few). Take the title of Swedish sociologist Göran Therborn’s book from 2009: The Killing fields of Inequality! Hence, there is widespread agreement among economists and social scientists that (substantial) inequality is economically, politically, socially and morally counterproductive; a more equal society benefits everyone, we know. Yet, inequality everywhere is on the rise. With the publication of this book, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, Christian Aspalter joins the chorus of deeply concerned scientists, and he does so in a highly original fashion. Most of us know Aspalter as a social policy and welfare systems analyst, but with these essays, he demonstrates another side of his talents engaging himself with micro-economics, and supplementing these discussions with insights from a wide variety of sociology from Max vii

viii

Foreword

Weber, the Frankfurt School (Jürgen Habermas in particular) to Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann. It is a truly inter- and trans-disciplinary study. The book is a starting point of a new research agenda aiming at explaining human behavior through a critical dialogue with economics’ failed attempt to do so. It is a tall order and an ambitious one, since ‘the theory of Super Inequality is a meta theory, a macro theory, as well as a meso theory, a micro and micro-micro theory.’ In short, a universal theory. Central is the concept of distorted choices. Even if the subtitle of the book is ‘theoretical essays,’ it is strongly informed by empirical observations and analyses; and even if the emphasis is on explanatory factors, it does contain normative prepositions. Aspalter does not have an issue with inequality understood as difference and diversity. The problem is dehumanizing inequality and dehumanizing poverty, which occur because of the dispositions of the super-super rich and the rest of the elites in societies. These essays are inspiring reading for everyone grabbling with finding ways to change societal development away from producing higher levels of inequality and poverty towards a more just and fair society for everyone. As Aspalter demonstrates, it is not the level of economic development that decides the happiness or misery of citizens in a country, it is the decisions that elites, politicians, administrators and people themselves make. The essays included in this book help us fighting for other and better decisions. University of Copenhagen

Peter Abrahamson

Preface

There are three theoretical essays in this book that are building on one another. The first two essays are like (giant) steps of a pyramid, which are designed to support and enable the top of the pyramid, the theory of super inequality. This is also the theory that gave this book its (now rather concise) title. It is hence important to keep in mind, while these are independently written essays, the former will inform the latter, i.e. they are building the foundation for each following essay and theory. The theories put forward are general theories, and thus, they are applicable over a wide array of fields and topics, not just in economics and social policy, but also all other behavioral and social sciences. The three general theories set up all cover and explain (by design) most human decision-making and hence human action in their private lives, in public office or government administration, as well as the aggregate outcomes thereof. These theories do not intend to explain everything, but they rather serve as a pool of theoretical thought, a springboard and helpful fundament for theory making, theory application, and theory testing. These three theories are all situated within the realm of explanatory (causal) theory and hence do not intent to deliver or debate normativity in any sense, as this is subject of other theories, e.g. the normative theory of Developmental Social Policy (Midgley, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2013, Aspalter, 2014, 2015; Hoefer and Midgley, 2015; Aspalter and Teguh-Pribadi, 2017; Aspalter, Teguh-Pribadi, and Gauld, 2017). In order to set up and flesh out (explanatory) behavioral social policy theory and to back up normative theory with explanatory theory, the author went deep into the realm of microeconomic theory, particularly behavioral economics, and there again public choice theory. The insights from behavioral economics have then been used to develop general theories of human behavior, policy behavior, and policy outcomes, such as distorted health development or systemic inequalities. The theories compiled in this volume center upon general problems in human choice and public choice making and the therefrom resulting basic conundrums of the human condition: such as systemic super inequality and systemic mass poverty. All three theories presented are dealing with/explaining performance shortcomings regarding all human action, be it: ix

x

Preface

1. wealth losses, well-being losses, health losses, welfare-losses, happiness losses, etc., due to private choice making and public choice making as regards to Distorted Choice Theory, or 2. the general shortfall of efficiencies to due performance barriers as theorized in ZEfficiency Theory, which is a largely-extended version (in its explanatory scope/ coverage) of Harvey Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory (1966, 1978a, b), or 3. the general—globally and historically present—appalling shortfall of the human conditions and their main elements, as embodied in mass inequality that breeds, maintains, and grows mass poverty, through diverse processes (systems) of systemic inequality and systemic povertization throughout the world and throughout history. These processes and systems of inequality and oppression are of a cultural, linguistic, historical, political, legal, and administrative nature; they are education-based, technology-based, asset/finance/tax/resource-based, and geographically- and ethnically-confined (cf Remington, 2023; Aspalter, 2023; Piketty, 2020, 2014; Midgley and Piachaud, 2011; McMurty, 2009; UNDP, 2005; Massey and Denton, 1994; Marcuse, 1969, 1964). The first main part of the book puts forward the new Distorted Choice Theory which also factors in a most-inclusive set of historical (e.g. Colonial), cultural, communicational, political, legal, social, societal, and economic constraints to private and public choices, which formerly were left out of analytical/theoretical frameworks, especially in public choice theory and, by and large, in all of economics and social policy science alike. In the empirical section, the key proposition of public choice theory and distorted choice theory is being tested empirically, by using a new method for measuring theorized and actual performance losses—or health/well-being/welfare/happiness/ wealth losses, as a result of distorted choice making. It is using large-scale social indicator analysis, with the help of the new Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index (Aspalter, 2023), which measures exactly relative performance differences, and aggregates and evaluates them in a standardized way. The results of the empirical examination of health development in 169 countries in this book strongly support the central proposition of both the public choice theory and hence distorted choice theory, which is derived from the former. This key proposition states that government officers/administrators do—by and large—not follow the specific welfare and development goals of the country, the society, or the economy itself. But instead, they pursue—by and large—their private goals and their private welfare interests. This long-standing proposition of public choice theory has been validated by the global empirical analysis of health development outcomes built on the concept of distorted health development. Building on the general premises of the first part, the latter part of the book is revisiting and offering more elaboration on the recently set up General Theory of Z-Efficiency and the General Theory of Super Inequality, which are universally applicable in different fields, such as e.g. in economics, social policy, public policy, sociology, psychology, health sciences, nursing, and social work. Both the Z-Efficiency and the Super-Inequality theories have been set up for policymakers to be better

Preface

xi

equipped, down the road, to avoid mistaken paths in policy analysis and making that failed to tackle and undo horrendous and yet rising levels of inequality and mass poverty around the world, and of course the unresolved ‘relative’ efficiency and ‘relative’ performance failures, respectively. One of the greatest unresolved and largely ignored issues of our times is the relative efficiency and performance shortcomings of the majority of existing welfare state systems, the majority of existing social security and social assistance systems, and other social policy fields and strategies covering the whole range of the social policy spectrum, for example: the lack of relative wealth equality policies, the causes for, and the causes for failing to respond to, the modern mass disease pandemics (like diabetes and cancer), the persistence of non-binary gender discrimination, the inexcusable practices of mass incarceration, and the failure of the welfare state to end systemic mass poverty far and wide. Zhuhai, China

Christian Aspalter

References Aspalter, Christian (2014), Social Work Services and Developmental Social Policy, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Social Work in East Asia, Ashgate: Surrey. Aspalter, Christian (2015), New Perspectives for Active Aging: The Normative Approach of Developmental Social Policy, in: A. Walker and C. Aspalter (eds.), Active Aging in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2023), Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Global Data Analysis, Springer: Cham. Aspalter, Christian and Teguh-Pripadi, Kenny (eds.) (2017), Development and Social Policy: The Win-Win Strategies of Developmental Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian; Teguh-Pribadi, Kenny, and Robin Gauld (eds.) (2017), Health Care Systems in Developing Countries in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Hoefer, Richard and Midgley, James (eds.) (2015), Poverty, Income and Social Protection: International Policy Perspectives, Routledge: Oxon. Leibenstein, Harvey (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392–415. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978a), On the Basic Proposition of X-Efficiency Theory, The American Economic Review, 68(2): 328–332. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978b), General X-Efficiency Theory and Economic Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Marcuse, Herbert (1964), One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Beacon Press: Boston. Marcuse, Herbert (1969), The Relevance of Reality, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 42: 39–50. Massey, Douglas S. and Denton, Nancy A. (1994), American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. McMurty, John (2009), Taxation and Poverty: Injustice Built into Our Tax System Hurts Poor the Most, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, policyalternatives.ca. Midgley, James (1995), Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare, Sage: London. Midgley, James (1996), Toward a Developmental Model of Social Policy: Relevance of the Third World Experience, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23(1): 59–74.

xii

Preface

Midgley, James (1999), Growth, Redistribution and Welfare: Towards Social Investment, Social Service Review, 77(1): 3–21. Midgley, James (2013), Social Development: Theory and Practice, Sage: London. Midgley, James and Piachaud, David (eds.) (2011), Colonialism and Welfare: Social Policy and the British Imperial Legacy, Elgar: Cheltenham. Piketty, Thomas (2014) [2013], Capital in the Twenty-First Century, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas (2020), Capital and Ideology, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Remington, Thomas F. (2023), Socio-Economic and Geographic Inequality of the Effects of the Pandemic, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Covid-19 Pandemic: Problems Arising in Health and Social Policy, Springer: Cham, forthcoming. UNDP (2005), Human Development Report 2005: International Cooperation at a Crossroads—Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World, UNDP: New York

Contents

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . Humans Controlling Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elite Capitalism and Human Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Behavior in Economics and Social Policy Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . Escaping Singularity and Dehumanizing Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Journey Has Begun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards a General Theory of Human Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Foucauldian War Chariots and Rothschildian Javelins . . . . . . . . . . . . . Super Billionaires Having Fun While Millions of Children Die of Malnutrition Every Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About Tiny Wobbly Boats: By Way of Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3 6 8 9 10 15

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Foundations of Any General Behavioral Theory: Starting with the Concept of Rationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Symbiotic Relationship Between the Science of Social Policy and Public Choice Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding Government Activities (and Who Stand Behind All This) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing a New Theory of ‘Distorted’ Choices for All Social Sciences: Particularly Social Policy and Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring Distorted Choices and Distorted Outcomes: The Case of Health Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Takeaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations) . . . . . . . . Z-Efficiency Theory and the Role It Plays in Investigating and Theorizing Human Action, Human Choices, and the Human Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 17 17

25 28 30 38 45 51 52 61 62

72 xiii

xiv

Contents

Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 77

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Building the Theory of Super Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 On Rationality: Not an Answer, but a Source of Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 The Elite-Enabling Forces of Systemic Inequality and Systemic Povertization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 The End of ‘Pure Market Theory’ as a General Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 The Super-Super-Rich Fooling and Ruling All Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Where Is Research? And How Far Did It Come Along? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Weathering the War of the Elites Against All Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 The Concept and Theory of X-Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Notion of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Concept of Development as a Weapon in Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Development and the Evolution of Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overcoming the Chains and Shackles of Our Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution Means Understanding Our Diversity and Working Together as One Humanity: By Way of Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 112 113 115 116 118 120

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Poems to Go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter 1

The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

This book is about performance shortfalls of all kinds, of all people, all of their institutions, their societies and cultures, their left-behind societies and cultures, and the left-behind majority. It follows a long tradition of comparative and hence analytical social science that reaches all the way back to Aristotle, who clearly stated the essence of the comparative analytical method within research methodology and its overarching goal: Our purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal in life. We must therefore examine not only this but other constitutions, both such as actually exist in well-governed states, and any theoretical forms which are held in esteem, so that what is good and useful may be brought to light. (Aristotle cited in: Bauböck, 2008: 41)

The varieties of human culture, governance, governing systems, social security systems, health care systems, legal systems, also with largely varying overall complexities, and impact—hindering and enabling impacts alike—are tremendous. Their effects on human lives, on freedom, health, wealth, and well-being of humans across the world is not to be underestimated. This is the analytical starting point for this book, as in policy sciences, as well as in social sciences in general, including economics, we need to learn to understand all of human actions, in their private, in their economic, and in their public lives. The driving forces of human action are important; be they self-preservation, one’s own advantage, pride, hate, love, compassion, addiction, rational insight, as well as religious/spiritual conditioning and de-conditioning all the same. But, perhaps even more important—as they make up the brunt of differences across societies, cultures, different world regions and different geographical (urban versus rural, semi-urban, etc.) locations—are their limitations, the barriers that prevent, divert and pervert human behaviors, on individual, community, societal and cultural echelons. The downside factors, the barriers to economics success, governance success, social and individual success, are the subject of the research undertaking in this book that is presented in form of a series of studies on human behavior and its various theoretical perspectives and angles. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7_1

1

2

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Humans Controlling Humans While most of us think they are free, and wonderfully taken care of by their governments, the real world, how it really is to be evaluated, becomes clear through comparison. If you know about other governments, other economies, other social security systems, their relative levels of performance (effectiveness and efficiency, levels of freedom and decency included), then you may be unhappy, or at least willing to choose another option. If you do not know it, or care to fully ignore it, or simply you are too confused as self-contradicting and counter-factual knowledge and information are jamming your senses and your capacity to think and rationalize it all, you may simply move on with your life, in whatever way your life is pushing you, or others are pushing your life towards to and along, or along with. Most people in Western countries are made to believe that they have it good, that they are really free, and free all the way. The truth is far from it, however, as layers of taxes upon taxes for individual work or enterprise, as layers upon layers of disadvantages for the ones that have income to show for are mounting on top of each other, as do one’s monthly bills (plus fines and fees) and life-time down-beating events (court rulings, medical screening results/diagnoses, pandemics, climate change, business and economic downturns alike) which are either pushing them on the brink of collapse, or right over the cliff, having to give up their normal-life dreams, their hopes and securities, their confidence and independence (cf Chomsky, 2017). Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said that “no one is more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe to be free” (translated from Goethe in Die Wahlverwandtschaften, 1809).

According to Erich Fromm (1941), freedom from something is one thing, and freedom for something is yet another, very different, thing. The former talks about freedom from persecution, incarceration, discrimination, hate, injustice and social exclusion, while the latter is about freedom for getting a useful and desired education, freedom for positive life choices and life-style choices, freedom for having a family, and so forth. Powerlessness has two aspects as well: (a) being pushed and shoved (nudged) by others to do something one does not want to do, or one has no choice but not to do the things one wants/needs to do; and (b) not having the power for something, the power to form a family, to raise children, the power to be secure in old age or during economic hardship, or disease or when suffering an incapacitating health condition. Hence, most people may not even have the right, or all, concepts in mind when talking about freedom, wealth, health, power, personal will and/or personal independence. For sure, when taking Aristotle’s imperative, to go out and compare all existing (and all perceivable) alternatives to society and governance as well, one may easily be pulled along a certain narrative, that all is fine (in liberal democracies, in Western countries). It is easy to be made to believe that all is fine, and we could not have it any better. This is so, because others have it so much worse. To just take one example here, North Korea is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, that of totalitarian

Elite Capitalism and Human Behavior

3

communism or socialism. In North Korea, about 15 percent of the population (or a bit more or less), this is the best estimate we have, is controlling and/or ruling the rest 85 percent (or so). In general, in political science it is estimated that about one sixth (or a little less than that) of the population is sufficient to create a permanent oppressive regime (cf Kautsky, 1918; Backes and Kailitz, 2013; Gerschewski, 2013, 2023) that can last decades, if not centuries. North Korea is just one example out of many that there are today around the world, where a minority can control or brutally oppress a vast majority, and of course history (ourstory) is fully packed of those examples as well. Nietzsche explains the nature of humans controlling, and hurting, other humans, in a way that is always seen rational, i.e. a matter of (self-understood) rational self-preservation, and even necessity: All morals allow intentional injury in the case of necessity, that is, when it is a matter of self-preservation! But these two points of view suffice to explain all evil actions committed by men against men, we are desirous of obtaining pleasure or avoiding pain; in any case it is always a question of self-preservation. Socrates and Plato are right: whatever man does he always does well, that is, he does that which seems to him good (useful) according to the degree of his intellect, the particular standard of his reasonableness. (last two emphases added, Nietzsche, 2008, 1878]: 67)

Elite Capitalism and Human Behavior When we talk about, or imagine, the one percent of the super-rich (the super-super rich make up far less than that) then most of us, or most non-political-scientists, are forgetting the other 14 (or so) percent that side with the 1 percent, as they see an advantage in doing so for themselves, i.e. enjoying privileges, power and relative wealth inequality, and an advantage of keeping off the rest of the population from joining them and hence being able to participate, enjoy and hence lessen their wealth, privileges, and spoils of oppression. When we talk about—as Randall G. Holcombe (2013, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2022) perfectly explained it—political capitalism, where interest groups/cronyism, corporatism, and the super-rich and powerful control all of capitalism and society, then reality, the real world, gets clearer, intellectually and empirically accessible. What Holcombe called political capitalism, we may call here, elite capitalism, to emphasize the decisive role of the elites, i.e. the super-super-rich and the super-powerful. Having political capitalism or elite capitalism in mind, then these just-mentioned 14 percent are key for the understanding of how capitalism works today and around the world (except e.g. the notable case of North Korea, where socialism rules in its extreme). Dumbfounding indeed are the mechanisms inside democracies, where supposedly the majority has the rule, minorities of 1 percent or less take on the support of 14 more percent or so and control, dominate, exploit the innocence and lack of understanding (of what they want, and what they really want, i.e. what actually would be in their interest) of the other 85 percent of people.

4

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Divide and conquer, that is how the Ancient Romans did it and that is how elite capitalism is doing it. European civilization is but the continuation of the Roman Empire—with the resurrection of Roman thought, Roman culture and Roman politics of oppression by Charlemagne in the late eighth and early ninth century. The Romans learned and copied a great deal from the Greeks, who at that time were already invaded and controlled mostly by war-faring (horse-riding and war-chariots building) peoples from the North (from which the Macedonians, the Dorians like the Spartans, the Thracians, etc. have derived) a long time ago. The Norman invasion of England, and especially the practices of the Forest Laws, the Doomsday Book, and the Campaign to the North in eleventh century England transferred Roman and Charlemagne-style politics to England, and thus to today’s Anglo-Saxon world. Thus, most of Continental Europe and all of the Anglo-Saxon world are all formed and continuously driving by war-faring (horse-riding and war-chariot building) people, who replaced gender balanced cultures (the Vinca, the Etruscans, etc.) with male-dominated, war-faring, societally unequal and (judged by outcomes) oppressive cultures of the entire Western world. Earlier cultures like the high-civilizations of the Vinca (in and around modern-day Serbia) and the Harappan (around the Indus River) societies were peaceful and harmonious, and not weapons- and war-oriented. Today’s Western culture is the product of its pre-ancient roots from the Great Pontic Caspian Steppe, of at least 6,000 years ago; if one goes further back in time, the location of common older roots point to the northside of the Caucasus, and earlier than that the southside of the very same (cf Aspalter, 2022). Thus, divide, conquer and (brutally) oppress the majority that is the credo that has worked for many centuries, for many millennia, for the oppressing minorities and bloodiest rulers of the world. Capitalism also fought with swords and spears, and now with cannons and rockets, but in addition it uses apart from military weapons of mass destruction also other weapons of mass dehumanization. To be sure, these other weapons of mass dehumanization include, e.g.: 1. words (e.g. dependents, recipients, patients, elderly, vulnerable, handicapped, precarious, fragile, challenged, needy, plus the many demeaning meanings of the word ‘poor’—i.e. referring to e.g. ‘lazy’ or ‘bad performance’ or ‘bad quality’ and so forth), 2. legal systems, 3. the particular biases of the tax systems, 4. preferential accounting systems (compared to the rest of the population who have to pay taxes with no delays and no deductions of losses), 5. government administration, and with it 6. government-led micro-management of people’s lives, i.e. their life worlds (Habermas, 1981). A new addition recently, in the arsenal of big elite capitalism, is data, as data is being collected fervently in never-seen-before quantities and details, and applied to squeeze out and pull out ever more money from the pockets and virtual bank accounts of the 85 percent, many of which have become protagonists and admirers of tech

Elite Capitalism and Human Behavior

5

wizards that invented these new technologies and mechanisms, as well as other super billionaires that own these companies or large parts of their shares. There are great scores of young and not-so-young protagonists and admirers of technology. Some of them (1) are benefiting from it if they happen to study or have studied e.g. data science, computer programming, or if they have inherited enough properties (e.g. stocks in the IT sector, or companies themselves). And most others (2) have lost their jobs, or are losing their future jobs, and/or getting rock-bottom low salaries from their low-end service jobs that have replaced, and will replace, their would-be jobs that have been (and will be) either fallen victim to digitalization or computer intelligence (AI). Then again, and this is interesting, one can watch, and see (and not understand why), these very same convenience-cum-addiction-loving, tech-loving young and not young admirers, and the media and social media that is steering these (seemingly) amazing feats and developments, are quiet about the immense pollution caused and money and energy wasted by super billionaires competing to be the first billionaire or first private tourist in space at the backdrop of horrible weather changes and climate shifts well under way, causing the deaths and misery of millions of people all over the world (cf e.g. Brennan, 2021; Wattles, 2022; as well as Millan, 2021). Coastal strips will perish, and with them many dozens of metropolitan areas that lay on the coast around the world, in the years and decades to come. Jakarta is the first, to sink into the ground, as some parts of it have started to be literally immersed in seawater. Shanghai has been sinking now for a while, water levels (and for this to know one does not have to be a mathematician) will rise, as glaziers and polar ice caps have melted and are melting away. This human behavior, or lack of behavior (which is also behavior in itself), in particular is just one random tip of one random iceberg that is on course to wreck human civilization and whatever we call development, at least our ways of life, the ways we learned to live and get spoiled by. Where is rationality in all this? Where is education helping, is it helping, at all? All the science and knowledge we have gathered, or are learning and yet to learn in our schools and universities, are swept off their feet by the forces of mass entertainment, or addiction to be precise. People, the 85 percent, are busy killing time, and thus killing their future employment, future business, future investments, their own life-time wealth (any bit that is possible) accumulation. They keep texting while riding a motorcycle, holding their phones in their hands while riding cars. They get nervous breakdowns if there is no internet access or their phone runs out of battery. They are texting their date, across the table; they are raising their kids by using mobile phones as their Nany. People get killed by the hundreds while trying to make selfies of themselves in dangerous places and situations, parents are losing their kids to drowning in water, while they stand one meter away with their phone in their hand. People are losing their mind in hundreds of pictures and videos that torpedo their senses, or what is left of it, when scrolling down on their phones for hours sheer every day (cf Han, 2015, 2017). This is curious, to say the least. And in all this, where does economics or social policy come in?

6

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Human Behavior in Economics and Social Policy Science Economics has tried now, for about 250 years, to tell the world that people make rational decisions, people are homines economici, i.e. economically rational thinking and rational decision-making people, for the very most part—and this not only in economic or financial affairs (Kirchgässner, 2008; V. Smith, 1991; for a major critique, see e.g. Thaler, 2015), but also other affairs like committing a crime, or marriage, things like that (cf Becker, 1957, 1962, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1983). Social policy science for the very most part has not yet looked into the depths, and shallows, of behavioral decision-making, life-style decision-making, the effect of education and knowledge on healthy versus unhealthy food choices, exerciseand-non-exercise choices, and so forth (for exceptions cf e.g. Aspalter, 2018, 2020, 2021). Given the speed of economics, a quarter a millennia after Adam Smith’s 1776 path-breaking book (his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations), and still not being able to fully explain a market for let’s say BMW cars, or apples, is not impressive, to say the least. As Noble Prize Winner Vernon L. Smith (1991) noted clearly—neoclassical, i.e. mainstream—economic market theory is incomplete, as well as fundamentally flawed in more than on way (cf also Smith and Wilson, 2019; Inoua and Smith, 2019, 2020a,b); this after two and a half centuries of trying to find out how markets in the real world (with real people, with real companies, and real governmental interferences, real-life lobbying, and real-life under-the-table deals, etc.) are working, and trying to explain all major aspects thereof (cf also recent advances by Inoua and Smith, 2021, 2022). It is also astonishing that economists can only explain to some greater extend special forms of auctions and other alternate market forms, but not a normal car sales market, or a national fruit or vegetable market. The single biggest latest development in economics was the experimental proof of some economic market conditions really only in the case of an electricity market in Northern California, apart from other experiments under laboratory conditions only (cf the works of Vernon L. Smith, who got a noble prize for this; especially e.g. V. Smith, 2000, 1992, 1989). That is not much, it is horribly little, given that almost 250 years have already passed since the landmark, and truly wonderful publication of Adam Smith, an economic philosopher and empiricist. John Maynard Keynes (1926, 1936) was responsible for yet another sea change in economic thinking. In the past, and today, all over the world, a great many governments resort to his recipes, even though they understand them only half-right—as they only spend in bad times, without making sure that they save in good times, i.e. downs and ups in business and economic cycles. Nicholas Kaldor, also from England, is to be credited, along with Petrus Johannes Verdoorn, to have explained economic growth in general, once and for all, and especially the economic growth miracles of e.g. East Asian economies, and the fall of growth rates in mature economies in e.g. Europe (cf Thirlwall, 1987; Kaldor, 1966).

Human Behavior in Economics and Social Policy Science

7

When it comes to microeconomics, however, we are still in the world of rational thinkers, perfect market information for all market participants, and the such (Kirchgässner, 2008; Becker, 1992; V. Smith, 1991). Nevertheless, Adam Smith’s book An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) is still ahead of most mainstream micro-economists, as Adam Smith there also underlined the crucial importance of causal social and cultural factors contributing to economic success. In continental Europe, a number of greatest economists have been overlooked by historical academia, and mainstream economics in particular. Johan Gustav Knut Wicksell (1893, 1896, 1898, 1934, 1935) and Kurt W. Rothschild (1947, 1954, 1971, 1981, 1993), to name just two, were among them. Both of which transcended the external and internal (respectively) traditional boundaries of economics. Friedrich Wieser (1910, 1914, 1926), too, was way ahead of his contemporaries, at his time, as well as most of our today’s contemporaries (cf also Menzel, 1927). Wieser’s three books on law, power and society have been particularly ignored by mainstream economics, for the disadvantage in particular of the latter. In addition, what is indeed particularly intriguing, Friedrich A. Hayek (1952) wrote a book on perceptions, on the interface between biology and psychology, when looking at the current-day discussions and high number of citations of this particular book by Hayek in these respective fields. Hayek did so in order to arrive at a better understanding of human action, for economics in particular, and for all of science in general. Kurt W. Rothschild edited then, in 1971, one of the best books ever in economics since the great works of Adam Smith (1759, 1776) and Carl Menger (1871, 1994). Rothschild factored in the causal importance of power in economics, on multiple levels, bringing together a surprisingly large and strong team of contributors, on a great number of most interesting aspects of power in economics. Mainstream economics—academic economics, in the words of Leontief (2019: vii)—still has to learn from their own founding leaders. A hopeful quote from Kurt W. Rothschild, himself, on the prospects of development of economics itself: Ultimately, economics shall be aware of the fact, that theory must not become an end in itself. Theory shall enable a detailed examination of the surrounding world in order to make it more humane. (Rothschild, 2022)

Yet, Rothschild’s 1971 book, while not losing any of its highest-caliber explanatory power, was still surpassed by the analytical powerhouse from Paris, Michel Foucault, especially with his 1975 book, and the works that followed (especially Foucault, 1976, 2009, 2010, 2014). Foucault theorized power relations. Max Weber (2019), Charles Tilly (1984, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003), and many others, in addition, have added to the understanding of human interaction and relationships, and hence human action and the human condition in general. Communication, the media in particular, as an instrument of oppression by the ruling and governing elites was the realm of Noam Chomsky’s numerous years of research that transformed into numerous books and most important empirical accounts on the matter (Chomsky, 1987, 2002a, 2004, 2017, cf also especially Herman and Chomsky, 2002).

8

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Social policy science, in almost in its entirety, has not yet ventured into the realm of psychology and behavioral science altogether. This is a pity. But, social policy science can learn from economics, especially e.g. from public choice theory, which is great (most accurate) in explaining governmental choices, administrative and bureaucratic, and juridical choices all along. This is the starting point for this book. In the spirit of James M. Buchanan (2003), a new research program is needed, one that researches micro-economic behaviors outside the hitherto boundaries of the comfort zone, and religious-like trodden paths, of today’s micro-economics, and plunge into the worlds that are not yet explained by economics, and particularly micro-economics, of which there are so many.

On another front, for social policy science, the race to start the race is on. A series of research programs are needed, in fact, for health outcomes and food/exercise choices, for marriage and relationship behaviors, for parental decision-making, for decision-making that leads to savings-versus-spending, saving-for-this-or-that, or spending-for-this-or-that, and so forth. So far, only attitudes are being measured, for and against public welfare in general, or this or that. This is not satisfactory, not at all. Hence, the kick off to new beginnings in social policy science, and hopefully also micro-economics, and behavioral sciences in general, is on. While this book in the first part is concentrating on the micro-economic world, its latter parts also move into the micro-social-policy world. The latter two papers are also shifting the focus to grander scale influences and factors, that yet are fundamental, utterly crucial and fully causal for the making, steering and all kinds of reasoning/justifications given for a myriad of different types of personal, market, non-market (public/governmental) behavior, in a sheer endless number of situations, plus their conditions and environmental factors. The last paper, thus, is in a Foucauldian manner playing both in the arena of microbehavioral science and that of macro-social-science. It is both micro-social-policy and macro-social-policy, all in one. Maybe, to begin with, the distinction between the two—and leaving out the micro-micro level, the meso-level and the meta-level, plus any integrative perspective thereof—is a not too smart a move anyway, i.e. it was not for economics, at least in terms of curriculum design of university and college courses. While this has been said, it needs to be pointed out right out front that the theory of Super Inequality is a meta theory, a macro theory, as well as a meso theory, a micro and micro-micro theory.

Escaping Singularity and Dehumanizing Inequalities In this book we are building a universal theory (cf Steiner, 1988)—the theory of Super Inequality—a bit more like the kind—but not fully the way—Albert Einstein and Carl Gustav Jung have had in mind when they wondered about the existence of a theory of everything, that combines physics, psychology, the universe and the human mind, and all things per se (cf Shields, Simpson and Banks, 2019).

The Journey Has Begun

9

Full equality could be compared to e.g. a state of singularity in physics, where time and space have disappeared, when all differences have disappeared, like on the inside of a black hole, a white hole, or a grey hole, or when/if energy would be dispersed evenly (exactly even) throughout the universe, or matter and anti-matter would be the ‘exactly’ same, i.e. distributed evenly, and hence eat and vanish one another. Inequality is good,1 as long as it is not causing dehumanizing qualities and dehumanizing conditions. Hence, certain degrees and certain kinds of inequalities are good, and not all inequalities. Essential inequalities are good, as we need them to be alive, to be human, to exist and be able to compare one’s own progress (or regress, etc.) in one’s live, from the present into one’s past, and when we would like to (and have to, as in science) compare one’s performance, or the performance (outcomes) of this or that, the results of this or that decision, decision-making institution, as well as this or that cultural, social, political, legal, administrative, economic, financial institution. Dehumanizing inequalities (the opposite of essential inequalities) are bad, very bad and outright evil. Equality—i.e. ‘perfect’ equality, in a mathematical/physics kind of sense—can never and should never be achieved, for the sake of not arriving at a point of singularity, a point of meaninglessness. Just imagine, every author writes the same book, every person on earth is writing one and the same book, composing one and the same song. It is a nightmare of science-fiction-proportion. A Star-Wars-troopers kind of scenario.

The Journey Has Begun The project of the Theory of Super Inequality has just begun. Later, it will have a life of its own. There should (and hopefully will) be a trade theory of super inequality, as the current version of trade theory—the Ricardo, Leontief, and Hekscher-Ohlin models—is (to use Vernon L. Smith’s word) ‘incomplete’ (V. Smith, 1991). There should be perhaps a psychological theory of super inequality, that explains all, including sexuality and gender, personalities, life-time choices, life-time changes, psychological and spiritual aging, and so forth. There may or may not be a chance for super inequality to play a role in physics or mathematics. Let time tell the tale, down the years and centuries ahead of us. Our journey here, that led to this book, started with one publication in the year 1966, by Harvey Leibenstein, who theorized the performance shortfalls of companies, in terms of output (profit/sales/etc.) achieved. Leibenstein differentiated Xefficiency from allocative efficiency. The first being efficiency of companies (people inside companies, and the organization of the company as a consequence thereof), and the latter, allocative efficiency, referred to actually achieved levels of efficiency 1

Diversity is good, so inequality is good. ‘Equality of rights’ is all too often mixed up and confused with ‘full (100 percent/perfect) equality,’ which is ‘singularity’ of Maoist proportions.

10

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

in economy, in society. X-efficiency in firms, thus, is potential efficiency minus inefficiencies caused by shortcomings of various kinds (which he analyzed by grouping them, i.e. partitioning them, cf Leibenstein and Maital, 1992). Leibenstein’s project was the firm, and micro-economics and behavioral economics exclusively. Hence, he abstained from, perhaps necessarily (in order to focus, and achieve his goal/s), incorporating the macro world, large systems like government bureaucracies, or linguistic and cultural realms. Well, his later success, surely, suggests he did it right. But, one wonders, if he could have done more. The same holds for Niklas Luhmann, as he stayed away from psychology and the human mind, what happens inside of it, entirely and excluded them through the definition of communication he used. The one he chose to use, was social communication, i.e. communication necessarily between people. In both instances, once the choice of the subject under scrutiny and/or its fundamental elements one chose to investigate had been chosen, the course of their research and the course of their research outcomes was set in motion, like a train following the rails in front of it. What motivated the author to expand, early on, the theory of Luhmann to also include the mind, psychology, the dreams, feelings and ideas in oneself? Most likely, this is to be credited to the theory of Buddhist psychology, i.e. the teachings of Tich Nath Hanh, in Plum Village (southern France) in the summer of 1993, which happened to be around the time of the author’s first contact with Luhmann’s theory of social systems, or better Luhmann’s theory of social communication (cf Hanh, 1993, 2015a,b; Luhmann, 1984, 1997). That summer hence has proven to be lucky for this book here indeed, because a theory like that of Niklas Luhmann (the original version thereof, his version) would only work in e.g. sociology (or management science, or computer science), but not in a behavioral science, not in psychology, not in behavioral economics, and not in behavioral social policy.

Towards a General Theory of Human Action Thanks to have been able to be working on the papers in this book, the author has come to appreciate ever more the diversity and complexity of human action, their thoughts, feelings, notions, behavior, and, of course, their limitations. These limitations are not instituted randomly, or by a giant flaw in design, but they are responsible for the very essence of human nature, human identity, and human ways of living. Humans hence without limitations would not be humans. These limitations themselves, however, are either unequal, i.e. essentially unequal, or overtly unnecessarily unequal. And it is the latter that concerns us, in social policy, and (it should as well) in economics. The limitations are often choices themselves, choices of human behavior in private affairs, or in public office or government administration.

However, the majority—and this is the core thesis of both the Theory of ZEfficiency and the Theory of Super Inequality—of these limitations are the outcome

Towards a General Theory of Human Action

11

of systemic barriers over and over, century upon century, generation upon generation, year upon year, one month after the other. Barriers to the human condition, as a result, are manifold. Some are self-made, be it self-inflicted or self-chosen. The vast majority, so goes the central thesis of Z-Efficiency and Super Inequality theories, of these limitations/barriers/restrictions/exclusions are not the outcome of choice, but are the result of systemic forces, and to theorize them, we need the theory, and analytical power, of Michel Foucault (1975).

As it was Foucault who found out that not only power matters to the utmost (as Rothschild did in 1971), but that in addition, and more importantly, the invisible forces of ‘power relations’ matter even more (i.e. if one does not look and analyze them then they, power relations, are invisible). These power relations not only coordinate, keep in place and perpetuate themselves and each other, but also build, push and extend their own depth and reach. What is their driving engine? The elites. The power elites, as it are them (when we proceed here like in a crime scene investigation, as we definitely have to) who benefit from these unnecessarily (unessentially) uneven power relations, the suppression of the 85 percent of society by a fraction of one percent, with the help of 14 plus, or so, percent. Foucault did more than pointing out the culprit. He understood the unwritten, tangible and especially intangible, ways how these power relations, for the cause of the perpetual betterment of the less than a percent of the population, are exerting their powers, as we carry these power relations in us, in our mind.

We carry them with us in form of life experience, our memories, wants, fears, hopes, hopelessness, happiness, lack of happiness, isolation, discrimination, and so forth. These are reenacted each time when we recall them, or a similar or related event or experience occurs, or we are worried that it might occur again. Thus, any general theory of human action, in social policy, in sociology, the same as in economics, must include psychology! Excluding it is like excluding the egg yolk from the egg.

Furthermore, history, culture and the workings of social fabrics and institutions, are of course also more than monumental, they are essential, indisputably necessary to really (and not pretentiously, or in a convincing manner) explain and really understand (wahrheitsgetreu zu erklären und wahrhaftig zu verstehen) major aspects of human action, their systemic interactions, their systemic non-actions, their limitations and disadvantages, their potentials and advantages. For a general theory of human action (no matter which) to run solely, or for the very most part, on rational thinking and rational logic (of a hypothetical homo economicus), a great deal of reductionism must be at work. And if it runs, it runs only in theory, or in a specially-arranged classroom settings amongst the equally powerless and equally life-experience-excluded, amongst the equally deprived from real economic factors (like guanxi with political parties, government departments, the media, etc.), amongst the equally inexperienced in paying the brunt of tax load and social security financing plus concurrent relationship and parenthood (and beyond) responsibilities. In other words, this kind of general theory of human action would run

12

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

only perfectly on the moon, where there are no governmental, judicial, historical, cultural, social and relationship factors at work. To be sure, rationality and rational thinking play a big part in all, again and again, but not all the time, and most of the times they have given way to habits, stereotypes (cf Hayek, 1952), economic reductionism of actors, their laziness and confusion, as well as feelings, notions and memories that have been implanted over their lifetime (especially in early childhood, cf Vygotsky, 1978) and nurtured and reedited all along. Rational thinking is but one major factor in most social and economic action. Most people—that are perfectly capable e.g. in a class-room experimental situation to think rationally—abstain doing so for most of the time, for lots of reasons in real-life, street-level or home-level decision-making situations (this we can call the classroom paradox in experimental economics). Most people, most of the time, do not see the need to think fully rational, as (i) they just react naturally or in a reflexive manner, (ii) they just copy or are influenced in one form or the other by their peers, neighbors and role models that are transmitted through life experience in their lifeworld (cf Habermas, 1981; as well as especially Vygotsky, 1978), that includes the media and social media in particular (as they have a leveraging effect in more than one way). In the real world—if one (the researcher, or observer) looks for it—one can see that an astonishing great number of others yet again may think they think rationally, but actually they just do what other people do and think what others think, or do and think what they think is socially desirable or what is demanded from them, or what they are being nudged (pushed) into thinking and doing, or what they do, because they simply have no other option/choice (no extra money, legal or personal option, etc.). Gary S. Becker (1962, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1983, 1992) was right to look for, and was right that there is, rational thinking in lots of social affairs and social realms. But it is the problem of the researcher in general, to go out and look for something and finding just that what the researcher was looking for (in this case to justify and legitimize rational choice theory in economics), and thereafter to conclude that since the thesis or theory has been proven or supported (in any way) by exactly those empirical findings (or data) found that all other factors are non-valid, non-worth looking for and not worth being tested at all. It is like to go out and look for chicken eggs in all major farms, and finding lots of chicken eggs in a lot of different kinds of farms, and to come afterwards to the conclusion that all farmers are only motivated and influenced by their chickens, and their wealth depends for the very most part, if not solely, on the health of their chickens, the number of eggs they lay, and the average size thereof. It is good to distance, as an observer, oneself time and again from the process of observing, and from the observed. One can use analogies, or thought experiments, and metaphors alike, in doing so. In the words of yet another Nobel Prize winner in economics, Gunnar Myrdal: Facts do not organize themselves into concepts and theories just by being looked at; indeed, except within the framework of concepts and theories, there are no scientific facts but only chaos. There is an inescapable a priori element in all scientific work. Questions must be

Towards a General Theory of Human Action

13

asked before answers can be given. The questions are all expressions of our interest in the world; they are at bottom valuations. Valuations are thus necessarily involved already at the stage we observe facts and carry on theoretical analysis, and not only at the stage when we draw political inferences from facts and valuation. (Myrdal, 1965: ix–xvi)

Another economist, Max Weber (he himself did not refer to himself as a sociologist, but as a political economist or historical economist, cf e.g. Engerman, 2000), understood rationality (the process of it) to be crucial for the development of most of his lifework. Weber was perfectly clear about the fact that no science is absolutely objective (a 100 percent objective), as all words are culturally and linguistically defined, all ideas thus are also culturally and linguistically (and habitually) defined (cf Weber, 2012). It is for this reason that any definition that is using words, is also culturally, socially and linguistically biased. Further, any research question, or research program (in the Buchananian sense, Buchanan, 2003), therefore is also bound historically, culturally, socially, personal-life-experience-wise and linguistically—just like rationality and any rational process themselves. The same applies to each time, when we use words to interpret empirical evidence and form the findings and conclusions we put forward. It is hence important to keep in mind, and to remind oneself, that we are always products of our own life story, our own life context (the life-experience within our lifeworld, over our lifetime), our own cultural and linguistic background, as well as our academic/scientific context. This includes also the science one is working in or on, the dominant theories and theorists within it or one has to deal with in any review process, or debate after the publication of one’s work, etc., including promotional requirements/preferences of one’s own university or universities in general, and their hiring practices and preferences—one just needs to look at the life stories of e.g. Max Weber, or Ludwig von Mises, to get the gist of this kind of greatly determining contextual influences and dilemmas (cf also Van Kersbergen and Vis, 2015). Therefore, it is exceptionally important to read, and let sink in, Max Weber’s words: Empirical reality is ‘culture’ for us because, and to the extent that, we relate it to value ideas; it comprises those, and only those, elements of reality that acquire significance for us because of that relation. Only a tiny part of the individual reality that we observe at a given time is coloured by our interest, which is conditioned by those value ideas, and that part alone has significance for us; it has significance because certain of its relations are important to us by virtue of their connection to value ideas. Only for this reason, and to this extent, it is worth knowing for us in its distinctive individual character. And it is obvious that what has significance for us cannot be ascertained by some ‘presuppositionless’ inquiry into the given empirical [reality]; on the contrary: the precondition of something becoming an object of inquiry [or not] is that we have already determined [that it has significance for us, or not]. (Weber, 2012: 116)

Any observation in any science, for this reason, cannot take place independent of human judgment (Morrison, 2006: 335; Myrdal, 1965, 1969; Weber, 2012; Rickert, 1986). To be sure, as Gunnar Myrdal noted, across all fields of sciences there is an implicit belief that “the body of scientific knowledge [is] acquired independently

14

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

of all valuations” which amounts to nothing else than “naïve empiricism” (Myrdal, 1969: 9). Thus, we here in this book, for the purpose of advancing behavioral social sciences, social policy and economics alike, face a twofold problem. First, in general there is the problem of decision-making foundations and its causal factors in human beings, and second there is the problem of subjectivity of science itself, whenever it uses language, or interprets language and numerical data as well. For the latter, one always needs to circle back to that thought, in periodical manner, to try to make sure that this is not an interfering issue at one’s particular work, or one’s life mission with one’s scientific works. The former needs always more attention than one probably can do justice to it. That is the good part. It is good that not everything is laid out written in front of oneself. A researcher may not be much of a researcher, if all the answers are given already. This is the quest of science and research undertakings of all kinds, also the one with this book at hand, and the research program it tries to set up, of developing behavioral social policy science, and on top (if possible) contribute to behavioral economics or psychology, or philosophy, a bit here and there (possibly, that is). That is indeed the fascinating part of behavioral science, its full-out complexity, and interconnectivity, plus the endless reservoir of explanatory and normative challenges possible and tangible. For this, it is always worthwhile to keep in mind the salience of it all, our quest to venture into behavioral science, for mainstream economics and mainstream social policy the same. While not being able to speak for all social policy scientists, or all economists for that matter, the author can only touch upon his very own motivation, of which there are many. In sum, it is human suffering, unnecessary human suffering. As well as, in particular, the shortcomings in government administration, due to bureaucratization and digitalization of society, as well as shortcomings in terms of dominant culture, due to applied government systems and dominant groups within social systems, as well as their power relations to one another and from one group (the elites) to all other groups and individuals alike. These can be measured—as we all live on earth (and not on the moon, or right behind a distant black hole)—and thus must be measured. There must be lots and lots of empirical analyses of human behavior and its causal and interfering factors in people’s private lives, over their life-times, in association and exchange (communication) with other people, as well as on their job—in their firm, or in their position as government bureaucrat or government official. Harvey Leibenstein (1966), among others (but particularly him), has shown the way. Theory and empirical measurement can and should, and must, go hand in hand. Any development towards more empirical analysis and the emergence of empirically founded theories (not classroom-experiment-founded theories, but theories based on real life experience on the street, in the family, in the supermarket, on the stock market, in the health care and long-term care sector, etc.) are the ones that are the most beneficial for its home (hosting) science, be it economics or social policy science.

On Foucauldian War Chariots and Rothschildian Javelins

15

On Foucauldian War Chariots and Rothschildian Javelins We in the latter part of this book will make the transition from Leibenstein’s perspective of the individual and its behavior in society, in the firm, or in the economy and society at large to grand societal causal forces, in explaining large, historical and global-wide, problems, the key problems of our times: systemic inequality and systemic poverty, and with it systemic discrimination and systemic social exclusion. With a Nietzschean/Foucauldian perspective, the last main chapter of the book will break into the dimensions of history, culture, language, as well as e.g. discrimination based on education, geographical/socio-economic residence and origin, ethnicity and sexuality. As these macro forces are the ones that have the power to either turn our private/individual ‘lifeworlds’ (Lebenswelten, see Habermas, 1981) upside down, or turn them into a prison of no escape being destined to misery, disadvantage, and despair. These macro forces are, on top of individual choices (selfish choices, as public choice theory predicts and rightfully demonstrates) of government officials, bureaucrats and administrators, also chiefly determining not only government policies and non-policies (non-action of all kinds, non-reform of ill-fated conditions and systems, non-reaction to social crises, or relative belated, non-effective or lighthearted/superfluous/pretentious reactions, etc.), but also national conditions and the societal human condition, i.e. social and economic outcomes of all kinds. The (Foucauldian) power relations we will talk about and theorize with in the latter part of this book constitute the war chariots of the aggressive campaign that is called elite capitalism (or political capitalism, see Holcombe, 2018, 2021, 2022). The (Rothschildian) javelins—that are relentlessly thrown from these war chariots— are the power inequalities themselves and the therefrom resulting mechanisms. They include first and foremost: 1. inflation, i.e. income devaluation and social security devaluation, food inflation, housing inflation, etc. (cf Aspalter, 2023), 2. the inequality of free money for the rich and no access to finance for the poor (cf Huang et al., 2021), 3. the taxing system plus the social security system that tax the poor and near poor into poverty and lock them into poverty (cf Aspalter, 2023; McMurty, 2009), 4. media and education dominance by the super-super-rich (cf HR, 2022; Herman and Chomsky, 2002; Chomsky, 2002a,b), and that in addition to 5. appalling levels of income inequality (Piketty and Saez, 2003), 6. and yet more dreadful levels of wealth inequality (Alvaredo et al., 2013; Piketty, 2014; Saez and Zucman, 2014; OWD, 2022), and 7. other (traditional) power inequalities of all kinds (cf Rothschild, 1971). The Foucauldian war chariots of historical-cum-cultural-cum-linguistic forces themselves invent, breed, and sustain Rothschildian javelines that run normal people into the wall, while their attempts to escape poverty are broken before they are even envisioned and attempted.

16

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

This is so, as the rules of the game are atrociously and impertinently twisted to begin with, hiding in vails of complexity, especially also featuring multi-layeredness and/or multiple stages and systems, ensuring gradual long-term financial and psychological exhaustion and high risks/incidence of sudden plunges into poverty at the same time, for the ordinary citizen, the 85 percent.

Super Billionaires Having Fun While Millions of Children Die of Malnutrition Every Year Today, and not for the first time in history, there is appalling income inequality of the top managers of elite capitalism—with many millions in bonuses that they decide for themselves, also in times of catastrophic economic failures of their companies (see e.g. Bank of America, etc. during and after the 2008 financial crisis, cf e.g. Bernard, 2009)—versus the back-breaking hunger-wage jobs of the poor and the super poor all across the world. There is one percent of the world’s population, the super wealthy, that own about half of all property on earth (Credit Suisse, 2022), while there is about 40 percent that either have slavery-inducing and slavery-sustaining depts and/or no property, no house, to call their own, to use to shelter their children, their elders, and loved ones, no land to plant their seeds and raise their chicken, to feed themselves and their families. Appalling inequality is serfdom! Serfdom by the majority for a tiny class of supersuper-rich (the 0.1 percent or maximum 0.3 percent, rather than 1 percent, cf Saez and Zucman, 2014)! This does not have to be. It is very ok to own a large family hotel, a small family bakery chain, even in expensive neighborhoods, it is ok to have lots of savings for oneself and for the whole of one’s family. It is not ok to horde dozens or hundreds of billions of US dollars or Euros, and to keeping on extracting ever more billions from the earth’s people (directly or indirectly, through the stock market or property markets, this does not matter). Why? Because many millions of children die of malnutrition every year (WHN, 2018). Economics and social policy—their theories, their experts—are not capable (out of choice) and not willing, respectively, to explain this and many other horrible problems of human civilization, the real-life human condition of today! And, economics and social policy as scientific disciplines are not capable and not willing, again respectively, to remedy the very same, once and for all, immediately, and sustainably!

References

17

About Tiny Wobbly Boats: By Way of Conclusion Of course, this is a general point of view, there are great economists, like Thomas Piketty and his colleagues who care and who actually do theoretical and empirical research (Piketty and Saez, 2003, 2012; Alvaredo et al., 2013; Piketty and Zucman, 2014; Saez and Zucman, 2014; Piketty, 2014), and who stay away from vacuous, pretentious formulas and religion-like models and theories. There are a great number of social policy scientists that are working on different aspects of normative social policy. But, seen as whole, from high above, from a satellite’s perspective from high above the earth looking down on the spinning earth underneath from an eye-opening distance, these economists and social policy scientists are a small minority facing an overbearing majority of day-to-day economics and day-to-day social policy that are occupied about who is getting quoted how often, and who can control what is getting published, and hence what students of the world have to learn for their final exams, more than the existential fear and despair, and the problems of the families of the Poor South and the poor families amidst the rich cities and rich countries of our earth. These normative and compassion-oriented economists and social policy scientists are like tiny wobbling boats in the middle of an ignorant, reckless, ruthless and brutal ocean called humanity, which is in turn being beaten and pushed by giant storm system, that is, elite capitalism (cf Holcombe, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2022; Piketty, 2014, 2020; Mohan, 1987, 1992, 1993, 2007, 2011; as well as Herman and Chomsky, 2002; Chomsky, 2002a,b; Han, 2015, 2017). For any overtly expecting reader it needs to be stressed once more that in the following the book will be limiting itself to the realm of explanatory theory, due to space constraints on the one hand, and due to the fact that the author has just recently produced several works on normative social policy science (cf e.g. Aspalter and Teguh-Pribadi, 2017; Aspalter et al., 2017; and especially Aspalter, 2023).

References Aspalter, Christian (2018), Engineering the Pursuit of Happiness: How Social Policy Can Influence Behavior to Reduce Mortality Rates Due to Non-Communicable Diseases (or Modern Mass Diseases), https://papers.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2020), Healthy Aging, in: D. Gu and M.E. Dupre (eds.), Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging, Springer: New York. Aspalter, Christian (2021), Developmental Social Policy and Active Aging with High Quality of Life, in: F. Rojo-Pérez and G. Fernández-Mayoralas (eds.), Handbook of Active Aging and Quality of Life: From Concepts to Applications, Spanish National Research Council, Government of Spain, Springer Verlag: Berlin. Aspalter, Christian (2022), The Genealogy of the Welfare State, working manuscript. Aspalter, Christian (2023), Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Global Data Analysis, Springer: Cham.

18

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Aspalter, Christian and Teguh-Pripadi, Kenny (eds.) (2017), Development and Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian, with Teguh-Pripadi, Kenny and Gauld, Robin (eds.) (2017), Health Care Systems in Developing Countries in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Alvaredo, Facundo; Atkinson, Anthony B.; Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel (2013), The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3): 3–20. Backes, Uwe and Kailitz, Steffen (eds.) (2013), Ideokratien im Vergleich: Legitimation–Kooptation– Repression, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen. Bauböck, Rainer (2008), Normative Political Theory and Empirical Research, in: D. Porta and M. Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Becker, Gary S. (1957), The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Becker, Gary S. (1962), Investment in Human Capital, Journal of Political Economy, 70(5): 11–13. Becker, Gary S. (1968), Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, The Journal of Political Economy, 76: 169–217. Becker, Gary S. (1974), A Theory of Social Interactions, Journal of Political Economy, 82(6): 1063–1093. Becker, Gary S. (1976), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Becker, Gary S. (1981), A Treatise on the Family, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Becker, Gary S. (1983), A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371–400. Becker, Gary S. (1992), The Economic Way of Looking at Life, Nobel Prize Lecture, Nobel Prize in Economics Documents, 1992-1, Nobel Prize Committee. Bernard, Stephen (2009), Bailed-Out Banks Gave Millions in Exec Bonuses, NY AG Report Shows, ABC News, July 30, http://abcnews.go.com/ Brennan, Morgan (2021), Richard Branson Becomes First Billionaire to Fly to Space on Own Craft, CNBC, July 12, http://cnbc.com/ Buchanan, James M. (2003), Public Choice: The Origins and Development of a Research Program, https://sb.cofc.edu/centers/publicchoice/. Chomsky, Noam (1987), On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures, South End Press: Boston. Chomsky, Noam (2002a), Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (ed. by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel) (2002b), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, New Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (2004), Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Holt: New York. Chomsky, Noam (2017), Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power, Seven Stories Press: New York. Credit Suisse (2022), Global Wealth Data Book, Credit Suisse Research Institute, Zürich. Engerman, Stanley L. (2000), Max Weber as Economist and Economic Historian, in: S. Turner (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Weber, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1976), Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir, Volume 1, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (2010), The Government of Self and Others, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (ed. by F. Brion and B.E. Harcourt) (2014), Wrong-Doing and Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Senellart) (2009), Security, Territory, Population, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Fromm, Erich (1941), Escape from Freedom, Farrar & Rinehart: New York.

References

19

Gerschewski, Johannes (2013), The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Cooptation in Autocratic Regimes, Democratization, 20(1): 13–38. Gerschewski, Johannes (2023), The Two Logics of Autocratic Rule, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Goethe, Johann W. v. (1809), Die Wahlverwandtschaften, Cotta: Tübingen. Habermas, Jürgen (1981), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Volume 2, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Han, Byung-Chul (2015), The Burnout Society, Stanford Briefs: Redwood. Han, Byung-Chul (2017), Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, Verso: London. Hanh, Tich Nhat (1993), Series of Teaching Sessions, Summer, Plum Village, France. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015a), The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation, Harmony: New York. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015b), No Mud, No Lotus: The Art of Transforming Suffering, Parallax Press: Berkeley. Hayek, Friedrich A. v. (1952), The Sensory Order, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam (2002), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon: New York. Holcombe, Randall G. (2013), Producing Prosperity: An Inquiry into the Operation of the Market Process, Routledge: Oxon. Holcombe, Randall G. (2015), Political Capitalism, Cato Journal, 35(1): 41–66. Holcombe, Randall G. (2018), Political Capitalism: How Political Influence Is Made and Maintained, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Holcombe, Randall G. (2021), Elite Influence on General Political Preferences, Journal of Government and Economics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2021.100021. Holcombe, Randall G. (2022), Capitalism, Cronyism, and Inequality, in: G. P. Manish and S. C. Miller (eds.), Capitalism and Inequality: The Role of State and Market, Routledge: Oxon. HR, The Herland Report (2022), Forget Politicians: The Super-Rich Control Everything Now, The Herland Report, July 14, https://hannenabintuherland.com/financialcrisis/. Huang, Jin; Sherraden, Margaret S., and Sherraden, Michael (2021), Toward Finance as a Public Good, CSD Working Paper, No. 21-03, Center for Social Development, Washington University, https://doi.org/10.7936/p8dd-p256. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2019), Classical Economics: Lost and Found, https://www. researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2020a), The Classical Theory of Supply and Demand, www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2020b), Classical Versus Neoclassical Equilibrium Discovery Processes in Market Supply and Demand Theory, https://www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2021), A Classical Model of Speculative Asset Price Dynamics, https://www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2022), Perishable Goods Versus Re-Tradable Assets: A Theoretical Reappraisal of a Fundamental Dichotomy, in: S. Füllbrunn and E. Haruvy (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Kaldor, Nicholas (1966), Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Kautsky, Karl (1918), Die Diktatur des Proletariats, Ignaz Brand: Vienna. Keynes, John Maynard (1926), The End of Laissez-Faire, Hogarth Press: London. Keynes, John Maynard (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan: London. Kirchgässner, Gebhard (2008), Homo Oeconomicus: The Economic Model of Behaviour and Its Applications to Economics and Other Social Sciences, Springer: New York. Leibenstein, Harvey (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392–415.

20

1 The Fascinating World of Human Action: An Introduction

Leibenstein, Harvey and Maital, Shlomo (1992), Empirical Estimation and Partitioning of X-Inefficiency, The American Economic Review, 82(2): 429–433. Leontief, Wassily (2019), Essays in Economics: Theories, Theorizing, Facts, and Policies, Routledge: London. Luhmann, Niklas (1984), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. McMurty, John (2009), Taxation and Poverty: Injustice Built into Our Tax System Hurts Poor the Most, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, https://policyalternatives.ca/. Menger, Carl (1871), Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre, Wilhelm Braumüller: Vienna. Menger, Carl (1994), Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, Elgar: Aldershot. Menzel, Adolf (1927), Friedrich Wieser als Soziologe, Julius Springer: Vienna. Millan, Laura (2021), Climate Change Linked to 5 Million Deaths a Year, New Study Shows, Bloomberg, July 8, https://bloomberg.com. Mohan, Brij (1987), Denial of Existence: Essays on the Human Condition, C.C. Thomas: Springfield. Mohan, Brij (1992), Global Development: Post-Material Values and Social Praxis, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (1993), Eclipse of Freedom: The World of Oppression, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (2007), Fallacies of Development: Crises of Human and Social Development, Atlantic: New Delhi. Mohan, Brij (2011), Development, Poverty of Culture, and Social Policy, Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Morrison, Ken (2006), Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, Sage: London. Myrdal, Gunnar (1965), The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Myrdal, Gunnar (1969), Objectivity in Social Research, Pantheon: New York. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (2008) [1878], Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire. OWD, Our World in Data (2022), Website, https://ourworldindata.org/. Piketty, Thomas (2014) [2013], Capital in the Twenty-First Century, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas (2020), Capital and Ideology, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel (2003), Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1): 1–41. Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel (2012), A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation, NBER Working Papers, No. 17989, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington D.C. Piketty, Thomas, and Zucman, Gabriel (2014), Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700-2010, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3): 1255–1310. Rickert, Heinrich (1986) [1896], The Limits to Concept Formation in the Natural Sciences, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1947), Price Theory and Oligopoly, Economic Journal, 57(227): 299–320. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1954), The Theory of Wages, Blackwell: Oxford. Rothschild, Kurt W. (ed.) (1971), Power in Economics, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1981), Einführung in die Ungleichgewichtstheorie, Springer: Berlin. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1993), Employment, Wages and Income Distribution: Critical Essays in Economics, Routledge: London. Rothschild, Kurt W. (2022), Website, www.kurt-rothschild.at/en/life/biography. Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel (2014), Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data, NBER Working Paper, No. 20625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington D.C. Shields, Hugh; Simpson, Stephen and Banks, Leigh (2019), Einstein, Jung and the Theory of Everything, Library X: London.

References

21

Smith, Adam (1759), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, A. Millar: Edinburgh. Smith, Adam (1937) [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Modern Library: New York. Smith, Vernon L. (1989), Theory, Experiment, and Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 151–169. Smith, Vernon L. (1991), Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, Journal of Political Economy, 99(4): 877–897. Smith, Vernon L. (1992), Papers in Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smith, Vernon L. (2000), Bargaining and Market Behavior: Essays in Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smith, Vernon L. and Wilson, Bart J. (2019), Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Steiner, Elizabeth (1988), Methodology of Theory Building, Educology Research Associates: Sydney. Thaler, Richard H. (2015), Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, Audible Studios: Houston. Thirlwall, Anthony P. (1987), Nicholas Kaldor, New York University Press: New York. Tilly, Charles (1984), Demographic Origins of the European Proletariat, in: D. Levine (ed.), Proletarianization and Family Life, Academic: Orlando. Tilly, Charles (1998), Durable Inequality, University of California Press: Berkeley. Tilly, Charles (2000), Relational Studies of Inequality, Contemporary Sociology, 29(6): 782–785. Tilly, Charles (2001), Relational Origins of Inequality, Anthropological Theory, 1(3): 355–372. Tilly, Charles (2003), Changing Forms of Inequality, Sociological Theory, 21(1): 31–36. Van Kersbergen, Kees and Vis, Barbara (2015), Three Worlds’ Typology: Moving Beyond Normal Science? Journal of European Social Policy, 25(1): 111–123. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Wattles, Jackie (2022), 2021: The Year of Space Tourism, CNN, January 3, http://amp.cnn.com/. Weber, Max (2012), The “Objectivity” of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy, in: H.H. Bruun and S. Whimster (eds.), Max Weber, Routledge: London. Weber, Max (2019), Open and Closed Relationships, in: D.B. Grusky (ed.), Social Stratification, Routledge: New York. WHN, World Hunger News (2018), World Child Hunger Facts, World Hunger News, www.worldh unger.org. Wicksell, Knut (1893), Über Wert, Kapital und Rente nach den neueren nationalökonomischen Theorien, Fischer: Jena. Wicksell, Knut (1896), Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen, Fischer: Jena. Wicksell, Knut (1898), Geldzins und Güterpreise, Fischer: Jena. Wicksell, Knut (1934), Lectures on Political Economy: General Theory, Volume 1, George Routledge and Sons: London. Wicksell, Knut (1935), Lectures on Political Economy: Money, Volume 2, George Routledge and Sons: London. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1910), Recht und Macht, Duncker und Humblot: Leipzig. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1914), Theorie der Gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft, Mohr: Tübingen. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1926), Das Gesetz der Macht, Springer: Vienna.

Chapter 2

The General Theory of Distorted Choices

In the world we live in today things are not often the way they seem, or they are meant to be, and what we are told they would be. Public choice theory, some decades ago, brought about a new reckoning and threw new spotlights onto what is really going on in politics, policymaking, governance and rank-and-file administrations (Buchanan and Tullock 1962; Buchanan 2003a; Tresch 2022). The field of economics was propelled by the public choice enterprise or research program of public choice theory as James M. Buchanan saw it (2003b). Just as Gary S. Becker’s research works formed and went on to develop a rather distinct offshoot of public choice theory (e.g. Becker 1957, 1962, 1964, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1983) by looking onto and explaining new topics that are of economic and social science interest, in the following, the author here would like to develop a new general stream of research works first of all in the area of behavioral social policy science, but also in general public choice theory on the one hand and general behavioral economics on the other. New topics, new perspectives and new factors to be included comprise e.g. systemic poverty, systemic inequality, welfare state inefficiencies, distorted social development, and distorted health development (cf e.g. Aspalter and Teguh-Pripadi 2017; Aspalter 2022, 2023a, b; Kim and Aspalter 2021; Midgley 1995, 1997). The purpose thereof is to unite these fields of research, in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary fashion. In contrast to Ludwig von Mises’s approach and intent in his book Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1998), as well as that of Niklas Luhmann’s (1984a, 1997, 2012) very own social system theory or theory of social communication, the author here purposefully intends, and has so in the past, to integrate psychology (human thinking, feelings, expectations, hopes, fears, dreams, plans, values, etc.) with praxeology (human action, or social action of any kind) (cf also e.g. Habermas 1987). The idea behind such a research enterprise is to explain things better than before (at least to aim and try doing so), i.e. to explain new areas and new aspects of human behavior, institutional behavior and general non-market behavior at the same time, with the help of a new integrated meta theory. Following the words of Mises, this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7_2

23

24

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

theory intends to serve “as a means of approaching an understanding of a continuously changing [as well as an ever more complex and ever more challenging] world” (Mises 1980: 231). James M. Buchanan himself in addition noted that “[t]he theory of public choice, as such, is or can be a wholly positive theory, wholly scientific and wertfrei in the standard meanings of these terms” (Buchanan 2009: 12). The author hence hopes that the following study may be perceived as such—scientific and therefore wertfrei, plus ideology-free—in its entirety. In order to match and hence cope with the complexity, varieties and circumstances of human behavior(s) at hand, “[we] need to study and to draw on many theories” (Kurt W. Rothschild, cited in King 2014: 25). In doing so, this book has grown out of and is built on a number of previous attempts to theorize private-cum-public choices and their subsequent actions. This study is firmly built on and from the paradigm-changing paper of Harvey Leibenstein Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency (1966). But rather than distinguishing allocative efficiency (in the market/economy) as separate from X-efficiency (in the firm), as Leibenstein did (1966, 1978a, b), we would like to offer a unified, a general theory of economic, social and public behavior (just because we can). In the same way as Leibenstein before (1966), we are also partitioning the overall gap between better private and public choices and outcomes (or the best choice/s and outcome/s available, or best choice/s and outcome/s achieved by a member of the research objects at hand) and the actual choices made, i.e. private or public actions set and outcomes achieved (cf Leibenstein and Maital 1992; Farrell 1957; as well as Aspalter 2021a). We are in the following, partitioning the overall factors that lead to all kinds of what we may call ‘distorted’ choices, be it (a) a private person choosing to watch a Formula 1 Grand Prix with a couple of cold beers on the side instead of taking one’s family for a hiking tour to a nearby hill or mountain, or (b) top government officials choosing unfunded social insurance systems that trigger lots of unwanted side-effects1 instead of funded provident fund systems that offer lots of positive sideeffects2 for ensuring (or attempting) to meet a country’s social security needs (for the current and the next generations). In doing so, the different major causes can be made visible theoretically, as well as subsequently measured empirically. The types of major causes presented below is 1

For example, societal fertility decline, crowding-out of private savings, subsidizing non-healthy lifestyle-choices, unjust redistributions of huge amounts of wealth from one family/person to another, low/no returns of investment (from both the perspective of social insurance agencies and the insured as well), no safety against inflation for ‘savings’ invested in social insurance, collapse of government finances, runaway taxation levels (including social security taxation/contributions), and so forth (Shen et al. 2020; Aspalter 2017a, 2021b; Kim and Aspalter 2021). 2 These positive side-effects of provident fund systems include especially e.g. higher rates of savings, lesser rates of unhealthy lifestyles and hence higher rates of healthy aging, lesser needs for health care and lesser needs for long-term care, lesser degree of taxation (mandatory social insurance contributions are nothing else than another form of taxation), no unjust redistributions from person to person and from family to family, stable government finances for generations to come, a higher propensity to work, and a higher propensity to have and raise children (Aspalter 2017b, 2021b; cf also Low and Aspalter 2003).

Basic Foundations of Any General Behavioral Theory: Starting …

25

not exhaustive (i.e. they do not present, or attempt to present, all causes and factors of human behavior, and perspectives thereof), nor are the entirely exclusive to one another (i.e. they are to some extent here and there overlapping). Each partitioning into four major parts, as shown below (Fig. 2.1a–d), serves as a dissection of an otherwise very complex and not very accessible “dark box” of human behavior, for better theoretical clarity and greater affinity to empirical realities on the ground. In the following, possibilities for fully maximizing behavior of compassionate, country-loving, folk-loving (self-less) government officials and administrators will be accounted for, in empirical studies and in theory-making, and never ever is perfectly maximizing behavior for the good of society, or for the good of the country precluded! Room for such behavior and cases has been reserved in theory making and needs to be allowed for in empirical data collection and subsequent hypothesis and/or theory testing. This point of view is fully in line with Leibenstein and Maital’s (1992) explanation of how X-Efficiency (or as in our case below X-Inequality) really works. In other words, we may call this the Mahatma Gandhi element of public choice theory. That is to say, while utterly selfless people like Mahatma Gandhi do exist, they do not represent, in the Weberian sense, the ideal–typical government official, the ideal–typical government administrator or judge. Ideal here does not refer to perfect. It in the Weberian sense of the term simply stands for matching (for the most part) a pre-set composition of characteristics and assumptions—nothing less, nothing more (cf Aspalter 2020a). This has been expressively referred to by Leibenstein and Maital: X-efficiency is based on what has been termed the max/nonmax postulate, which allows for, but never precludes, maximizing behavior … [b]y assuming that at least some decisionmaking units [i.e. government officers/offices, elected politicians, judges] are successfully practicing [self-less, compassionate] maximization [of a country’s well-being, the well-being of all people, in a sustainable manner]. (Leibenstein and Maital 1992: 432)

Basic Foundations of Any General Behavioral Theory: Starting with the Concept of Rationality In economics, in general, it is assumed that most people are rational, but not all the time, and not all of them, for the most part that is (for mainstream rational choice theory cf Lewis and Dold 2020; Kirchgässner 2005, 2008; Lucas 1976; Smith 1776; Muth 1961; Simon 1955, 1957; Mises 1998 [1940/1949]; and for its critics cf Veblen 1953, 2006; Ginzburg 1958; Lunkenheimer et al. 2022).3 It is for this reason that e.g. Herbert Simon introduced the concept of bounded rationality, which is:

3

The origins of rationality as the most fundamental drive to economic and human action go back, first and foremost, to Adam Smith (1759, 1776), Vilfredo Pareto (1906), Ludwig von Mises (1940/ 1949), and Gary S. Becker (1976).

26

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

a Expected Utility (Net Satisfaction)

Action C = the seemingly better choice

Action B = the old/current choice or non-choice

Action A = the better choice

Actual Utility (Net Satisfaction)

b Short-Term Utility (Net Satisfaction)

Action C = the seemingly better choice

Action B = the old/current choice or non-choice

Action A = the better choice

Long-Term Utility (Net Satisfaction)

c Private Utility and/or Utility of Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups, Political Parties, Governmental Institutions and Departments, etc. (Net Satisfaction)

Action C = the seemingly better choice

Action B = the old/current choice or non-choice

Action A = the better choice

Utility in terms of Social Development and Social Well-Being, Economic and National Development (Net Satisfaction)

Fig. 2.1 a Wrong Preferences/Evaluation Due to Lack of/or Wrong Information (incl. knowledge/ education): The Expectation-Versus-Reality Gap (on personal and legislation/policy/administrative levels). b Wrong Preferences/Evaluation Due to Wrong Preferences of Immediate Outcomes over Long-Term (one’s life-time/or beyond one’s own time in public office) Outcomes: The ShortTerm-Long-Term Conundrum. c Wrong Preferences/Evaluation Due to Gap Between Self-Interests Versus Public/Social Interests: The Classical Public Choice Problem (the selfishness-instead-ofselflessness conundrum). d Wrong Preferences/Evaluation Due to Unequal Power Relations, OneSided/Distorted Power Usage and Lack of Absolute/ Relative Power: Distorted Personal and Public Choices Caused by Extreme Wealth and Power Inequalities

Basic Foundations of Any General Behavioral Theory: Starting …

27

d Inequality-Induced ‘Distorted’ Utility (Net Satisfaction)

Action C = the seemingly better choice

Action B = the old/current choice or non-choice

Action A = the better choice

‘Otherwise-Potential’ Utility (Net Satisfaction)

Fig. 2.1 (continued)

the kind of rational behavior that is compatible with the access to information and the computational capacities that are actually possessed by … [people], in the kinds of environments in which … [they] exist. (emphasis added, Simon 1955: 99)

The rationality paradigm in economic behavioral thinking has been explained by Brennan and Buchanan (2009) as being an abstraction, i.e. for the purpose of arriving a general understanding of how people act in the business world, and when it comes to their own economic affairs or equivalent affairs thereof (e.g. deciding to have and raise children, and investing in their education, while expecting children to care for and accompany oneself during old age; or marrying someone for the same reason, etc.). In the following, we are prepared to, and ought to, break out of these ‘narrowly defined canons of rationality’ as coined by Vernon L. Smith (Smith 2002, cf also Smith 2003, 2008, as well as Altmann 2005, 2011, 2017; Braun 2019). Any purely dichotomic, black-and-white depiction of human behavior across the board, in its entirety, is to be avoided if one wants to venture into the fabric of day-today lives of average and on-the-rim-of-society kind of people, across their lifetimes, including major choices like to marry or not to marry, and importantly whom and why, and to have children, when and how many, how to raise them, and where. Education and job choices, especially early on in one’s life are monumental in terms of subsequent lifetime consequences all the way. One of the most important choices yet may be the location of a house, as well as the location the town and city or country one wants and/or chooses (or is forced) to live in (cf Remington 2023). In addition, the place of residence also determines one’s education, job, leisure, shopping, and transportation infrastructure, as well as child care, health care and long-term care opportunities. As the goal of our research or scientific enterprise is to find a general theory for general problems (not for perfect logicians, or extreme personalities, extreme

28

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

behaviors, and extreme situations), we are aiming purposefully for a middle ground with a possibly widest application of this new theoretical spectrum (or perspective), in order to arrive at the strongest and widest salience thereof, for the majority of people, and for the majority of their daily and lifetime choices, be it at home, on their job, or in government office or administration. People are also altruistic, competitive, stubborn, ignorant, careless, frightened, passionate, social and loving—they are not only calculating their monetary advantages with every choice they take. Attitudes, ideologies, principles, and long-term practices are also forming the bedrock of any person’s, or any government institution’s, any policymaker’s, any government administrator’s ideas, ideals, notions, stereotypes, preferences, memories, aspirations, expectations, thoughts, feelings and thus choices and actions, day in and day out. Public choice theory has opened the door to the understanding of non-private, non-market choices, and very successfully so, in the past (cf. Wicksell 1896; Downs 1957, 1967; Parkinson 1962; Buchanan and Tullock 1962; Tullock 1965; Niskanen 1968, 1971, 1975, 1994; Buchanan and Wagner 1977; Wagner 2009; Holcombe 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022).

The Symbiotic Relationship Between the Science of Social Policy and Public Choice Theory When it comes to social policy, and welfare state system development or health care systems in general, key revelations and theories of public choice theory come in handy. In order to understand the empirical reality and the vast differences of efficiency and effectiveness levels of different welfare state systems, and welfare state models in general, and any or all subsystems thereof, the key postulate of public choice theory is that government officers and their departments, parties and their factions, government leaders and legislators are to a very large extent, if not for the very most part, acting on their own interest, for their own purposes. They are basically rational and selfish (or self-focused) at the same time. Leibenstein (1976) theorized a “dual personality consisting of the superego, and the id. The former seeks the maximum, the latter seeks the minimum satisficing solution. The push and pull of the two creates a balance between the two. Thaler and Shefrin (1981) referred to the two parts of the personality the ‘myopic doer’ and the ‘farsighted planner’. For Leibenstein the dual personality meant that homo economicus rationality is replaced by selective rationality whereby an individual is at times homo economicus and at other times less than fully rational.” (emphases added, Frantz 2018: 26)

Of course, people are also altruistic and emotional, and they also adhere to or are influenced by all sorts of ideologies, modes and legacies of practices, ways of thinking. They also suffer in general from lack of long-term views and perspectives in fully (i.e. to the fullest) evaluating their choices and all their subsequent wanted and unwanted outcomes (costs, opportunity costs, side effects, etc.). Lack of, and/or distorted/biased versions of, expert knowledge/education, as well as lack of theoretically guided comparative knowledge in the respective fields of

The Symbiotic Relationship Between the Science of Social Policy …

29

(social) science, are yet other limiting factors that prevent people to perform perfect logic, and hence perfectly informed choices, all the way. Energy-saving shortcuts in logic—e.g. stereotypes and perceptions (cf Hayek 1952)—are also essential in the daily, and thus lifetime, functioning in terms of human behavior. This really explains why the vast majority of welfare state systems around the world still stick to horrible social policy choices, such as asset- and means-tests (AMTs), even though already a long-time ago economists and now also social policy scientists have come to see the poverty-exacerbating, poverty-spreading and poverty-cementing effects of any social program that is based on or uses asset- and means-tests, including proxy asset- and meanstests. (Laffer 1984; Butler and Kondratas 1987; Bloomberg 2013; Landy 2013; Ferrara 2014; Altiraifi 2020; as well as Midgley and Aspalter 2017; Brady and Burroway 2012) Public choice theory also offers a strong explanatory foundation for unsustainability issues, and far-reaching and dreadful side-effects of mandatory social insurance systems, as well as mandatory private health insurance systems or mandatory private pension systems. (cf e.g. Aspalter 2017a, 2021b; Kim and Aspalter 2021; as well as Borzutzky and Hyde 2017; Yıldız 2021) General rational choice theory, on the other hand, also explains perfectly the rational choices taken by (forced onto) welfare recipients, sooner or later, when they face the problem of negative marginal income, or near-negative marginal income or generally crowded-out marginal incomes due to the aggregated effects of asset- and means-testing applied across all government departments and programs. Negative or crowded-out marginal incomes are the main reason for poverty traps in the wider sense: (a) the welfare trap in the narrow sense, (b) the savings trap and (c) the unemployment/underemployment trap. (cf Laffer 1984; Midgley and Aspalter 2017)

That is to say, there are numerous straits of learning that have yet to be kissed alive, between mainstream social policy science and mainstream micro-economics/ behavioral economics/public choice theory—that is, there are steep learning curves both ways that are yet to be fully taken advantage of. A greatly important field of study in social policy science are micro-economic effects of specific types of social policies and specific types (and sub-types) of social programs, in terms of incentive structures that are formed by way of financing mechanisms and benefit entitlement conditions. The author himself got a wakeup call from no one else than Gøsta Esping-Andersen many years back, who told that he was turning his attention to microeconomics at that time. He was the leading professor in the field of social policy (until he left it, according to his own words).4 Thus, there is certainly great deal of room for, need of, and interest in micro-economics out there among social policy scientists, and vice versa.

4

Based on private correspondence with Gøsta Esping-Andersen, over various years.

30

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding Government Activities (and Who Stand Behind All This) A few people, really, i.e. a few scientists and their theories, have in the past come to understand what modern capitalism is all about. Randall G. Holcombe (2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022), to note, was one of them. Some others came close, or very close. Holcombe noted that: In general, people can generate income for themselves in two ways: they can engage in productive activity, or they can appropriate the production of others. The alternatives are: production or predation. In primitive societies, and to a degree in all societies, predation is undertaken through simple theft. Predators see resources in the possession of others and use force to take them for themselves. Simple theft has several drawbacks. Second, if predators try to use simple theft as a continuing source of income, producers will cease to engage in productive activities, knowing that what they produce will just be taken from them. Finally, as a result of both of these factors, predators must move on to find new victims, which is a costly and uncertain activity. A better arrangement, from the standpoint of the predators, is to set up an institutional structure whereby they can continue to appropriate the productivity of a group of people while getting the agreement of the productive class and keeping those people productive[!]. (emphases added, Holcombe 2013: 133–134) Economic models of democratic decision-making assume that voters have preferences, and that candidates and parties adjust their platforms to conform to voter preferences. The direction of causation (mostly) runs in the other direction. Candidates and parties develop platforms and citizens adopt the policy preferences offered to them by the political elite. Elite influence over the policy preferences of the masses is facilitated because the political preferences of the masses are expressive preferences that have no instrumental effect. … citizens anchor their political preferences to a party, a candidate, or an ideology, and that anchor forms the individual’s political identity. Most policy preferences held by individuals then derive from those of their anchors. Citizens adopt the policy preferences of the political elite. (emphases added, Holcombe 2021)

Randall Holcombe, in his book Political Capitalism (2018), has referred to the lack of comparative research, and/or its failure in identifying political capitalism as a unique and distinct form of economic system. The left versus right discourse, also in terms of theory making and theory competition, and thus theory understanding, may be blamed for this.

After the fall of communism, capitalism has lifted to heroic and iconic status that by itself helped to blind research, economists and social scientists alike. Holcombe identifies the engines of rent seeking—i.e. predatory behavior—to be big capital and the super-super-rich elites who control the political elites.

Corporatism is an institution most people of the left adore, but which actually is responsible for low, cemented low wages over long periods of time. Wage increases to cover the loss of purchasing power due to inflation, again and again, if not sheer always, fall short of “real” (and full) inflation levels of the goods the working and middles classes really buy and need to buy to sustain their lives and that of their families. Over long periods of time, this is one of the chief reasons for excessively low and extremely low wages of the working and middle classes in most countries.

Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding …

31

Holcombe sees big capital as the pushing and controlling force behind corporatism.

In Austria, the model country of perfect (most complete) tri-partite corporatism, too, the capital side (the employers) are for the very most of times pulling the labor side over the table in negotiations, overall strategies applied, as well as policies and regulations set up.5 The essential nature of political capitalism, according to Holcombe (2018), is the dichotomy between the elites, which are present in all major political parties, and the rest of society, the masses. For Holcombe, the elite is benefiting two-fold from this system of political capitalism. First, it is benefiting from the close ties to one another amongst the super-super rich and the super-powerful, i.e. close ties of the privileged to the privileged. And, second, the burden (costs) for the cheap transaction costs (e.g. direct access to investments in the capital markets, e.g. hedge funds, etc., without having to pay a middleman or bank for access thereto, etc.) they have attained for one another, for transactions from one to another, are being shifted to the general public, the masses, the middle and working classes alike. The most essential part of political capitalism is the access and full-fledged ability to control patterns, layers, and complexities, as well of course most importantly content and form of all kinds of regulations, laws, fee settings, taxation rules and practices, and so forth (cf Holcombe 2018). Interesting indeed is the in some parts overlapping theoretical support for this very political-economy-oriented theory of Randall Holcombe (2013, 2018) from the sociology neck of the scientific woods. Rather than just supporting the accurate and near-all-telling theory of Holcombe, a number of sociologists have come to also extend the reach of its explanatory territory and capability. What Jürgen Habermas (1973) had called the legitimacy ‘problems’ of ‘late’ capitalism, was translated into English as being a legitimacy crisis of capitalism. On the other hand, Claus Offe (1972, 1984) debated contradictions of the welfare state in advanced capitalism that the state is not capable of managing them anymore (cf also Habermas 1984, 1986, 1988). While Habermas really was just calling out that capitalism in the third quarter of the twentieth century was running into problems, i.e. had problems to deal with, Offe’s analysis added to that in the way that Offe had 5

This insight stems from my labor law professor from the University of Linz in the late 1990s, she was on the labor’s side, a left-wing professor and political insider into Austria’s system of corporatism, the Sozialpartnerschaft. Sozialpartnerschaft literally meaning “social partnership.” But this is a partnership where, in essence, one partner is for the very most part pulling all the important strings, being equipped with the better-paid and hence better labor lawyers, and lets the other partner believe they also have a very strong say in things, by and large, here and there. Strike levels in Austria have been extremely low, child poverty/near-poverty is still very high at 18% (VH 2022), as salaries have been and are too low to make decent livings for the working classes in particular (so one may ask oneself, who was/is being served!). The “social partnership,” being so powerful as it is in Austria, however, is still highly regarded by the leading political parties, as it brings along a great amount of highly-paid jobs for both sides of the political aisle!; for more information on class domination by way of corporatism in Austria, cf Schmitter (1974: 107–108); and for general, descriptive accounts Katzenstein (1984), Pelinka (1998), Bischof and Pelinka (2020).

32

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

doubted that the state was capable of managing these very problems. Habermas, in 1986, carried on this line of critique of the state in general, and the welfare state in particular, to note that the Zeitgeist essentially has turned on the welfare state, and perhaps state intervention altogether. A very explicit and analytical description of the inner workings of political systems, and the democratic trap of the new welfare state, so to speak, is given in Luhmann (1990). To that, Korpi and Palme (1998) made an important addition in explaining how majority-based democracies either favor, or shy away from, a heavilydistributive welfare state, depending on the middle-class’ integration to or exclusion from welfare benefits and transfer payments/services of all kinds (education, social security included). This Korpi and Palme called the redistribution paradox. Habermas’ legitimacy problems thesis, hence, can be seen as a witness report of one of the great commentators of our times (at that time), rather than a theory in itself, or theory of capitalism and/or the welfare state per se. The amalgam of theory presented by Habermas (1981a, b) is the product of theories merged into one another, from various famous sociologists (George Herbert Mead, Émile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno), the most famous of all psychologist Sigmund Freund, and remnants/fragments of Karl Marx’s theories. Habermas, a the most famous representative of the Frankfurt School, has turned in general away from Karl Marx’s theory, and with it left behind the main problems of the working and middle classes, and the class system altogether. Yet, Habermas took from Marx the idea of Marx’s Internal Colonization Thesis, which was then translated/transformed into Habermas’ Colonization Thesis of the Lifeworld—i.e. the penetration and limitation of every person’s lifeworld by systems of government administration and the economy, and its principles and forms of logic or action imperatives (Krey 2002). And it is this theory, Habermas version of Marx’s Internal Colonization Thesis, i.e. Habermas’ much-acclaimed Colonization Thesis of the Lifeworld (1981b), that is super useful in demonstrating the main effects of ever-expanding and ever-more-capable government administrations (and taxations) and that of the economic-technical complex on a person’s lifeworld, a family’s lifeworld, or a community’s lifeworld.

In fact, when one looks closer, one can see logical glitches in Habermas’ works and especially also in his overall theory of communication or human action (cf Saiedi 1987; Jütten 2011; Studebaker 2014; Blau 2022; and perhaps most of all Karl Popper 1970)—where the boundaries of other theories (that have been merged or linked up) meet. Following the footsteps of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (1947), the incorporation of Freud’s theories into Habermas’ Gedankengebäude (theoretical complex/building) is rather intriguing, but stayed incomplete, with the continued and strengthened separation of Habermas’ own lifeworld concept and the social system theory of Habermas himself (cf 1981a, b). Habermas copied a lot from Theodor Adorno, his former teacher, who was a great fan of Sigmund Freud’s works (cf especially Freud 1921) and their meaning for development of society and sociology

Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding …

33

itself (e.g. the term ‘late capitalism’6 which Habermas used and brought him world fame also was borrowed from Adorno). Unfortunately, Niklas Luhmann—the main competitor of Habermas—abstained from conquering psychology, inner language, feelings and dreams of individuals. But, as cautious as Luhmann was, he preferred in this case (and in this perspective only) to be concise, and hence limited in reach, rather than being presumptuous, at that time, i.e. the time and research context when he was creating his theories (cf e.g. Rodger 2022). A post-Luhmannian theory of social systems (i.e. following an extended version of social system theory á la Luhmann)—one that is being extended to the realm of the whole of psychology and biology of a human—leaves ample room for integrating key postulates of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Lev S. Vygotsky, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and Brij Mohan.

Hence, in the following we are not leaving Luhmann’s theory, and not abandoning it either, but simply extending the explanatory reach and coverage of the very same. The individual, the psychology and biology thereof were the last left-out frontiers of Luhmann’s version of his theory of social systems and social communication. Economics and sociology, for a while now, have come to embrace the psychology of human actions, and the necessity to theorize, conceptualize, measure, compare and interpret (and amend) the very same (cf Aspalter 2007, 2010, 2023a). Hence, the above extension of Luhmann into psychology by the author, is supported by Nietzsche (1878), Vygotsky (1962, 1978, 1987), Marcuse (1955, 1970), Habermas (1987), Mohan (2007) and others. Therefore, the extension of the sociological, and philosophical, into the psychological is another major contribution of Habermas, perhaps the most meaningful, apart from the Colonization thesis of the lifeworld itself. Another most influential thinker, philosopher and theoretician—Brij Mohan—also brilliantly and masterfully combined the psychological with the societal, the cultural and the developmental (Mohan 1987, 1992, 1993, 2007, 2011, 2015, cf also Mohan and Bäckmann 2020). Habermas’ lifeworld, again when looking closer (at its definition and function), is nothing less, and nothing more, than another system with the systems that make up society (from a post-Luhmannian perspective, see above, as well as cf Luhmann 1984a, 1997). Without a doubt, the extended theory of Luhmann—a post-Luhmannian system theory—holds more logical and theoretical ground, while avoiding any glitches in terms of theoretical consistency all the way, as in the case of Habermas’ theoretical life-work. Here, as regards Habermas’ theory world, noteworthy are especially (a) the lack of explanation of the presence and absence of reification effects in different forms of colonization within Habermas’ theory, and lack of explanation of the effects of reification on people themselves (Jütten 2011); and (b) the overlap of a community’s, a family’s, and a person’s lifeworld with the most basic social systems there are in 6

Habermas’ most famous thesis is his legitimacy crisis in late capitalism thesis, which was translated from German ‘Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus’ (Habermas 1973).

34

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

society, the community, the family—while adding (Freud’s system of) the person in itself, in a now post-Luhmannian tradition (Aspalter 2007, 2010, 2023a; cf Habermas 1968, 1981a, b; Marcuse 1955, 1970; Horkheimer and Adorno 1947; cf Freud 1921). Habermas, which is very obvious when looking at most of his lifework, has been also heavily influenced by Luhmann and this theoretical innovations, perspectives, and applications; and not the other way around, as Luhmann indicated clearly himself (cf Luhmann 1971). The competition and fierce interplay between the two outstanding theorists, probably that is safe to say, propelled them both, in terms of motivation mostly, and not in terms compromise here or there (cf Leydesdorff 2000). The colonization of the lifeworld thesis refers to administrative thinking and economic thinking taking over all other important areas of life (the lifeworld), of society as a whole.

Luhmann (1984b, 1988), as well, focused on the economy, and identified it as a super system that is taking over other system logics, i.e. taking over the rationality and principles of society (and government) as a whole. Here, Habermas and Luhmann were hitting the mark: the society as a whole, people themselves, as well as capitalism as a whole, are the victims of rationalization of the (administrative and economic) systems in place. That would of course include the capitalist system, as well as the welfare state system, but also the juridical system, the education system, the health care and long-term care system, and so forth.

Luhmann’s theory completely lacks normativity, but it never intended to provide this, as it is an explanatory-cum-descriptive theory (a meta theory and foundation theory, not a catch-all theory or do-all theory). Habermas’ theory has mixed in a lot of aspects of different theories, and as such has lost (or never really gained) a full set of scientific, methodological—i.e. systematic and logical—correctness to the fullest sense. Habermas was a master of language and communication, and a master of selling his (compound) theories. Luhmann was not political, not a socialite, and never intended or wanted to be so. Both had Parsonian roots, but both took very different roads in theory building, and in their private-cum-professional choices. Yet, often their theories are situated right next to one another, and debating about seemingly similar (if not the same) things—but just seemingly, as their definitions, perspectives, functions, and particularly goals for theorizing themselves were as different as day and night: the one tried to be popular and mix in everything or anything that helped him achieve the very same and achieved it; the other wanted to be abstract, a 100%, all the way, and attempted to gain in the end eternal significance by being able to explain everything and achieved it (within the limits set by himself as mentioned). It is interesting that competing theorists and leading philosophers of the past and this current century have all come to the same conclusion. While building on the methodology and theoretical lens of Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1887), Michel Foucault’s theory of the ‘civil war’ matrix (Foucault 1975, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2014; Lukes 2005; Rabinow 2010; Powell 2015) sheds yet another major spotlight onto the same problem constellation, i.e. the very same historical and systemic forces that unravel efficiency and effectiveness and hence: equality, happiness and peace.

Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding …

35

More intriguing still, a hardcore representative of the economic right, Randall G. Holcombe (2018, 2020, 2021), comes basically to the same key conclusion that it are the economic and political elites that control the world, the world economy, world society, and all of societies, in many of their most important aspects at least. This is what he called political capitalism. Holcombe’s theory is very intriguing indeed, as it adds crucial theoretical aspects of top-level decision-making in modern-day capitalism. It says that for most of the last two centuries, including these first two decades of the new 21st century, we were talking about capitalism versus socialism, and completely missed the point. (cf Holcombe 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022) It is not about a great transformation (Karl Polanyi 1957) or politics against markets (Gøsta Esping-Andersen 1985). It is simply the elites versus the rest, and here again lots of sociologists have already built corresponding theories, all of which seem to have been undervalued, undersold and underused. (cf Holcombe 2013, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022; as well as Weber 2019; Tilly 1984, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003; Murphy 1988; Parkin 1979) And, not enough yet, other most prominent commentators and theorists of our time join in with their findings, such as e.g. Chomsky’s (1987, 2002, 2004, 2017) and Herman and Chomsky’s (2002) eye-opening and jaw-dropping revelations about the media’s control of society, and hence the government’s control of society and the economy—and hence, and what is of utmost importance to understand, the elitists’ control of government, society and, of course, the economy itself .

Coming back to Habermas’s lifeworld (a genius word choice, indeed), the personal lives of people, their families and communities, are colonized, and conquered and ruled indeed in an increasingly totalitarian sense.

This is happening (and made possible) with every extra bit of legislation, with every extra bit of administration ruling and with every extra bit of communication between administrative units and within them; with their increasing quantity, frequency, quality and their, with the help of technology, increasing reach and ability to control/limit/change human behavior. No wonder that here libertarian economists and humanitarian realists of all kinds (philosophers, theorists and empiricists) are accidentally standing on common ground, as they both cannot stand and cannot succumb to individuals being oppressed by governments, government offices, as well as impassionate, robotic, ignorant officials, administrators/bureaucrats, judges, officers, teachers, and so forth, across the board, covering all aspects of people’s lives and lifeworlds, and that all of their lives long, and that of their offspring.

Charles-Louis de Secondat—or as most of us know him, Baron de Montesquieu— clearly noted that the interest of business leaders (or any one business leader) are au contraire to the interest of the economy itself, and hence au contraire to the interest of the country, the society and the government (cf Devletoglou 1969, 1991). “La liberté du commerce n’est pas une faculté accordée aux négotiants de faire ce qu’ils veulent; ce serait vien plutôt sa servitude. Ce qui gêne le commerçant, ne gêne pas pour cela le commerce.” (Baron de Montesquieu “De L’Esprit de Lois,” cited in N.E. Devletoglou 1991: 51)

36

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Therefore, a government should never rely on the advice or ideas of business leaders and rich capital owners, in making their decision/s (cf also Friedman 1977; Bradley 2018). And yet, the way things work in most ‘developed’ countries in the West, is exactly the opposite. The super-rich and the powerful are running government affairs, and have penetrated the core leadership of political parties on the right and on the left of the political spectrum, the media, as well as educational, intellectual and cultural elites, all at the same time. So, for them, they could not care less which political party or parties is/are in power, which got elected, or by which margins of votes, and what are relative shares of seats won in parliament for each, since they support, finance, have befriended and infiltrated, are amongst, and have risen amongst the elites of parties of either side of the political aisle themselves; or simply provide them exit jobs (jobs on the board of directors, etc.) after serving one or more terms in office inside the government.

These realities have already come to light for a while now. And many—on both sides of the political spectrum—have picked up and reported on them. A string of powerful sociologists and, virtually all, libertarian economists both share in essence the same (explanatory) finding, as regards to political rent seeking, and its effects on society, the working and middle classes, as well as the economy. It deserves utmost interest, from any interested layperson, political economy commentator (journalist/blogger, etc.), and policy scientist alike, that Milton Friedman, another legendary Nobel Prize Winner in economics (and the number one leading economist on the political right), noted the following: [t]he two greatest enemies of free enterprise in the United States, in my opinion, have been, on the one hand, my fellow intellectuals and, on the other hand, the business corporations of this country. (Friedman 1977)

This conviction (i.e. not just a sentiment) was fully shared by William A. Niskanen who stated that the bureaucrat “is a ‘chooser’ and a ‘Maximizer’ and … not just a ‘role player’ in some larger social drama” (Niskanen 1971: 5). Amongst other things, Niskanen developed a simplified model of bureaucratic supply of public output (1968, 1971) which implies that: a central and characteristic feature of the public sector is oversupply of output and not inefficiency in a narrow sense of output provided at more than minimum cost (cf Niskanen 1968, 1971).

Niskanen’s model rests on two central assumptions. One is that bureaucrats maximize the size of their budgets and the other that bureaucrats are in effect simple monopolists who are able to impose their own preferences on the governing political party” (emphases added, Breton and Wintrobe 1975: 195). A century earlier, Adolph H. Wagner (1863, 1883) developed his theory that has e.g. become known as the Law of Growing State Expenditures (“das Gesetz der wachsenden Staatsausgaben,” cf Timm 1961; Bird 1971), which basically says that: the state over time—i.e. with ongoing cultural, economic and technical development—is increasing (a) its functions, (b) the depth and width of these functions, as well as (c) the range of public goods and merit goods (cf also Saurer 2010; Lamartina and Zaghini 2011).

Political Capitalism and the Political Economy of Expanding …

37

This thesis is not liked by many on the political right, or in hard-core libertarian economics (cf e.g. Peacock and Scott 2000). Yet, with the finetuning provided by Peacock and Wiseman (1961) that this expansion is not linear, but rather jumpy (jumping from one plateau to the next), this law holds and is merely an empirical/ historical description of the past, an empirical representation of the current time. Wagner’s law should not be interpreted as a normative theory or proposition, but rather what it was and really is a description of historical events, paired with explanation of the causal factors for the very same. Still, this law was set up about 160 years ago, within a different context of economic and social development of the Austro-Hungarian Empire of that time (Adolph Wagner was stationed in Vienna at that time and wrote extensively about the state of affairs of Austro-Hungarian public finances, in the early 1860s, when he started to formulate his theory). Going back to the contemporaries of Niskanen, Friedman and company, one can see a strong concern also on the political left regarding the uncontrolled and out-ofcontrol rising public finances, plus the spheres of control that are being financed and enabled with the very same. One of the politically and academically most prominent representatives hereto, Jürgen Habermas, responded to the Rights’ fundamental critique of the rising powers and misconduct of bureaucratism in late capitalism (i.e. state-led or modern-day capitalism): it has become clear that the origins of the crisis still lie in the economic system of capitalism, but that the Welfare State no longer allows the crisis to explode … today the onset of an economic crisis does not generally lead to a political response, either by organized workers or trade unions … Instead, reactions to the crisis take the very mediated form of an overloading of the mechanisms of social and cultural integration. The result is a much bigger ‘ideological discharge’ than in periods of capitalist development characterized by high employment. … [one particular] result is an essentially rhetorical response to the bureaucratization and other negative consequences of capitalist growth. But I think that we have to take seriously that aspect of the propaganda of the Right which deals with real needs and offers a conservative solution to real problems. For in the criticisms of bureaucratism, … there is a basic problem at stake which was a very important one for both Marx and Weber. In the course of capitalist development and of a politically uncontrolled process of accumulation, the partial administrative and economic rationality that is functional to such an economic system gradually penetrates and restructures ever broader spheres of life ... [the lifeworld]. (emphases added, Habermas 1979)

Whereas simple models have their appeal, especially for model-specialists within economics circles, all of the world does not run on any of such simple models. Nevertheless, these models may highlight and bring to the fore important aspects of reality, the economy, the politics of and within capitalism, and humanity itself, including its many ways of determining human action and human communication which lay at heart and form every basis of economic and political action/communication: i.e. all of which—human, economic and political communication is social communication—including intra-human communication in the post-Luhmannian/Freudian tradition.

38

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices Therefore, any theory or model that seeks salience and applicability in a comprehensive manner needs to factor in human, social, political, cultural and ecological (á la Vernon L. Smith, and beyond) factors.

In the following, the author is first attending to the task of explaining and testing the theory of distorted choices, from the perspective of comprehensive human actions/ communications, in all necessary shortness, and then, in the later part of the book, introducing the theory of Z-efficiency, plus the theory of super inequality.

Developing a New Theory of ‘Distorted’ Choices for All Social Sciences: Particularly Social Policy and Economics While the field of economics has centered upon and around rational choice theory and subsequently public choice theory, for social policy scientists (including health policy, housing policy, education policy, etc. experts) the task ahead lays (a) with the relationship between social policies and social policy decision-making and nondecision-making and the human nature of policymakers, administrators, judges, and scholars themselves on the one hand, and (b) private choices of people in their private domains of life on the other: i.e. geography (location) choices, housing choices, education choices, employment choices, family choices, lifestyle choices, exercise choices, food choices, leisure choices, etc. The idea of identifying ‘distorted’ choices as the common culprit, or the way things are decided for the most part at most times throughout most of our lives (as most of us are seldom, in day-to-day life, poster images of any perfect logician) was derived from the concept of ‘distorted development’ within the social development theory of James Midgley (1995, 1997, 2013). Hence, this particular enterprise of calling out and singling out less-than proper, or less than perfect choices, has a particular goal in social policy science, and is not designed (per se) to replace or challenge mainstream economics or traditional thinking of public choice theory. Instead, it tries to expand the reach of public choice theory in general, as well as that of micro-economics itself, and of course to expand the reach of social policy science into behavioral sciences and micro-economics in particular. In essence, we here are following the path of Leibenstein and Maital (1992), who looked at exact measurement of efficiency levels. The particular method applied, however, is different. In previous analyses, the author has introduced the Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index (Aspalter 2006, 2023a, b, c). This index can, then subsequently, be used to measure exactly the relative performance (effectiveness and/ or efficiency), or non-performance/lack of performance (lack of effectiveness and/or efficiency) of different dimensions of performance, covering a whole range of social, health and economic indicators at the same time. Before jumping into the business of measuring, comparing and evaluating (and then afterwards prescribing policy and reform solutions), however, a theory needs to

Developing a New Theory of ‘Distorted’ Choices for All Social Sciences …

39

be developed first, that provides guidance of what is done (and what is to be done) later in (further explanative, or normative, or descriptive) empirical analyses of all sorts, in any area involved and any perspective pursued. In this study, we are totally acknowledging and dealing with the fact that performance of policy makers varies greatly, from case to case, from one policymaker to another, one department or administration to another, one city/county or district to another, one country and world region to another. People themselves also vary in terms of effectiveness and efficiency to e.g. accumulate wealth (however much it may be), or to hold on to (rather than accumulate) health, etc. According to the basic premises and postulates of public choice theory, both are to be governed and hence explained by the very same theory or theories.

In sum, Fig. 2.1a–d summarize cross-sections of causal factors determining less than optimal, i.e. less than actually achieved performance in comparison to other (comparable, available) options (cases). They are not covering all actual aspects (we here do not claim that, nor would it be reasonable to do so), but rather very large (and hopefully the largest) components of aggregate reasons for less than optimal (i.e. possible/what is actually achieved in practice and thus empirically measurable) choices/outcomes/performance, be it efficiency-wise, effectiveness-wise, or qualitywise (or other aspects, e.g. quality of life, personal freedom and self-determination, etc.), or a combination of which. In the following, the terms sour choice/s and dirty choice/s are being introduced. Both of which are synonymously used to stand for ‘distorted’ choices at large. The former, a sour choice, particularly depicts a situation where the decision/choice maker is affected negatively by the own choice (forced upon by others, by the government, by culture, society, cultural, economic and geographical constraints or not) especially in form of e.g. ignored, unwanted, or surprising outcomes (down the road and in the long run/over one’s lifetime). The latter, a dirty choice, is describing a choice that may have no negative effects on the decision/choice maker (which is most common in politics, government administration, the judicial system, and so forth, including social policy making, e.g. social security and tax legislation, and social legislation in the widest sense).

Basically, distorted choices (we may call them also sour choices and/or dirty choices) are deviations from perfect rational choices. These deviations can also be explained to a large extent in bulk by concepts like bounded rationality or ecologically conditioned bounded reality (cf V. Smith 2002, 2003, 2008; Altmann 2017; Braun 2019; Aspalter 2021a). But, here, we choose to break general concepts, like these, down to the more capturable (i.e. graspable and workable) concept of distorted choices—making choice theory for social sciences more concrete and hence tangible. The concept of distorted choices, as a result, now can also be directly linked to different types of determining factors, such as especially: 1. systems of cultural biases and cultural variance (in terms of deviations from perfect choices, i.e. best outcomes), 2. aggregate historical factors (intergenerational effects of wealth inequality, lack of education, lack of opportunities of wealth creation, etc.),

40

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

3. geographical factors (inequalities in terms of housing, education, health care, transportation, jobs available; and hence wealth creation possible), 4. effects of cultural, social, societal, governmental, judicial or economic discrimination and exclusion, 5. government interference in terms of the availability of resources and opportunities, by regulating taxation, contributions, benefits, services, education, health care, transportation, job opportunities, savings/investment opportunities, as well as punishments and rewards (cf McMurty 2009), 6. judicial interference in terms of punishments (obligations, restrictions, prohibitions, intimidation, shaming, penalties, incarceration, etc.) and rewards (benefits, entitlements, etc.), etc. (cf Aspalter 2022). This study merely opens up a new road, with a new research program ahead. It is important for economics as a whole to become more empirical, and to open up to new ventures for research, to cope with the world as it is.7 It is, and always will be, up to the researcher in question to set a particular focus of human behavior and choice formation (or choice failure), and the aspects and perspectives thereof. We here offer a bridge, a springboard, to new ways of investigating public and private choices under a common umbrella of a new theoretical perspective or theory of distorted choices (of all kinds), as we are ploughing the fields of explanatory theory, i.e. explanatory economic theory (like development theory) and explanatory social policy theory (e.g. with regard to levels, variety, persistence and dynamics of inequality and/or poverty). More attention is needed, from both social policy scientists and economists alike (health economists, development economists, behavioral economists, etc.), to explain, and in the following change, incentive systems in place in welfare state systems taken as a whole, but also in the field of, social and family law, divorce law and rulings, custody laws and rulings, health laws, long-term care law, social security laws (and their financing mechanisms, and their incentives distorted with both their financing and their benefit catalogues/systems), and so forth.

The theory and method of looking at, and starting to explain, distorted choices can be understood as a preliminary step in that direction. It includes distorted views, ideas, opportunities, practices and choices in both the world of private (i.e. internal-individual) and public (social, cultural and governmental) communications and actions at the same time. Figure 2.1a–d depict a frequent case of choice making, where an old choice of action (private choice, or public/government choice) or the lack of any choices 7

That is, to turn away, in general, from the relatively widespread practice of conducting moon economics, i.e. economics that only really, for the most part, would work on the moon (in an imaginary society on the moon). To name just two really positive examples, Gary Becker (cf e.g. 1957, 1962, 1964, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1983) and Bruno Frey (cf e.g. 1990, 1997, 1999, 2017, 2019, cf also Frey and Stutzer 2007). They, and others, have already led the way in this long-term project of rejuvenating invigorating, and popularizing economics—making it more empirical-based, more understandable, and more application-oriented at the same time. For the philosophy of seeing things as they are, in addition, one may plunge for example into the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti (starting with e.g. Krishnamurti 2000).

Developing a New Theory of ‘Distorted’ Choices for All Social Sciences …

41

made so far, a non-choice (Choice “B”), is facing off with two potential choices: a seemingly good choice (Choice “C”) and an in-reality and/or in the long-run (i.e., in actual fact and summa summarum, i.e. all things considered) better, or best choice, available and perceivable (Choice “A”). People, in their private capacity or in their public capacity (if they have one) cannot always (or in most cases) fully calculate (perfectly estimate) what is to come. That is, they are not fully educated or informed on what is to happen, in the very most of cases: (a) e.g. regarding food choices and health/disease-related choices; and (b) e.g. regarding side-effects and follow-on effects of public institutions, policies and programs and their interactions to one another depending on the social, cultural and economic contexts of this or that time in this or that locality. Of course, this kind of ‘full’ information and ‘full’ knowledge may also not be available at all for anyone, to begin with, as science has not discovered or not dispersed such knowledge (among experts, government officials and administrators, as well as among the general public) in this or that instance, and in general this is quite often the case. Second Modernity (Beck 1986) and now Third Modernity (Aspalter 2020b) have, in addition, have steepened the learning curves and the demands for learning, of all kinds of learning that unravel formerly taken-for-granted kind of knowledge and presumptions (cf also Sheffrin 1996; Beck 1997, 1999; Rötheli 2007; Evans and Honkapohja 2015). Figure 2.1a depicts an ideal–typical case (in the Weberian sense, cf Aspalter 2020a; Freund 1969) where expected outcomes are in fact less beneficial than expected, due to particular knowledge and information that have been available, that have been accessed and that have been interpreted and evaluated according to personal and other personally accepted (including coerced or passively accepted) group, social and cultural preferences. Here, we can also choose to go on and integrate the theory of Vernon L. Smith (2002, 2003, 2008) of ecological rationality, which says that. … sometimes, and especially in social contexts, the rationality of an outcome is not the consequence of a rational plan, but the unintended outcome of decentralized actions and interactions of unsuspecting individuals. Ecological rationality, then, is not due to human design but to the environment where the decisions are made and where they unfold their consequences in a self-coordinating process. (Braun 2019)

In the following, in Fig. 2.1b, we have sketched another ideal–typical case of distorted choices, where short-term pleasure/gains or short-term (day-to-day) actions of government officials and administrators are preferred to future positive total net returns. This future total net returns may include e.g. pleasure of being healthy later minus costs of being sick and not able to work etc. later in one’s life; or e.g. leading one’s party to victories in many more elections thus ensuring long-term support and rule of one’s party, and with it also highest outcome in terms of one’s own political welfare in the long run. This part of the distorted choice dilemma—of intertemporal preferences and their own causal factors—has been researched already intensively and extensively by psychologists and economists alike (cf e.g. Loewenstein 1987; Rick and Loewenstein 2008; Faralla et al. 2010; Zauberman and Urminsky 2016; Kim et al. 2012).

42

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Figure 2.1c is yet encapsulating the general proposition of public choice theory that politicians and government administrators are acting, in essence, for the very most part, like private citizens maximizing their own private gains (net returns) on any or every decision they make and not make. This is the general essence of the rent-seeking concept of public choice theory (Tullock 1967, 2009, 2016; Krueger 1974; Buchanan et al. 1980; Holcombe 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022). Entirely new here is only Fig. 2.1d, which attends to the problems of inequality and poverty from a long-term perspective and cultural-cum-communicational perspective. That is to say, here we look at systemic factors that are cutting down potential economic outcomes, like economic development, real economic growth, employment, self-employment, entrepreneurship, and innovation. These factors, or development constraints also reduce and hinder social development, health development and cultural development of any country or society, or community or locality (cf Wieser 1910, 1914, 1926; Schumpeter 1911; Rothschild 1971; Brady 2009; Brady and Burton 2019; Piketty 2014, 2020; Remington 2023; Aspalter 2022). If a society’s wealth is distributed more equally (like e.g. that of Singapore), than economic growth is also stronger and more sustainable, due to non-rich people spending more money of their income on food, medicine, education, and housing (as a percentage of total spending). In other words, the h-factor (the turnover rate of money) is higher, in the determination of a country’s or region’s GDP.8 In addition, education, health of society (not just the workforce, but all of society) and social stability are indispensable key ingredients for economic growth and development. Hence, social development is a key productive factor of economic growth—that enables entrepreneurship and self-employment on the one hand, as well as high rates of stable, domestic consumption on the other. Highest and high rates of inequality breed violence, crime and corruption, which are all detrimental to economic growth and social development, in any phase of development. Economic theory still has a long way to go to factor in historical development (historical aggregate factors, like Colonization and its various aftermaths and followon effects, cf e.g. Midgley and Piachaud 2011; Awoyemi et al. 2010; Ahadzie et al. 2006), cultural, social and psychological factors, as well as complex societal developments over long periods of time in general, especially also from a wholesome global (world’s) perspective (cf e.g. UNDP 2005). This study here is merely yet another push in that direction. For explanatory and demonstrative purposes, Fig. 2.2 shows a simple and highly schematic representation of the problems of welfare losses, happiness losses and health losses due to ‘sour’ choices or ‘dirty’ choices—i.e. all kinds of ‘distorted’ choices made by private people and by people in government. According to the main postulate of public choice theory, government officials and administrators also act like private people, i.e. in general, by and large. This causes these welfare losses in non-market (public) choice settings. Just as, for example, not having e.g. the right kind of welfare state system design in place is causing economic losses and welfare losses, and so is spending too much or too little for the performances of any 8

As GDP equals h times m; where h stands for turnover rate, and m for money supply.

Developing a New Theory of ‘Distorted’ Choices for All Social Sciences …

43

welfare state system and sub-system in place. The reasons for government officials, and administrators, not to act are manifold and often explained by trying to avoid sticking out their necks (i.e. blame avoidance) or e.g. simply by being fully occupied with personal rent seeking. In total, relative (in comparative perspective, that is) performance shortcomings are always the result of distorted choices and distorted non-choices (e.g. the idle, non-caring, selfish, risk-averse, etc. bureaucrat).

This concept of welfare losses applies to people themselves, e.g. in terms of choosing and practicing a comparative healthy life-style, or sufficiently saving up for one’s retirement, and this applies also to governments (public administrations) when they implement/reform or not implement/reform, what and how they implement/

Welfare/Health/ Happiness or Wealth Loss due to a sour choice or a dirty choice made

Fig. 2.2 Welfare/Health or Happiness Loss Due to Distorted Choices (‘Sour’ or ‘Dirty’ Choices) in Social Policy and Public Policy Making (Notes IC0 = indifference curve of current state [or original choice]; IC1(B,C) = indifference curve of action B and action C; IC1(B,A) = indifference curve of action B and action A; this is a simple and highly schematic representation [for explanatory, demonstrative purposes]; the distances in this utilities-of-choices space are not likelihoods or quantities of behavioral choices, but a presentation of our three basic choices themselves [see Figs. 2.1a–d], hence the indifference curves in this figure [in Fig. 2.2] are representational [and not concrete])

44

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

reform, and when, and with what financing mechanisms and incentive systems in place, etc. This includes metric changes, as well as systemic changes. Choosing system designs and the principles of social security, and particularly their financing method, are e.g. most important in terms of long-term performances of health care systems, and with it long-term health development. Furthermore, social security systems designs are also chiefly responsible for changing health care needs and long-term care needs of the population, as they change behavior, lifestyles and consequential life choices of people throughout their life-time (Aspalter 2021b). Box 1: The Case of Obamacare For example, having a mandatory private insurance system, like Obamacare (a.k.a. Affordable Care Act) in place that costs about 18.8% of GDP (WFB 2023), and performs extremely poorly in terms of comparative health outcomes delivered, is a very (unforgivingly, economically speaking) costly choice, and hence it is a distorted choice—or sum of choices of everyone who participated in the decision-making, drafting, and revisioning processes related to, leading to, this particular piece of most consequential legislation. Other options may have never been heard of, studied or considered by the people in charge over the years and now decades that caused this misery, i.e. health development performance shortcomings—or relative very high levels, among rich countries, of distorted health development in the United States. An obvious best choice regarding health care system design and its financial setup are the extremely high performing and super-low-cost mandatory provident fund systems á la Singapore. These operate at a cost of staggering low 4.7% of GDP, and achieves health outcomes that are among the very best in the world (Gauld 2012; Aspalter 2017a, 2020c). Nevertheless, system design choices are not the only choices that make a tremendous difference in terms of health outcomes, i.e. health development outcomes. The case of Japan is particularly intriguing, as its focus on prevention and health screening has catapulted it to rank 7 in the international comparison of health development, while being relatively very cost-efficient, given the size of its elderly population over 65 years of age that is about twice as high as in other rich countries, having reached in Japan 30% of total population already (Uchida 2012; WFB 2023). Hence, several grand distorted choices, continued distorted choices and non-choices have come together to cause the relative lack of efficiency, and effectiveness of the American health care system the way it is today.

Measuring Distorted Choices and Distorted Outcomes: The Case …

45

Measuring Distorted Choices and Distorted Outcomes: The Case of Health Development In order to bridge choice theory (be it public choice theory in general, or distorted choice theory in particular) with the empirical world out there, all around the world, seemingly endless aspects of it, we would like in the following just for demonstration apply a comparative approach that looks at the outcome of different health care systems around the world, and its gap to the relative level of economic development (taking GDP per capita, PPP in international $). The health development indicators that have been used are combining multiple aspects of health development dimensions. The health development indicators included in the comparison comprise: (1) life expectancy at birth, (2) health life expectancy at birth, (3) maternal mortality rate, (4) neonatal mortality rate, (5) under-five mortality rate, (6) prevalence of stunting in children under five, (7) tuberculosis incidence, (8) prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents 5–19, (9) age-standardized prevalence of obesity among adults 18+, (10) age-standardized prevalence of hypertension among adults aged 30– 79, (11) probability of dying from any of cardio-vascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases between age 30 and exact age 70, (12) number of doctors per population, and (13) number of nurses per population. Variables 1 and 2 have been grouped together to form the first dimension ‘longevity’ (and then re-standardized, after being standardized one by one with the SRP Index formula). Variables 3 and 4 have been also grouped together in another dimension, ‘mothers’ and children’s health.’ The next three variables (5), (6) and (7) are constituting the dimension of ‘diseases of poverty.’ Variables (8) and (9) have been used to form a sub-group within the following dimension of ‘modern mass diseases’, which also contains variables (10) and (11), each of which have been weighted one third (8+9, as well as 10 and 11). The last two variables (12) and (13) have been combined into the ‘health safety’ dimension. Each dimension has received the same weight and has been re-standardized again, each step of the way, to form the final results of the Health Development Index that is composed of these five distinct and very representational dimensions of health development, and that across the world. In Table 2.1, James Midgley’s concept (1995, 1997) of distorted development (meaning relative economic development surpasses relative social development) has been used to compare and analyze health development outcomes (rather than health care systems per se). More attention shall be given to health development as an independent subject, in economics, social policy, and of course health policy (which is seen here as a field that is inseparable from the former two). The resulting concept (and theory) of distorted health development and its matching empirical analysis (Table. 2.1) are only one out of a myriad of ways to apply (and develop further) the theory of distorted choices, and/or the sheer endless number of aspects thereof. The empirical results derived when using the Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index method are staggering in more than one way,

46

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Table 2.1 Comparing Distorted Health Development: Using the Exact Measurements of the Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index Method (HD = Health Development, ED = Economic Development), and Comparing Their Rank Differentials for Distorted Health Development Outcomes (distorted health development is measured here by calculating relative economic performance rank minus relative health performance rank, negative values here refer to negative performance) SRP HD

Rank HD

SRP GDP p.c. PPP int. $

Rank ED

ED-HD (rank diff.)

Kazakhstan

3.787

134

2.076

52

−82

Equat. Guin

3.348

146

1.294

69

−77

Brunei D

5.981

84

4.914

9

−75

Botswana

3.516

143

1.255

71

−72

Guyana

4.469

120

1.769

56

−64

South Africa

3.477

144

1.017

85

−59

United AE

6.415

66

4.925

8

−58

Eswatini

2.367

160

0.674

103

−57

Dominican Rep

4.536

117

1.491

64

−53

Qatar

6.652

57

6.922

4

−53

Bahrain

6.075

79

3.331

28

−51

Saudi Arabia

6.369

71

3.640

22

−49

Bahamas

5.664

89

2.487

42

−47

Gabon

3.990

129

1.105

83

−46

Oman

5.613

91

2.264

48

−43

Kuwait

6.445

65

3.472

24

−41

Libya

5.374

97

1.684

59

−38

Namibia

3.562

140

0.673

104

−36

Pakistan

3.005

153

0.380

122

−31

Suriname

5.086

106

1.186

76

−30

Fiji

4.351

123

0.841

93

−30

Angola

3.450

145

0.432

116

−29

Cote D’Ivoire

3.151

149

0.384

120

−29

Nigeria

3.035

152

0.348

124

−28

Papua N.G

2.806

157

0.273

129

−28

Malaysia

6.120

77

2.152

50

−27

USA

7.497

34

5.113

7

−27

Romania

6.463

63

2.584

40

−23

Egypt

4.602

113

0.935

90

−23

Lesotho

0.000

169

0.141

146

−23

Turkmenistan

5.240

99

1.150

77

−22

Venezuela

5.533

93

1.249

72

−21

Zimbabwe

2.888

156

0.227

135

−21

Argentina

6.209

76

1.705

57

−19

Indonesia

4.822

109

0.904

91

−18 (continued)

Measuring Distorted Choices and Distorted Outcomes: The Case …

47

Table 2.1 (continued) SRP HD

Rank HD

SRP GDP p.c. PPP int. $

Rank ED

ED-HD (rank diff.)

Haiti

2.503

159

0.174

141

−18

Singapore

8.667

18

8.636

2

−16

Mongolia

4.956

107

0.901

92

−15

Iraq

4.543

116

0.718

101

−15

Mauretania

3.623

138

0.358

123

−15

Cameroon

3.151

149

0.244

134

−15

Luxembourg

8.749

16

10.000

1

−15

Russia

6.642

58

2.390

45

−13

Guinea

2.573

158

0.156

145

−13

Latvia

6.769

53

2.514

41

−12

Paraguay

5.308

98

0.984

88

−10

Denmark

8.579

20

4.767

10

−10

Bulgaria

6.463

63

1.934

54

−9

Sudan

3.527

142

0.256

133

−9

Afghanistan

2.257

164

0.096

155

−9

Sierra Leone

1.708

166

0.076

157

−9

Panama

6.757

54

2.306

46

−8

Poland

7.070

45

2.740

37

−8

Djibouti

4.065

128

0.383

121

−7

Guinea-Bissau

2.265

163

0.094

156

−7

Azerbaijan

5.965

85

1.123

79

−6

Trinidad & T

6.616

59

1.946

53

−6

Ireland

8.985

9

7.888

3

−6

Hungary

7.089

43

2.684

38

−5

Benin

3.559

141

0.224

136

−5

Mexico

6.400

69

1.436

65

−4

Malta

8.101

27

3.503

23

−4

Lithuania

7.350

37

3.126

33

−4

Chad

1.834

165

0.060

161

−4

N. Macedonia

6.348

72

1.278

70

−2

Bhutan

5.234

100

0.772

98

−2

Laos

4.683

111

0.588

109

−2

Somalia

1.408

167

0.038

165

−2

Moldova

5.999

83

1.108

82

−1

UK

8.371

22

3.649

21

−1

Türkiye

6.899

50

2.216

49

−1

Czechia

7.693

30

3.245

29

−1

Philippines

4.943

108

0.622

107

−1

Montenegro

6.605

60

1.642

60

0 (continued)

48

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Table 2.1 (continued) SRP HD

Rank HD

SRP GDP p.c. PPP int. $

Rank ED

ED-HD (rank diff.)

New Zealand

8.219

26

3.406

26

0

Canada

8.588

19

3.829

19

0

Netherlands

8.873

11

4.701

11

0

Zambia

3.603

139

0.211

139

0

Cent. Afr. R

0.183

168

0.017

168

0

Serbia

6.570

62

1.541

63

1

Norway

9.551

4

5.853

5

1

Australia

8.773

15

4.107

17

2

Austria

8.847

12

4.302

14

2

Mozambique

2.329

161

0.041

163

2

Slovenia

7.975

28

3.197

31

3

Croatia

7.117

40

2.464

43

3

Mali

3.238

148

0.123

151

3

Italy

8.365

23

3.370

27

4

Timor-Leste

4.202

126

0.271

130

4

Congo

3.766

135

0.211

139

4

South Sudan

2.305

162

0.033

166

4

Mauritius

6.685

56

1.601

61

5

Germany

8.951

10

4.265

15

5

Switzerland Vanuatu

10.000

1

5.713

6

5

3.688

137

0.173

142

5

Estonia

7.729

29

3.090

35

6

Yemen

3.858

132

0.216

138

6

France

8.796

13

3.728

20

7

Algeria

5.840

87

0.839

94

7

Jamaica

5.505

95

0.689

102

7

Ghana

4.672

112

0.402

119

7

Myanmar

4.271

124

0.265

131

7

Ukraine

6.084

78

1.002

86

8

Kenya

4.473

119

0.316

127

8

Liberia

2.971

154

0.057

162

8

Sweden

9.635

3

4.369

12

9

Slovakia

7.423

35

2.405

44

9

Guatemala

5.415

96

0.670

105

9

Brazil

6.403

68

1.139

78

10

Cyprus

8.311

24

3.118

34

10

Iceland

9.424

6

4.244

16

10

India

5.202

102

0.488

112

10 (continued)

Measuring Distorted Choices and Distorted Outcomes: The Case …

49

Table 2.1 (continued) SRP HD

Rank HD

SRP GDP p.c. PPP int. $

Rank ED

ED-HD (rank diff.)

Morocco

5.233

101

0.549

111

10

Belgium

9.701

2

4.340

13

11

Uruguay

7.085

44

1.779

55

11

Georgia

6.585

61

1.210

73

12

D.R.C

2.958

155

0.032

167

12

Finland

9.434

5

4.047

18

13

Niger

3.128

151

0.039

164

13

Chile

7.355

36

2.113

51

15

Israel

8.781

14

3.205

30

16

Belarus

6.991

46

1.561

62

16

Korea (S.)

9.039

8

3.443

25

17

Tanzania

4.197

127

0.160

144

17

Portugal

8.574

21

2.620

39

18

Spain

8.682

17

2.985

36

19

Thailand

6.975

48

1.375

67

19

Lebanon

6.064

81

0.739

100

19

Gambia

3.829

133

0.122

152

19

Costa Rica

7.308

38

1.687

58

20

Bolivia

5.789

88

0.615

108

20

Burkina Faso

3.985

130

0.125

150

20

Greece

8.264

25

2.277

47

22

Viet Nam

6.256

75

0.803

97

22

Burundi

3.342

147

0.000

169

22

Tunesia

6.299

73

0.806

96

23

Senegal

4.595

114

0.222

137

23

Togo

3.937

131

0.118

154

23

Madagascar

3.690

136

0.063

159

23

Bosnia & Herz

6.791

51

1.198

75

24

Nepal

5.202

102

0.334

126

24

Japan

9.319

7

3.146

32

25

Bangladesh

5.652

90

0.434

115

25

Comoros I

4.522

118

0.168

143

25

Solomon I

4.410

122

0.139

147

25

Honduras

5.592

92

0.408

118

26

Belize

5.962

86

0.457

114

28

Takjikistan

5.136

104

0.261

132

28

Jordan

6.372

70

0.758

99

29

Iran

6.929

49

1.120

80

31 (continued)

50

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Table 2.1 (continued) SRP HD

Rank HD

SRP GDP p.c. PPP int. $

Rank ED

ED-HD (rank diff.)

Cabo Verde

6.060

82

0.465

113

31

Armenia

6.773

52

1.033

84

32

China

7.585

32

1.384

66

34

Albania

6.990

47

1.109

81

34

Cambodia

5.528

94

0.290

128

34

Colombia

7.210

39

1.202

74

35

Eritrea

4.237

125

0.062

160

35

Maldives

7.613

31

1.302

68

37

Nicaragua

6.068

80

0.413

117

37

Malawi

4.436

121

0.065

158

37

Ethiopia

4.721

110

0.135

148

38

Uganda

4.558

115

0.120

153

38

Uzbekistan

6.415

66

0.575

110

44

Rwanda

5.130

105

0.127

149

44

Sri Lanka

7.091

42

0.995

87

45

El Salvador

6.740

55

0.663

106

51

Kyrgyzstan

6.257

74

0.336

125

51

Ecuador

7.096

41

0.811

95

54

Peru

7.533

33

0.978

89

56

Notes 1. The Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index always ranges between 0 and 10. There is always at least one 0 and at least one 10 included, as a method of double standardization is applied (always turning the highest number value into a 10 and the lowest into a 0). The researcher can choose 0 as the best performance or 10 as the best performance. In this case (in this study), 10 for both health development and economic development performance has been used to signify the best performance (since health and economic development are positive dimensions). One can always revert the values by calculating 10 minus the current SRP, if one wants to reverse the results upside down (e.g. for disease burden outcomes, etc.). 2. Due to the relatively very high number of N (countries) in this study, the differentials between health development performance and economic development performance have been used to identify and hence by and large measure distorted health development differences around the world. 3. In our examination, the worst case of distorted health development is Kazakhstan; the best performing (over-performing) case in terms of relative health development compared to relative economic development is Peru; 4. The health indicators used stem from World Health Statistics of the WHO (2022), and the GDP per capita (PPP int. $) data from World Bank (2022); 5. In 2006, Aspalter designed the new Standardized Relative Performance (SRP) Index, with which one can exactly measure performance differences also of composite indexes that may use many different variables that in general also different measurement units. The SRP Index now is able to exactly measure many performance indicators at once, and compare e.g. also different dimensions (sets of indicators) to one another. The very same formula has also been used by Antonelli and De Bonis (2017), same as Aspalter used back in 2006. Antonelli and De Bonis’ key source, Caruana (2010), has not standardized his indictors yet, and called his version the ‘distance to reference method’ (where the lowest value was not factored out yet). In Caruana’s case the expressiveness of each index was still lacking and so was the ability to combine indices into a composite index. Aspalter’s (2006) original formula for the Standardized Relative Performance Index (SRP Index) is as follows: ((current value - lowest value)/ (highest value - lowest value))* 10. Current value is the value one wants to standardize, each time. Highest and lowest values refer to the highest and lowest values in each column that one standardizes. The highest value of the resulting SRP Index, following this formula, will be always 10, and the lowest 0

Conclusion and Takeaway

51

and that not only for the trained eye of any health care system expert, or health policy or health development expert. First and foremost, what comes to one’s attention when looking at the results of distorted health development is the dominance of a large number of highly resourcerich, rather high developed countries among the world’s worst performers in terms of distorted health development—i.e., their relatively very poor health development achievements relative to their own economic development performance. Among the very worst performers in health development relative to their respective levels of economic development (as depicted in Table 2.1) are very resource-rich countries, especially e.g.: Kazakhstan (ranking 1st, being worst case of distorted health development), Brunei Darussalam (ranking 3rd), Botswana (4th), United Arab Emirates (7th), Qatar (10th), Bahrain (11th), Saudi Arabia (12th), Oman (15th), Kuwait (16th), Libya (17th), and Nigeria (24th). On the other end of the spectrum, the best performers—over-achievers in terms of health development relative to economic development—include Peru (1st), Ecuador (2nd), Kyrgyzstan (3rd), El Salvador (4th), Sri Lanka (5th), Rwanda (6th), Uzbekistan (7th), Uganda (8th), Ethiopia (9th), Malawi (10th), and so forth. China which is housing about one fifth of the world’s population managed to attain a remarkable 17th place.

Conclusion and Takeaway What do we learn from this? It is not about the levels of wealth, resources and economic growth a country has, it is about the policy choices a country has been making in the past and is making every year and every day. Public choices, choices in non-market situations, are entirely responsible (in general) for not only people’s health around and in every corner of the world, but also for their general wellbeing and the state of wealth, human decency and poverty—i.e. social and economic development as a whole. Public choices made in many traditional non-economic areas, like health care systems, education systems, housing systems, transportation systems, old-age income maintenance and health security systems (of all sorts), energy portfolios and policies, the quantity and even more so the quality (type and design) of inflation control policies and so forth, are yet relatively out of the mainstream focus of economic research activities, and here again especially empirical economic research. In coping with all these complex and highly influential (and costly, i.e. amounting to substantial shares of a country’s GDP) systems and policy areas, social policy science is also in dire need of learning from e.g. behavioral economics and micro-economics, apart from of course mainstream macro-economics, as well as philosophy, psychology, history and social geography.

52

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

References Ahadzie, William; Lund, Francie; Devereux, Stephen, and Macauslan, Ian (2006), Social Protection in Africa, www.ids.ac.uk. Altiraifi, Azza (2020), A Deadly Poverty Trap: Asset Limits in the Time of the Coronavirus, Center for American Progress, April 7, www.americanprogress.org. Altmann, Morris (2005), Behavioral Economics, Power, Rational Inefficiencies, Fuzzy Sets, and Public Policy, Journal of Economic Issues, 39: 683–706. Altmann, Morris (2011), Behavioral Economics, Ethics and Public Policy, in: J. Boston (ed.), Ethics and Public Policy: Contemporary Issues, Victoria University Press: Wellington. Altmann, Morris (2017), A Bounded Rationality Assessment of the New Behavioral Economics, in: R. Frantz, S.-H. Chen, K. Dopfer, F. Heukelom, and S. Mousavi (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Behavioral Economics, Routledge: Oxon. Antonelli, Maria Alessandra and De Bonis, Valeria (2017), Social Spending, Welfare and Redistribution, Modern Economy, 8(11): 1291–1313. Aspalter, Christian (2006), Freedom, Dehumanization and Welfare, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 1(2): 95–114. Aspalter, Christian (2007), Towards a Human Capital Welfare State? In Search of Win-Win Solutions, Journal of Societal and Social Policy, 6(1): 1–46. Aspalter, Christian (2010), Towards “Human Capital Solidarity”: Emphasizing Justice in the Distribution of Physical, Mental, Social and Cultural Capabilities—A Normative Study in Social Policy, ISSA Global Research Conference, International Social Security Association, Luxembourg, September 30. Aspalter, Christian (2017a), Saving Lives Through Health Care Policy, in C. Aspalter, K. TeguhPribadi and R. Gauld (eds.), Health Care Systems in Developing Countries in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2017b), Evaluating the Performance of Provident Fund Systems: The Case of Singapore, in C. Aspalter and K. Teguh-Pripadi (eds.), Development and Social Policy: The Win-Win Strategies of Developmental Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2020a), Ideal Types in Comparative Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2020b), Third Modernity and Social Policy, www.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2020c), Healthy Aging, in: D. Gu and M.E. Dupre (eds.), Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging, Springer: New York. Aspalter, Christian (2021a), Understanding Systemic Social Problems: Moving Beyond the Limits of Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory—An Essay in Theoretical Behavioral Social Policy, www. ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2021b), A Pas de Trois in Social Policy Theory: Understanding the Financing of Welfare State Systems, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge, Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2022), Super Inequality: A General Theory of Mass Poverty, Social Development Issues, 44(2), 1–25. Aspalter, Christian (2023a), Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Global Data Analysis, Springer: Cham. Aspalter, Christian (2023b), Evaluating and Measuring Exactly the Distances Between Aggregate Health Performances: A Global Health Data and Welfare Regime Analysis, Social Development Issues, 45(1): 1–19. Aspalter, Christian (2023c), The Human Face of the Pandemic, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Covid-19 Pandemic: Problems Arising in Health and Social Policy, Springer: Cham. Aspalter, Christian and Teguh-Pripadi, Kenny (eds.) (2017), Development and Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Awoyemi, Taiwo Timothy; Oluwatayo, Isaac, and Oluwakemi, Obayelu (2010), Inequality, Polarization and Poverty in Nigeria, .papers.ssrn.com

References

53

Beck, Ulrich (1986), Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., Germany. Beck, Ulrich (1997), The Reinvention of Politics, Polity: Cambridge. Beck, Ulrich (1999), World Risk Society, Blackwell: Oxford. Becker, Gary S. (1957), The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Becker, Gary S. (1962), Investment in Human Capital, Journal of Political Economy, 70, 11–13 Becker, Gary S. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Columbia University Press: New York. Becker, Gary S. (1968), Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, The Journal of Political Economy, 76: 169–217. Becker, Gary S. (1974), A Theory of Social Interactions, Journal of Political Economy, 82(6): 1063–1093. Becker, Gary S. (1976), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Becker, Gary S. (1981), A Treatise on the Family, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Becker, Gary S. (1983), A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371–400. Bird, Richard M. (1971), Wagner’s “Law” of Expanding State Activity, Public Finance, 26(1): 1–26. Bischof, Günter and Pelinka, Anton (eds.) (2020), Austro-Corporatism: Past, Present, Future, Routlege: Oxon. Blau, Adrian (2022), Habermas on Rationality: Means, Ends and Communication, European Journal of Political Theory, 21(2): 321–344. Bloomberg (2013), Means Tests Are Poverty Traps, March 27, www.bloomberg.com. Borzutzky, Silvia and Hyde, Mark (2017), The Chilean Welfare State System: With Special Reference to Social Security Privatization, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Routledge International Handbook to Welfare State Systems, Routledge: Oxon. Bradley, Robert Jr. (2018), William A. Niskanen: Economist, Scholar, Foe of Political Capitalism, www.masterresource.org. Brady, David (2009), Rich Democracies, Poor People, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Brady, David and Burroway, Rebekah (2012), Targeting, Universalism, and Single-Mother Poverty: A Multilevel Analysis Across 18 Affluent Democracies, Demography, 49(2): 719–746. Brady, David and Burton, Linda M. (eds.) (2019), The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Braun, Eduard (2019), The Ecological Rationality of Historical Costs and Conservatism, https:// doi.org/10.1515/ael-2015-0013. Brennan, Geoffrey and Buchanan, James M. (2009), The Normative Purpose of Economic “Science”: Rediscovery of an Eighteenth-Century Method, in: J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.), Public Choice Theory, Volume 2, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Breton, Albert and Wintrobe, Ronald (1975), The Equilibrium Size of a Budget-Maximizing Bureau: A Note on Niskanen’s Theory of Bureaucracy, Journal of Political Economy, 83(1): 195–208. Buchanan, James M. (2003a), Public Choice: Politics Without Romance, Policy, www.stephenhi cks.org. Buchanan, James M. (2003b), Public Choice: The Origins and Development of a Research Program, sb.cofc.edu/centers/publicchoice. Buchanan, James M. (2009), Politics Without Romance: A Sketch of Positive Public Choice Theory and Its Normative Implications, in: J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.), Public Choice Theory, Volume 2, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Buchanan, James M. and Tullock, Gordon (1962), The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations for Constitutional Democracy, The University of Michigan Press: Michigan. Buchanan, James M. and Wagner, Richard E. (1977), Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes, Academic: New York.

54

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Buchanan, James M.; Tullock, Gordon, and Tollison, Robert (1980), Toward a Theory of the RentSeeking Society, Texas A&M University Press: College Station. Butler, Stuart M. and Kondratas, Anna (1987), Out of Poverty Trap, Free Press, New York. Caruana, Clyde (2010), Measuring the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Welfare State: A Comparative Study of the EU-27 Member States, Bank of Valletta Review, 42: 75–106. Chomsky, Noam (1987), On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures, South End Press: Boston. Chomsky, Noam (2002), Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (2004), Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Holt: New York. Chomsky, Noam (ed. by P. Hutchinson, K. Nyks and J. Scott) (2017), Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power, Seven Stories Press: New York. Devletoglou, Nicos E. (1969), The Economic Philosophy of Montesquieu, Kyklos, 22(3): 530–541. Devletoglou, Nicos E. (1991), Montesquieu and the Wealth of Nations, in: M. Blaug (ed.), PreClassical Economists, Volume 2, Edward Elgar: Aldershot. Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper: New York. Downs, Anthony (1967), Inside Bureaucracy, Little: Boston. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1985), Politics Against Markets, Princeton University Press: Princeton. Evans, George W. and Honkapohja, Seppo (2015), Expectations, in: J.D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier: Amsterdam. Faralla, Valeria; Benuzzi, Francesca; Nichelli, Paolo, and Dimitri, Nicola (2010), Gains and Losses in Intertemporal Preferences, www.academia.edu/16897581. Farrell, Michael J. (1957), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120: 253–281. Ferrara, Peter (2014), We Can Liberate the Poor from Poverty in America, Forever, Forbes Magazine, March 24, www.forbes.com. Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Bertani and A. Fontana) (2003), Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76, Picador: New York. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Senellart) (2009), Security, Territory, Population, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (2010), The Government of Self and Others, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (ed. by F. Brion and B.E. Harcourt) (2014), Wrong-Doing and Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Frantz, Roger (2018), Harvey Leibenstein, and an Anomaly Called X-Efficiency Theory, Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2(1): 25–31. Freud, Sigmund (1921), Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse, Psychoanalytischer Verlag: Leipzig. Freund, Julien (1969), The Sociology of Max Weber, Vintage: New York. Frey, Bruno S. (1990), Ökonomie ist Sozialwissenschaft: Die Anwendung der Ökonomie auf neue Gebiete, Verlag Vahlen: Munich. Frey, Bruno S. (1997), Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Frey, Bruno S. (1999), Economics as a Science of Human Behaviour Towards a New Social Science Paradigm, Kluwer: Boston. Frey, Bruno S. (2017), Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Glücksforschung: Kompakt - verständlich anwendungsorientiert, Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden. Frey, Bruno S. (2019), Economics of Art and Culture, Springer: Cham. Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois (2007), Economics and Psychology: A Promising New CrossDisciplinary Field, MIT Press: Cambridge. Friedman, Milton (1977), The Future of Capitalism, speech, Reno, February 7. Gauld, Robin (2012), The Health Care System in Singapore, in C. Aspalter, Y. Uchida and R. Gauld (eds.), Health Care Systems in Europe and Asia, Routledge: London. Ginzburg, Eli (1958), Human Resources: The Wealth of a Nation, Simon and Schuster: New York.

References

55

Habermas, Jürgen (1968), Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1973), Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1979), Conservatism and Capitalist Crisis, New Left Review, I/115 May/June, https://newleftreview.org/issues/i115. Habermas, Jürgen (1981a), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Volume 1, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1981b), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Volume 2, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1984), What Does a Crisis Mean Today? Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism, Social Research, 51(1/2): 39–64. Habermas, Jürgen (1986), The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Energies, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 11: 1–18. Habermas, Jürgen (1987), Excursus on Luhmann’s Appropriation of the Philosophy of the Subject Through Systems Theory, in: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, MIT Press: Cambridge. Habermas, Jürgen (1988), Die Moderne—Ein unvollendetes Projekt, in: W. Welsch (ed.), Wege aus der Moderne: Schlüsseltexte der Postmoderne-Diskussion, De Gruyter: Berlin. Hayek, Friedrich A. v. (1952), The Sensory Order, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam (2002), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon: New York. Holcombe, Randall G. (2013), Producing Prosperity: An Inquiry into the Operation of the Market Process, Routledge: Oxon. Holcombe, Randall G. (2015), Political Capitalism, Cato Journal, 35(1): 41–66. Holcombe, Randall G. (2018), Political Capitalism: How Political Influence Is Made and Maintained, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Holcombe, Randall G. (2020), Contractarian Ideology and the Legitimacy of Government, Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(3): 1–13. Holcombe, Randall G. (2021), Elite Influence on General Political Preferences, Journal of Government and Economics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2021.100021. Holcombe, Randall G. (2022), Capitalism, Cronyism, and Inequality, in: G.P. Manish and S.C. Miller (eds.), Capitalism and Inequality: The Role of State and Market, Routledge: Oxon. Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. (1947), Dialektik der Aufklärung, Querido Verlag: Amsterdam. Jütten, Timo (2011), The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 19(5): 701–727. Katzenstein, Peter J. (1984), Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry, Cornell University Press: Ithaca. Kim, B. Kyu; Zauberman, Gal, and Bettman, James R. (2012), Space, Time, and Intertemporal Preferences, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4): 867–880. Kim, Jinsoo and Aspalter, Christian (2021), Income Polarity and the End of Social Insurance, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. King, John E. (2014), Remembering Kurt Rothschild, in: W. Altzinger, A. Guger, P. Mooslechner and E. Nowotny (eds.), Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: In Honour of Kurt W. Rothschild (1914–2010), Österreichische Nationalbank: Vienna. Kirchgässner, Gebhard (2005), The Weak Rationality Principle in Economics, CESifo Working Paper, No. 1410, www.ssrn.com. Kirchgässner, Gebhard (2008), Homo Oeconomicus: The Economic Model of Behaviour and Its Applications to Economics and Other Social Sciences, Springer: New York. Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim (1998), The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in Western Countries, American Sociological Review (63): 661–687. Krey, Peter (2002), Jürgen Habermas: The Life-World and the Two Systems, www.scholardarity. com.

56

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Krishnamurti, Jiddu (2000), The Awakening of Intelligence, Penguin: New Delhi. Krueger, Anne O. (1974), The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society, The American Economic Review, 64: 291–303. Laffer, Arthur (1984), The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap, Policy Analysis, 41, www.cato.org/ archives. Lamartina, Serena and Zaghini, Andrea (2011), Increasing Public Expenditures: Wagner’s Law in OECD Countries, German Economic Review, 12(2): 149–164. Landy, Benjamin (2013), How Asset Tests Punish the Poor, The Century Foundation, tcf.org/content/ commentary/how-asset-tests-punish-the-poor. Leibenstein, Harvey (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392–415. Leibenstein, Harvey (1976), Beyond Economic Man, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978a), On the Basic Proposition of X-Efficiency Theory, The American Economic Review, 68(2): 328–332. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978b), General X-Efficiency Theory and Economic Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Leibenstein, Harvey and Maital, Shlomo (1992), Empirical Estimation and Partitioning of X-Inefficiency, The American Economic Review, 82(2): 429–433. Lewis, Paul and Dold, Malte (2020), James Buchanan on the Nature of Choice: Ontology, Artifactual Man and the Constitutional Moment in Political Economy, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44(5): 1159–1179. Leydesdorff, Loet (2000), Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17(3): 273–288. Loewenstein, George (1987), Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption, The Economic Journal, 97(387): 666–684. Low, Linda and Aspalter, Christian (2003), The Welfare State in Singapore: Welfare Without Redistribution, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Welfare Capitalism Around the World, Casa Verde: Taoyuan. Lucas, Robert E. (1976), Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1: 19–46. Luhmann, Niklas (1971), Systemtheoretische Argumentationen: Eine Entgegnung auf Jürgen Habermas, in: J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theorie der sozialen Systeme oder Sozialtechnologie, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1984a), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1984b), Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft als autopoietisches System, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 13(4): 308–327. Luhmann, Niklas (1988), Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1990), Political Theory in the Welfare State, De Gruyter: Berlin. Luhmann, Niklas (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (2012), Introduction to Systems Theory, Polity: Cambridge.Reference ‘Luhmann (2012)’ is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list.have added the corresponding in-text reference ... so keep this reference entry Lukes, Steven (2005), Power: A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Lunkenheimer, Marc; Kracklauer, Alexander; Klinkova, Galiya, and Grabinski, Michael (2022), Homo Economicus to Model Human Behavior Is Ethically Doubtful and Mathematically Inconsistent, www.researchgate.net. Marcuse, Herbert (1955), Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, Beacon Press: Boston. Marcuse, Herbert (1970), Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics, and Utopia, Beacon Press: Boston. McMurty, John (2009), Taxation and Poverty: Injustice Built into Our Tax System Hurts Poor the Most, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, policyalternatives.ca. Midgley, James (1995), Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare, Sage: London.

References

57

Midgley, James (1997), Social Welfare in Global Context, Sage: London. Midgley, James (2013), Social Development: Theory and Practice, Sage: London. Midgley, James and Aspalter, Christian (2017), Developmental Social Policy: Theory and Implementation, in C. Aspalter and K. Teguh-Pribadi (eds.), Development and Social Policy: The Win-Win Strategies of Developmental Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Midgley, James and Piachaud, David (eds.) (2011), Colonialism and Welfare: Social Policy and the British Imperial Legacy, Elgar: Cheltenham. Mises, Ludwig v. (1980), My Contributions to Economic Theory, in L.v. Mises, Planning for Freedom and Sixteen Other Essays and Addresses, Libertarian: South Holland. Mises, Ludwig v. (1998) [1940/1949], Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn. Mohan, Brij (1987), Denial of Existence: Essays on the Human Condition, C.C. Thomas: Springfield. Mohan, Brij (1992), Global Development: Post-Material Values and Social Praxis, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (1993), Eclipse of Freedom: The World of Oppression, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (2007), Fallacies of Development: Crises of Human and Social Development, Atlantic: New Delhi. Mohan, Brij (2011), Development, Poverty of Culture, and Social Policy, Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Mohan, Brij (2015), Global Frontiers of Social Development in Theory and Practice: Climate, Economy, and Justice, Palgrave: London. Mohan, Brij and Bäckmann, Guy (2020), Social Policy on the Cusp: Values, Institutions and Change, Nova Science: New York. Murphy, Raymond (1988), Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Muth, John F. (1961), Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements, Econometrica, 29: 315–335. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (2008) [1878], Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1887), Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift, C.G. Naumann: Leipzig. Niskanen, William A. Jr (1968), The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy, The American Economic Review, 58(2): 293–305. Niskanen, William A. Jr (1971), Bureaucracy & Representative Government, Aldine-Atherton: New York. Niskanen, William A. Jr (1975), Bureaucrats and Politicians, The Journal of Law & Economics, 18(3): 617–643. Niskanen, William A. Jr (1994), Bureaucracy and Public Economics, Elgar: Cheltenham. Offe, Claus (1972), Advanced Capitalism and the Welfare State, Politics and Society, 2(4): 479–488. Offe, Claus (1984), Contradictions of the Welfare State (ed. by J. Kean), MIT Press: Cambridge. Pareto, Vilfredo (ed. by A. Montesano, A. Zanni, and L. Bruni) (2006) [1906], Manuale d’economia politica, Università Bocconi Editore: Milan. Parkin, Frank (1979), Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, Columbia University Press. Parkinson, C. Northcote (1962), Parkinson’s Law and Other Studies in Administration, Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Peacock Alan T. and Scott, Alex (2000), The Curious Attraction of Wagner’s Law, Public Choice, 102(1–2): 1–17. Peacock, Alan T. and Wiseman, Jack (1961), The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press: London. Pelinka, Anton (1998), Austria: Out of the Shadow of the Past, Westview: Boulder. Piketty, Thomas (2014) [2013], Capital in the Twenty-First Century, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

58

2 The General Theory of Distorted Choices

Piketty, Thomas (2020), Capital and Ideology, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Polanyi, Karl (1957), The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon. Popper, Karl (1970), Popper to Aron: Letter on Adorno and Habermas, www.stephenhicks.org/ 2021/09/30/popper-to-aron-letter-on-adorno-and-habermas. Powell, Jason L. (2015), Foucault, Power and Culture, International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(4): 401–419. Rabinow, Paul (ed.) (2010), Michel Foucault: The Foucault Reader, Vintage: New York. Remington, Thomas F. (2023), Socio-economic and Geographic Inequality of the Effects of the Pandemic, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Covid-19 Pandemic: Problems Arising in Health and Social Policy, Springer: Cham. Rick, Scott and Loewenstein, George (2008), Intangibility in Intertemporal Choice, royalsociety publishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2008.0150. Rodger, John J. (2022), Luhmann’s Theory of Psychic Systems and Communication in Social Work Practice, Journal of Social Work, 22(3): 637–654. Rötheli, Tobias (2007), Expectations, Rationality and Economic Performance: Models and Experiments, Elgar: Cheltenham. Rothschild, Kurt W. (ed.) (1971), Power in Economics, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Saiedi, Nader (1987), A Critique of Habermas’ Theory of Practical Rationality, Studies in Soviet Thought, 33(3): 251–265. Saurer, Romina (2010), Das Wagner’sche Gesetz der wachsenden Staatsausgaben, VDM: Saarbrücken. Schmitter, Philippe C. (1974), Still in the Century of Corporatism?, in: F.B. Pike and T. Stritch (eds.), The New Corporatism, University of Notre Dame Press: South Bend. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1911), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Sheffrin, Seven M. (1996), Rational Expectations, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Shen, Zheng; Zheng, Xiaodong, and Yang, Hualei (2020), The Fertility Effects of Public Pension: Evidence from the New Rural Pension Scheme in China, PLoS ONE 15(6): e0234657, https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234657. Simon, Herbert A. (1955), A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118. Simon, Herbert A. (1957), Models of Man, Wiley: New York. Smith, Adam (1759), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, A. Millar: Edinburgh. Smith, Adam (1937) [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Modern Library: New York. Smith, Vernon L. (2002), Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics, www.nobelp rize.org/uploads/2018/06/smith-lecture-2.pdf. Smith, Vernon L. (2003), Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics, The American Economic Review, 93(3): 465–508. Smith, Vernon L. (2008), Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Studebaker, Benjamin (2014), A Critique of Habermas, benjaminstudebaker. Thaler, Richard H. and Shefrin, Hersh M. (1981), An Economic Theory of Self-Control, Journal of Political Economy, 89: 392–401. Tilly, Charles (1984). Demographic Origins of the European Proletariat, in: D. Levine (ed.), Proletarianization and Family Life, Academic: Orlando. Tilly, Charles (1998), Durable Inequality, University of California Press: Berkeley. Tilly, Charles (2000), Relational Studies of Inequality, Contemporary Sociology, 29(6): 782–785. Tilly, Charles (2001), Relational Origins of Inequality, Anthropological Theory, 1(3): 355–372. Tilly, Charles (2003), Changing Forms of Inequality, Sociological Theory, 21(1): 31–36. Timm, Herbert (1961), Das Gesetz der wachsenden Staatsausgaben, FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 21(2): 201–247. Tresch, Richard W. (2022), Public Finance: A Normative Theory, Academic: New York.

References

59

Tullock, Gordon (1965), The Politics of Bureaucracy, Public Affairs: Washington, DC. Tullock, Gordon (1967), The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft, Economic Inquiry, 5(3): 224–232. Tullock, Gordon (2009), The Backward Society, in: J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.), Public Choice Theory, Volume 2, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Tullock, Gordon (2016), Rent Seeking, in: M. Vernengo, E. Perez Caldentey, and B.J. Rosser Jr (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave: London. Uchida, Yasuo (2012), The Health Care System in Japan, in C. Aspalter, Y. Uchida and R. Gauld (eds.), Health Care Systems in Europe and Asia, Routledge: London. UNDP (2005), Human Development Report 2005: International Cooperation at a Crossroads—Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World, UNDP: New York Veblen, Thorsten (1953), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Signet: New York. Veblen, Thorsten (2006), Conspicuous Consumption, Penguin: London. VH, Volkshilfe (2022), Kinderarmut in Österreich, www.volkshilfe.at. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962), Thought and Language, MIT Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1987), Thinking and Speech, in: R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology, Volume 1, Plenum Press: New York. Wagner, Adolph H. (1863), Die Ordnung des österreichischen Staatshaushaltes, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Ausgabe-Etat und die Staatsschuld, Carl Gerold’s Sohn: Wien. Wagner, Adolph H. (1883), Finanzwissenschaft, C.F. Winter: Leipzig. Wagner, Richard E. (2009), Boom and Bust, in: J.M. Buchanan and R.D. Tollison (eds.), Public Choice Theory, Volume 2, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. WB, World Bank (2022), website, data.worldbank.org. Weber, Max (2019), Open and Closed Relationships, in: D.B. Grusky (ed.), Social Stratification, Routledge: New York. WFB, World Fact Book (2023), website, www.cia.gov. WHO (2022), World Health Statistics 2022, www.who.int. Wicksell, Knut (1896), Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen, Fischer: Jena. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1910), Recht und Macht, Duncker und Humblot: Leipzig. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1914), Theorie der Gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft, Mohr: Tübingen. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1926), Das Gesetz der Macht, Springer: Vienna. Yıldız, K. Murat (2021), Turkey’s Social Security System ‘On the Brink of Collapse’, www.duvare nglish.com. Zauberman, Gal and Urminsky, Oleg (2016), Consumer Intertemporal Preferences, Current Opinion in Psychology, 10: 136–141.

Chapter 3

The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

In this chapter1 we are extending the concept and reach of X-efficiency, as set up by Harvey Leibenstein before (1966, 1978a, b). At the end of this undertaking we arrive at a behavioral theory for all social sciences, and not just microeconomics as Leibenstein did (where he was investigating the behavior of a firm, and the people in it). The new theory can be called Z-Efficiency Theory. Economics itself is suffering strong shortcomings in terms of theory development. Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief, once so rightfully stated that “[O]ne of the … themes that comes up again and again, and with ever stronger emphasis … is neglect by academic economics of hard, systematic, empirical analysis in favor of elegant but vacuous formal, mainly mathematical, theoretical exercise. … this shift from factual inquiry into abstract speculation … [has become] even more pronounced” (Leontief, 2019: vii). One famous leading economist, the last representative of the Austrian School of Economics, Kurt W. Rothschild, adds to that statement, as he said “that cultural, social and political conditions exert a decisive influence upon economic processes … is largely ignored by the ‘law oriented’ perspective of ‘Economics’” (Rothschild, cited in Kurz, 2014: 95). We, here, on this place in the time–space continuum, we have a choice. We can choose to be very reductionist and explain economic problems of our time with a boy, alone on an island, trying to open coconuts with a limited amount of stones (EG, 2022), and, we can explain the world economy when imagining that there were only two countries in the world, England and Portugal, producing two goods, wine and cloth (Ricardo, 1817), or we could do it differently. 1

This chapter is based on and builds on an earlier paper, entitled “Understanding Systemic Social Problems: Moving Beyond the Limits of Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory—An Essay in Theoretical Behavioral Social Policy” (Aspalter, 2021).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7_3

61

62

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

We are not trying to be “vacuous” (cf Leontief, above) or “pretentious” (cf Popper, 1970), but simply pragmatic and problem-focused, on the scientific problems of how to explain (and how to explain better, that is) the social, economic and political conundrums of our time. Systemic inequality and systemic poverty are centuries in the making, they are globally connected, and they are political and legally designed, constructed and maintained. The subjects of our scientific hunt here are systemic social problems, including health problems, economic problems, inequality, poverty, as well as systems, process and practices of systemic discrimination, systemic abuse and neglect, systemic violence (including financial, economic, linguistic, and cultural violence) and oppression, wherever they are, and whomever they befall. That is, systemic social problems are the principal subject matter of this scientific project (or ‘research program’, as coined by James M. Buchanan, 2003a, b, before), and so are they for most other inquiries in the realms of social policy science (cf e.g. Powell and Wahidin, 2006; Powell, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2020; Knufken, 2010; Chartier, 2012; Wade, 2014; Taylor, 2016; Sinha, 2021; as well as Westhues, 1973). In doing so, first of all (in this chapter here), we would like to focus on the concept of X-inefficiency, i.e. the relatively lack of X-efficiency, which was proven to be (generally) correct (i.e. its predictions are correct, Leibenstein, 1976) in hundreds of empirical studies around the world in the past couple of decades (Frantz, 2017, 2018).

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations) In the following, the original dimension of inefficiency, as conceptualized by Leibenstein, has been in our study here sub-partitioned into M-efficiency (due to ‘managerial’ M-barriers that reduce overall efficiency) and N-efficiency (due to ‘environmental’ N-barriers that reduce overall efficiency) as regards to societal influences (causal factors), and Y-efficiency and Z-efficiency as regards to personal-level influences (all of which are also subject to societal, cultural, political, legal, and linguistic influences of one’s society, culture, and history altogether). On lower level—the lifeworld level, where the persons are experiencing first hand and close-up these factors—there are two limiting groups of factors or barriers to efficiency. The first group of barriers are bringing about Y-efficiency, and the second group of barriers, Z-efficiency. Hence, overall potential efficiency (outcome, welfare, well-being, health, happiness, wealth, equality) is being reduced by M-barriers leading to M-efficiency level (of the subject or condition under scrutiny). Furthermore, M-efficiency is reduced to levels of N-efficiency by way of N-barriers. Again, N-efficiency becomes Yefficiency (due to Y-barriers), and all ends up becoming Z-efficiency due to the final limiting aggregate impact of Z-barriers. The resulting Z-efficiency level gives Z-Efficiency Theory its name.

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations)

63

In order to do so, we start from the most basic, most abstract—and hence most meaningful (variable and applicable)—theory that there is in all of social sciences: Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, or theory of social communication (Luhmann, 1984a, b, 1988, 1990, 1997).2 Rather than sticking to the original theory of Luhmann tightly, we here have extended the reach of the very same to include also the psyche of a person, of all persons. Aspalter in the past has applied a postLuhmannian theoretical perspective, one that includes all communication, irrespective of the location it occurs (solely within a human body, or exiting or entering the very same) (Aspalter, 2007, 2010, 2020b, 2021). That is to say, all communication, also intrapersonal communication, such as, dreams, feelings, ideas, hopes, expectations, stereotypes, memories, are all part of the same system of communication that makes up society. Social communication is spun further and relived, and re-edited, when one is not socially communicating. But, as soon as one communicates again, this now enhanced, or edited, or simply changed, communication enters again the social stream of communication. They both, social and private communication, hence, are inseparable, in general and particularly for the purpose of our understanding and theory of how human action and human communication is working and how it is not, and what affects it, by and large, for the most part, in most people (cf Nietzsche, 2008 [1878]: 133, 343; Habermas, 1987; Leydesdorff, 2000).

Luhmann shied away from including the psyche into his theory, i.e. the theoretical reach thereof, due to the fact that the human mind—at that time when he conceptualized and fleshed out this meta theory (from the 1960s to the 1980s)—was still very much an unexplored black box for Luhmann himself, and for science as a whole. In contrast to Luhmann, to amend Luhmann’s meta theory (by just extending its reach), we here would like to integrate the rational and the irrational, the social and the intrapersonal (e.g. thinking, feelings, dreams). This needs to be done in order to achieve at a greater (more inclusive) picture of why we do the things we do, and why we do not do the things we do not do. We need to look at the role of power and power relations first, before we take on Leibenstein’s X-efficiency theory and extend it to cover new formerly left-out aspects of the lifeworld (as we see it here), i.e. (i) the psyche (the personal social system, or the social system that lives on and keeps on forming and changing within the realm of personal thoughts, personal feelings, and personal memories and reremembering), (ii) the family system, and (iii) the community system (either the village, the neighborhood one lives in or the people one associates with and shares one’s live with). Kurt W. Rothschild and his contributors of the famous 1971 book Power in Economics, have theorized the importance of power in the scientific discourse and theories of economics, by looking onto different kinds of powers, thought and felt powers included (powers of persuasion and charisma et cetera included). Rothschild and his colleagues have illustrated the power, and the different types of power, through which the machine of economics and the market economy is 2

For Luhmann the individual is the carrier of information and communication, i.e. one of the “nodes” of the communicative web that forms society (cf Leydesdorff, 1993, 2000, 2001).

64

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

not only fundamentally influenced, but built upon (cf also Rothschild, 1993). The political economy of power at all levels of the economy comprises e.g. systems of political lobbying, as well as widespread practices personal connections of the superrich and the executive business class on the one hand, and the people at the levers of power (government and media) on the other. Any theory of human action, or human choices, communication and feelings and all included, needs to not only focus on power, but, and even more so, on power relations. It is in the human nature, the animalistic human nature one could say, that people like to overpower and control other people. Merciless, ruthless competition and power aggregation with subsequent power exertion (use and abuse) have become expressions of attack, warfare, and subordination that lasted millions of years in the history (our story) of the human evolution. All of which is, by now, institutionally and procedurally manifested, cemented, and thus perpetuated in multiple ways, along numerous lines. People are, generally speaking, in the majority of cases, in the majority of times, not selfless, not considerate of everyone else and/or the greater good of society. This is what Economics tries to tell us this with the theory of homo economicus (cf Kirchgässner, 2008; as well as Lunkenheimer et al., 2022; Nehring, 2011; Schlotterbeck, 2007, as well as Leibenstein, 1976). Partially, yes, this is the truth. However, there are a great, great number of exceptions to this. At times most people feel for others, and give up power and advantages for a lot of reasons, rational or irrational. There are great people, the Mahatma Gandhis and Mother Theresas of our times. There are fathers and mothers who are great to their own kids, first and foremost, and give them everything, but not to all the kids in their neighborhood, in the city/county they live in, or the society and country they share with. In addition, marriage and parenthood are transferring/determining wealth and life-time income and savings at the blink of an eye; this is usually realized years and decades later in court, or at the time when one thinks about one’s old-age income and one’s health care and long-term care needs during old age. Therefore, most of our income and savings evade our rational choice making or rational thinking altogether. But, there is more. People in general are so more complex, so more irrational, non-logical, noninformed, mis-informed, confused, and misunderstanding. They fall in love, are loyal to family, relatives, friends and colleagues, or to any occasional stranger. People, for sure, are also emotional, angry, jealous, lonely, hurt, anxious, depressed, injured, and forced and pushed (and nudged), i.e. doing things they do not want to do (cf e.g. Popescu, 2014; Box-Steffensmeier et al., 2022). People so often, most of the time, do not get the luxury to be able to choose from good and best choices, as they lack money, education, housing, health care, social support, and beneficial relationships (guanxi). They lack access to finance, tax accountants, lawyers and politicians (cf McMurty, 2009). On top of it all, there is also a great deal of social and cultural factors (cf Box 3.1) that, in many cases (countries), are overwhelmingly powerful in determining people’s financial choices, the very most of them and the majority of money spent!

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations)

65

Box 3.1: The Case Study of Median Families in China In China, for example, a median family, especially one that is located in the countryside or one that is living in a city but still has close relatives in the countryside (especially when they themselves were raised in the countryside), which applies still to the very most of Chinese people, has no choices, (almost) no rational choices to make, as (almost) all the choices are socially and culturally pre-determined!3 Most of their money is spent on, if they have a son, on their son’s house, which they have to buy otherwise the chances of their son to marry (in a country where there are 17 percent more boys than girls born) are extremely marginal or simple have vanished. Also, families (like in India!) spend, if they can, a fortune on weddings (many years of family savings) and large-scale extended-family-plus-friends gatherings in restaurants. This is not only to show off to one another (to keep face), but also to make sure many poor/poorer/less-well-off relatives and friends have (great) food to take home if they like after the banket/restaurant meal (it is a kind of social-based welfare system, a food security system). It also strengthens ties, build relationships, and ensures help in the future (like during old age). This is in general happening many, many times a year, also due to additional cultural festivals (Chinese New Year, Tomb Sweeping Festival, Dragon Boat Festival, Mid-Autumn Festival, etc.), which are a must, i.e. they are not debatable, not a choice, in any way, not at all. It is also culturally mandatory to hold celebrations and treat one another at birthdays, especially bigger anniversaries, finishing building, decorating or renovating a house or apartment, and 100-days-birthdays for a kid (these are very important and big celebrations). The big round tables are usually stacked with good and expensive foods, for everyone to be able to take home a lot of it, if they like, after the meal has finished. This is not all. Men usually also spend (if they can afford it or cannot afford it!) a fortune on alcohol, especially most-expensive imported Brandy and most-expensive Chinese schnaps (gaoliang), as well as really expensive bottles of wine; all of which are bought and drunk in bulk (we are talking about people, families in the working/ lower-middle classes!). Rationality goes off the boat, perhaps it is not rational to look for rationality here in the first place. It is family—and all relatives and friends are considered family—that what really matters. This is everything for most Chinese people! The most important thing. Rational monetary calculations are out of the question. Many (most) people rather have no money left in the bank, and no retirement savings or plan, no health care savings or plan (for major health care problems), and a big loan (maxing out there) at the bank (for their/their son’s house), than not to follow their way of life. This is their fun, their obligation, their way of living! The children—especially the sons, but now also the daughters—have to provide. But, anybody who studied economics or sociology can see that most of these families, financially speaking (in terms of wealth/asset accumulation), are only rescued by the housing market (as long as it goes up). Rationality in all of this, or real rational choices at hand, it is like looking for needles in a haystack!

3

Adam Smith also noted the crucial importance of social and cultural factors for the success of British settlers in the new territories, in New England, in the modern United States (cf A. Smith, 1937 [1776]: 534, 538, 556).

66

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

This reality—the reality of most people walking down any street, most people one can meet at a train station, and so forth—is not and does not correspond to the reductionist vision of mainstream economic ontological theory has told us (and has indoctrinated all of those who studied economics at least), so far. But it is never too late, to capture the realities of the desperate and struggling families of the world, the poor families, the near-poor families, as well as all of the oppressed and working and middles classes of the world, in all of the world—the undernourished children that lack education, health care and proper housing and their lonely, shoved-aside, poor and all-too-often forgotten marginalized grand-parents and grand-grand-parents of the world. This is why our theories here, in this book, are more complex, way more complex (than a boy on an island with coconuts and stones to open them, or only two countries in the world trading only two goods, in all). This all-inclusive, deep-reaching and far-back-reaching, theory of human action that we are working on here has to deal with the entirety of human communication and human thought, all aspects thereof, and all the way back, when culture and language (in all its early-human forms) took their first steps, and thus set off an evolutionary process of communication that is guiding and embodied at the same time in the culture, traditions, habits and systems of thought of all people, in every valley, on every mountain or island, wherever humans wandered and are still wandering the earth. One of the best analytical minds of the last century, Michel Foucault (1954, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1975), has set off his expedition into this direction, and with this goal, a long time ago. Foucault followed the footsteps of Friedrich Nietzsche (1887), who is without doubt to many the best philosopher of humankind, in at least the last couple of centuries. Nietzsche started the methodology and theory of archeology of human culture and language, mining and harvesting culture, literature, and language for clues and evidence of human thinking and human domination of one another. For Foucault, who developed the genealogical approach further, into the tracing and determining, and analyzing to the point, the mechanisms of power, rather than just looking at power or means of power themselves. That is why Foucault adds a different level of analysis to e.g. Rothschild (1971) who just looked at power per se: Foucault thinks that it is wrong to consider power as something that the institutions possess and use oppressively against individuals and groups, so he tries to move the analysis one step beyond viewing power as the plain oppression of the powerless by the powerful, aiming to examine how it operates in day to day interactions between people and institutions. … in Foucault’s opinion, power is not something that can be owned, but rather something that acts and manifests itself in a certain way; it is more a strategy than a possession … This way of understanding power hat two key features: a) power is a system, a network of relations encompassing the whole society, rather than a relation between the oppressed and the oppressor; b) individuals are not just the objects of power, but they are the locus where the power and the resistance to it are exerted (Balan, 2010: 2). Foucault’s “work marks a radical departure from previous modes of conceiving power and cannot be easily integrated with previous ideas, as power is diffuse rather than concentrated,

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations)

67

embodied and enacted rather than possessed, discursive rather than purely coercive, and constitutes agents rather than being deployed by them” (Gaventa, 2003: 1). [T]he victims of modernity’s disciplinary matrix—the prisoners, patients, and children— can subvert the regulatory forms of knowledge and subjectivity imposed upon them. … while power/knowledge relations construct governable individual subjects, such subjects are not fixed to their conditions of ruling and do become agents of resistance to them … Power is exercised on free subjects and guides, but does not necessarily determines, conduct (emphasis added, Powell, 2015: 411)

Power is all about power relations, and these relations manifest themselves in our culture, through our traditions and habits of acting and thinking alike. Language, and social interactions of all kinds (including art4 ), is the energy that builds these power relations, and the electricity that runs these power relations. Hence, public and private discourses are the highways (means) of communication that build, shape, redirect, and abolish new and old systems of thoughts that change and control everything. Both public and private discourses determine what is good and what is bad, what is counted as true and what is deemed, taken and branded as false (Foucault, 1975, as well as 1954, 1962, 1963, 1969, 2010; cf Nietzsche, 1887). This endless reoccurring circuits of building, maintaining and controlling power relations also build, shape and control political, legal, professional, religious and cultural institutions, practice codes, morals and habits. The knowledge that is thus created constitutes both the expression and the cause of these power relations in place.

The ever-present and ever-important dimensions and realms of power relations and their complex systems of behavioral control mechanisms become rather easily understandable when reading Foucault’s later works (Foucault, 1975, 1976, 1984a, b, 2003, 2010, 2018; cf Rabinow, 2010). The behavioral control mechanisms and thought (and evaluation) control mechanisms that emerge from the constantly present power relations include e.g.: wide and deep-reaching knowledge-control, truth-control, legal-control, action-control, thought/speech-control, value-control, media-control, professional system-control, professional conduct-control, outright behavior-control, and so forth. These control mechanisms are permeating every aspect of people’s lifeworlds (see Habermas, 1981b), all the time.

Having referred to, but not (due to space constraints) repeated the theories and insights of Niklas Luhmann, Kurt W. Rothschild and Michel Foucault, we do the same with the path-breaking works of Harvey Leibenstein, especially his X-efficiency theory (Leibenstein, 1966, 1976, 1978a, b). Leibenstein (1966, 1976) completely transformed economic and behavioral economic thinking, as he looked upon and investigated people themselves, rather than collections of people and their actions. In the following (cf Aspalter, 2021), we take on the very same spirit of innovation from Leibenstein. 4

Cf e.g. the power relations of the Medici family clan in Florence and across Europe centuries ago, their power relations by way of gigantic investments into art in formerly unfathomable dimensions, and the thereof derived political and economic benefits for their power dynasty.

68

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

First, we will add different forms of rationales for both the betterment of one’s own condition (cf A. Smith, 1776) and the condition of one’s group or social (or political) network, and of course one’s relation to it and position within in (cf esp. Kurt W. Rothschild, 1971; also John F. Nash, 1950, and Alfred Adler, 1927, 1938). In addition, we will replace Leibenstein’s X-efficiency concept (a pure economic behavioral concept) with a societal-cum-individual concept of Z-efficiency that capture all sub-optimal levels of efficiencies and hence outcomes, due to the inner working of capitalism, democracies, authoritarianism, etc. of different degrees and different types (cf e.g. Makhijani, 1992). Thus, we will also be theorizing more layers of inefficiencies. First of all, M-inefficiency and N-inefficiency. The first one (M-inefficiency) is caused by (i) managerial/governance-based/legal/administrative barriers on societal, professional, sectoral, and local levels called “M barriers”,5 and the second one (Ninefficiency) is caused by (ii) natural, physical, social and cultural environmental barriers called “N barriers”6 (for these societal-ecological factors see Fig. 3.1). The theoretical maximum outcome will never be achieved, due to the existence of never-ending diversity of human beings and human actions in their entirety. For both M-efficiency and N-efficiency, theoretical possible outcomes must always be greater than actually achieved/realized outcomes, as specific governance systems and system elements and their path dependencies, economic and social systems, legal systems, and geographic and resource-endowment differences are always intervening—and hence reducing maximum theoretical outcomes at M and N efficiencies to actually realizable levels) (cf Fig. 3.1). In addition to that, we will add two more layers of inefficiencies on personal level—one could say the level of the lifeworld (cf Habermas, 1981a, b, 1987)—to bring in the individual, psychological, educational, personal, rational and motivational side of the equation. These lifeworld factors comprise both Y-efficiency and Z-efficiency barriers. We hence also particularly focus on the first kind of lifeworld factors, that of Yinefficiencies (i.e. lost or left out efficiencies). These are formed due to lower levels of personal goal setting that is ecologically-conditioned: e.g. the personal lack or availability of social, cultural, educational, economic resources, as well as micro-level resources and conditions in the natural and physical environment, and limitations thereof (economic costs, time costs, geographical distance to schools and jobs or investment opportunities, etc.). At last, there is yet another layer of lifeworld factors, that of Z-inefficiencies which are formed and conditioned due to accumulated effects of personal life-experience, i.e. personal circumstances and personal history (misinformation, lack of information, past experiences, past education, past received, understood and constantly 5

‘M’ here stands for governmental, societal, institutional ‘m’anagement, that includes also, i.e. especially also, media corporations and media platforms (and here again especially online, but also offline media). 6 ‘N’ here stands for all forms of macro-level ‘en’vironment—natural, physical, social cultural, legal, institutional and other system environments.

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations)

69

theoretical maximal outcome theor. max. outcome minus M barriers

outcome at M-efficiency theor. max. outcome minus M & N barriers

outcome at N-efficiency

Fig. 3.1 Integrating the impact of societal-ecological barriers: governmental, legal, administrative and institutional barriers, as well as natural, physical, economic, social/cultural environmental barriers

reinterpreted and reevaluated communications, feelings, memories, and so forth), as well as due to partnerships (trying to impress or bribe one another, trying to mend things, fighting one another, etc.), group memberships (group pressures, sense of belonging, etc.), organizational memberships (pressures from above and from peers on the workplace or in political party, NGO, clubs, etc.), and class membership (class culture, class preferences, etc.). Both of these two concepts, Y-efficiency and Z-efficiency, correspond directly to what we yearn for actually (our highest expectations) and, then, what we look for realistically, based on our own life experiences and economic, political, social, family and individual/biological realities—what we come to know to be our own realistic expectations (for these ecologically-conditioned ‘personal’ factors cf Fig. 3.2). Expected/ targeted outcomes are in fact theoretical outcomes, as humans are realistic and pragmatic animals (humans). While they often make wishes and/or have dreams, they will not go to their limits (of the actual possible). Or, they are simply getting tired (and/or pulled down) on the way of achieving their goals. Hence, realized outcomes are lower than ‘chased’ outcomes, and this holds for both, Z-efficiency as well as Y-efficiency. As with Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory, each outcome at any level of efficiency in the Z-Efficiency Theory is or can be different from one country to another, from one region to another, from one geographical area to another. In general, it is also different across time, e.g. across centuries, now versus decades later, or e.g. before and after the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Hence, there is a lot of empirical testing, and especially comparative testing and measuring involved. The tasks are huge, but the progress of (rather than the coming, since it started already and it is already fully in the making) data society and digital

70

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

outcome at N-efficiency outcome at targeted Y-efficiency

outcome at Y-inefficiency

outcome at targeted Z-efficiency outcome at Z-inefficiency

Fig. 3.2 Integrating the impact of ecologically-conditioned personal barriers: Y-efficiency and Z-efficiency

society also provides new venues and new vast potentials of applying vast data analyses, global data analyses, and the use of new methods, new technologies, including artificial intelligence (down the road). The final level of achieved—Z-efficiency—is the corresponding counterpart of X-efficiency in Leibenstein’s theory. Therefore, the theory we have set up and of which we have revealed its main components (of different groups of factors) can be called Z-Efficiency Theory. The original mandate for the making of this theory arose from the need to establish a novel field of scientific research (and teaching), i.e. behavioral social policy science. But, rather than being a compartmental theory, or a specific theory for a specific discipline, the here postulated Z-Efficiency Theory is a general theory, one that is designed and apt to explain (more, and not all) aggregate or specific dilemmas related to human choice and public choice making in general, by pointing out its different kinds of barriers that prevent higher levels of efficiency (and hence higher levels of welfare, health, wealth, happiness, and peace). The resulting shortcomings in performance outcomes are the result of these barriers, and the problem is systemic, as people in general cannot make or undo their laws by themselves, they cannot build schools themselves, they cannot build hospitals and invest in the construction of affordable public transport. Education and information in general need to come from the school system and the media (which again is publicly/politically controlled, if not owned). People need to learn to take care of their own health, they need support in terms of education and information, that is, public dissemination of knowledge. Governments need to give economic and financial space for people to work for, feed, clothe, house and take care of their families. People need a fair and equal

The Development of Z-Efficiency Theory (and Its Foundations)

71

financial start, and a fair and equal educational start in life. The tax system, the social security system, and the law system—the way as they are in the very most places/ countries around the world—are not only slowing them down, but also weighing them down (cf also e.g. Han, 2015, 2017). As John McMurty (2009) has perfectly summed it up, in the case of the Canadian tax system: tax policies have been ever more biased in favour of powerful special interests which dominate our society and dispossess the poor: the unearned income of the rich, tax-evading corporations with teams of tax lawyers, and high-on-the hog business expenses. Indeed, the Canadian tax system might now be called a war of the rich against the poor— which is the way John Kenneth Galbraith saw the North American pattern. Taxes on unearned capital gains and corporations keep declining at a cost to the public of endless hundreds of billions of dollars, while write-offs allow big business to end up paying zero tax or a lower percent of income than the poor. The logic of taxation on corporations and the rich, writes corporate law professor Harry Glassbeek, ‘is the logic of tax evasion. Tax law,’ he observes in his definitive book, Wealth By Stealth, is set to make ‘rich people pay less than working people’ and ‘to maintain the accumulation of wealth by the few’ (emphasis added, McMurty, 2009)

People need to earn a decent living where ‘one’ salary can take care of one’s housing needs, food needs, medical needs, daily needs, and family development needs. Two salaries per family are always better, but one must be enough to avoid poverty and human misery. This was possible in the 1950s, in the United States, but also in Europe. But, this is not the case anymore, for the very most of the population here and there, and everywhere around the world. Today’s capitalism is forcing every family to toss in two salary-earners, while living standards are plummeting for them, and this phenomenon is a global phenomenon. At the same time, today’s capitalism is crowding out the number of children they can raise, in a decent and practical manner. The solution, to prey on new workers from abroad who have their families back home in other (much cheaper) countries or do not have formed a family yet, is what the elites want, and that is what the elites get—because they get what they want, as it is them who own, steer and control the essential systems of government, immigration policy, education, the financial world, the technical-industrial complex, and both the public and the social media. It is for this reason that we need to set up and develop yet another general theory, one that explains systemic barriers, systemic oppression, systemic lack of freedoms and possibilities, and systemically orchestrated systems (and processes) of inequality and povertization: the theory of Super Inequality (cf the following study/chapter).

72

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

Z-Efficiency Theory and the Role It Plays in Investigating and Theorizing Human Action, Human Choices, and the Human Condition Starting from Leibenstein’s fundamental theoretical work, which has already been proven to be accurate hundred times over in empirical studies (Frantz, 2017, 2018), this chapter has set out to compile and flesh out a theory of limitations of human behavior: human actions and human choices. The partitionings (cf Leibenstein and Maital, 1992) discussed in Z-efficiency theory, i.e. the different types of casual factor groups, have been extended to fit various needs of numerous researchers working on a myriad of research studies yet to come in the area of human action, human choices and the resulting human conditions. For a theory to be a true theory, it has to be universal (cf Midgley, 2002)—it has to, as here, apply to all cases of human action and human choices (including public choices), all over the world, now in this century, and well into the next and beyond. In setting up Z-efficiency theory, all of Foucault’s theoretical insights come together when looking at the central role of social discourse and knowledge. Social discourse, understood here as the unity of public and private discourse, and knowledge creation are both nothing more than bits and pieces of communication, that are (even when one is in private, or at any private moment, or with any private thought and feelings that one has) constantly spun further and reproduced (in perpetual motion, so) by private thoughts and feelings, and (constantly re-edited and re-written) memories, fears and aspirations.7 … [W]e will refer to the findings of the so-called enactive or neurophenomenological paradigm, which is a recent and improved version of Hayek’s anti-objectivist connectionism … Like Hayek, theorists of this paradigm such as Maturana, Petitot, Thompson, and Varela argue that ‘perception is an act of interpretation’ … in the sense that the ‘world is not pregiven but enacted’ in light of a certain historical context or past experience … However, unlike Hayek, they underline that this idea mirrors ‘the tradition that includes hermeneutics and phenomenology’ (emphases added, Di Iorio, 2013: 3–4)

In this way, we not only succeeded in factoring in, in our theory of human choices (behavior), lots of levels of factors, and very different types and sources of determining factors, but also we come to understand that thoughts, feelings, memories and actions are being constantly reinterpreted and reenacted rationally and/or emotionally each time they are called upon in terms of memory, feelings, thoughts and behavior. Furthermore, we have embedded individual—and hereby also group and institutional, that is public—choice making and behavior in (1) the history of past words spoken and not spoken, feelings felt, suppressed or uttered, thoughts thought, emphasized or not, actions taken or abstained from, and (2) the natural, physical, economic, as well as social and cultural contexts, i.e. communications uttered by or expected of others. 7

For this cf particularly the matrix of systems of thought and modes of self in Foucault, 2010, as well as, Foucault, 1975, 2009; Lukes, 2005; Rabinow, 2010).

Discussion and Conclusions

73

Therefore, we can arrive at the conclusion that human (private and public) choice making and human behavior is neither automatic or reflexive (like a calculator’s choice), nor it is fully reflective (i.e. all-considering, all-knowing).

This research program, or project, about the wonders, depths and widths of human choice making, and hence public choice making, is certainly a long-term one. We need to go away and avoid simple models altogether, however enticing they may seem, and be. Instead, the quest is on for integrating theoretically all essence of human beings, human evolution, and societal evolution. And along with it, there is great need for extensive and intensive empirical testing—as much as possible realistically, and with ever new methods and technical means, e.g. the use of AI, and so forth. We need to focus on all realities in all corners of the earth, and back all the way to the beginnings of all: when first words were uttered, long after first feelings were conveyed—when culture was invented, formed and passed on, i.e. reproduced in a constant manner, for the first time (cf e.g. Whiten, 2011; Handwerk, 2019, 2021, 2022).

Discussion and Conclusions The idea of any general theory may vary from one another greatly, and so may their functions and purposes. The here proposed Z-Efficiency Theory is set up to make things easier in terms of theorizing, putting up theorems, and most important of all, to start and continue to test these empirically, as much, as long, and as wide as possible. In developing theory, grand theories or general theories are absolutely necessary, especially as society and the economy are getting more complex due to rising technology capabilities and applications (depths and widths thereof), globalization of problems, and intensification of global and social exchange (communication) first and foremost through technology. In the end, there is greater need for transdisciplinary theories (cf Popescu, 2014). Thus, within this widening space of transdisciplinary theatre of theory making, we have ample room to build on Z-Efficiency Theory and carry on the quest that has started with Leibenstein’s 1966 publication Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, a long time ago. The changed operational theatre of theory making demands the integration of a whole range of new theories from other scientific disciplines, like sociology, psychology, and so forth. This must be new to many readers, as transdisciplinary works and theorists are not so common, as they should be, or one may think they are (for a good example here, cf Leydesdorff, 2006, 2021). If a researcher is not yet wondering and linking up, and in the end bit by bit merging, different worlds of (theoretical/scientific) realities—the traditional worlds of realities of psychologists, economists, sociologist, linguists, historians, medical scientists, scientists of the helping professions, and different kinds of policy scientists

74

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

with their different areas of specializations—then this new Z-Efficiency Theory gives that researcher (more) excuse to do so for the first time, or ever more so, if it is not. More complex worlds of realities—as they get more complex over time and with increasing size of the specific scientific enterprises that have built, maintain and drive them—warrant more complex solutions (cf Luhmann, 1984a, 1997). These of course have to be appropriate, i.e. fruitful (cf Bottomore, 1972: 37; Steiner, 1988). We live in a new world, not just after the Covid 19-offensive against humanity, with ever-more fading and disappearing conditions of lived human decency, but earlier as well, after the technology-offensive that was propelled with the digitalization revolution of smart phones and AI revolution at the end of the first and second decade, respectively, of this new century and millennia. This is a scary new world indeed.

Ulrich Beck (1992, 1999, 2000) has aptly demonstrated and explained the coming of risk society, world risk society and the brave new world of work. Fact now is (at the time of writing, in 2023), seven years of after the start of the AI revolution, and after the three years of the Covid-19 Pandemic, we are slowly perhaps, but continuously more that is for sure, realizing how simple and how good life was just not long time ago—without the Pandemic, without changing weather patterns and climate shifts, without economic standstills, supply-chain shocks and lock-downs, without super inflation caused by new large-scale wars that join the mix of this new Endangered Society (cf in this new phase of modernity called Third Modernity, in Aspalter, 2020a). Life for most of the world’s population has indeed (and not just arguably) gotten so much worse, tougher and harsher, existence-crushing or existence-threatening at least. As a result, it may very well be a dauntingly critical time to change the ‘culture of everything’ (cf Vaclav Havel, cited in Lavoie and Chamlee-Wright, 2002: 78). Box 3.2 in the following takes a quick excursion into a possible and guiding normative vision for the future.

Box 3.2: The Imperative Change of the Culture of Everything Changing the culture of everything includes all personal and public behaviors/actions, such as e.g.: democratic education and health care oversight (especially price setting and full-fledged freedom of access based on people’s choices only). For example, in education, democratic oversight must include all price setting, and the guaranteeing of the freedom of content that cannot be decided by any government institution or other bodies. That means no micro-managing of access to schools and content of school education by any government or non-government authority (free text-book choices, etc.). There need to be e.g. free health care for all rare diseases and all children’s diseases and children’s health care needs, as well as free public transportation for commuters and/or for all people.

Discussion and Conclusions

75

In addition, this must include changing social security institutions and taxation practices, as well as the large-scale abolishment and changing of regulations and requirements, changing and abolishing of taxes and fees, changing and abolishing numerous parts of the criminal law, family law, divorce law, etc. Governments must change the poor-discriminating and average-citizendiscriminating tax laws and accounting rules, and thus e.g. abolish all sales taxes on foods, medicine and medical treatments, house or car repairs, children’s items, public transport, public museums, public sports facilities and public parks, etc. This would include e.g. also democratic price-setting and price-control mechanisms for public goods, merit goods, and most important other goods, like gasoline, electricity, etc., to prevent inflation and inflationary/immoral price-setting practices (e.g. pulling up prices instantly, and lowering them very late and inadequately). There should be democratic tax/fee/price policies with constant public/real democratic oversight. We need to change governance, its methods and contents, with transparency and democracy of policy-settings, tax-rate-setting, and major price-setting decision-making choices. In short, there is a grave need to implement constant/daily public/democratic oversight and transparency of the behavior/actions of government organizations—and, of course, all of the mainstream media, including social media (as censorship cannot fall into the hands of either: private people, the super-super rich, or public officials, the super powerful). Thus, this can only be done with the help of widest-ranging social policy reforms and other policy reforms, plus other institutional reforms—governance reforms, law reforms, tax reforms, benefit and obligation reforms, service reforms, etc.—as well as communication and education reforms, amongst others.

The Z-efficiency theory can be seen to be a good start to explain e.g. (i) health inefficiencies (health policy and health care policy lack/inefficiency, lack of health knowledge, distorted health choices, etc.), (ii) economic inefficiencies that are caused by elitist/exclusionary education systems, health care systems, as well as lack and deprivation of supply-side investments in education, health care and regional infrastructure investments, (iii) inefficiencies and counter-productivities (perverted methods and outcomes) of a mass-incarcerating legal system that is set to oppress people, rather than anything else, (iv) perverted old and new gender policies that fight the natural existence of non-binary gender reality, and so forth, to be sure the list here goes on sheer endlessly. In other words, Z-Efficiency Theory is designed and apt to help explain further (not all, and not all aspects of, that is for sure) performance shortcomings in general, as well as the interconnectedness of institutional, legal, educational, communicational oppressions, injustices and constraints that penetrate the human mind, societal culture, social/governmental/ industrial/professional practices—and that society-wide and centuries-long in all stretches and corners of the earth (cf Foucault, 1975, 1976; Chomsky 2002a, b; Herman and Chomsky, 2002).

The here presented new model and theory of Z-efficiency of overall societal development outcomes (including health, well-being and happiness) in addition to economic development outcomes is based on and integrates also governmental or societal managerial constraints (M-inefficiencies), as well as physical/natural/

76

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

economic environmental constraints (N-inefficiencies), i.e. ‘outside-ecological’ constraints, as well as personal ‘inside-ecological’ constraints (Y-inefficiencies) and yet more personal life-experience-based constraints (Z-inefficiencies), i.e. ‘insideecological’ and personal constraints from the inside of a person’s lifeworld (see above). We can now in a constructive and systematic manner, explain one by one the shortfalls of societal (and personal, or group) outcomes in terms of e.g. social development, economic development, lack of well-being and equality, lack of health, lack of peaceful co-existence, etc. by using this comprehensive and universal theoretical model, which used Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency theory as a mere starting point, and then integrated in a very transdisciplinary manner useful grand theories of other social and behavioral scientists. With the help of their grand theories, we have arrived at a new dawn, with a new general theory of human/societal behavior constraints and behavior impediments.

Thus, this is now enabling us to devise and reason better comprehensive and long-lasting social policies, including legal and administrative reforms, tax and fee reforms, benefit entitlement reforms, obligations reforms, media reforms, social security reforms, health care and education reforms, etc. to achieve less societal, less outside-ecological, less inside-ecological and less personal-lifeexperience-based constraints, and hence to achieve better/more humane societal results, by softening and counteracting the myriad of extremely one-sided (Foucauldian) power relations and forces that create and maintain systemic social/economic problems, in all societies and communities around the world.

These unequal/distorted power relations are reified in form of oppression, dehumanization, discrimination, as well as lack of relative and/or absolute institutional support and personal incentive systems, as well as relative or absolute lack of decent and full-quality service provisions in e.g. education, health care, and so forth. As a result, these unequal/distorted power relations have long-lasting, farreaching and deep-reaching consequences that alter every fabric of our verbal and non-verbal language and communication (especially formal media, social media, but also movies, advertisements, personal and professional communication, etc.) on the one hand, as well as all of mental formations8 (feelings, thoughts, memories, perceptions, etc.) and our everyday personal, institutional, economic and governmental actions (behavior) and the relative and/or absolute lack thereof. This new theory above, we can refer to it as a general theory of societal ecological behavioral constraints, or Z-Efficiency Theory for short, will serve as a compass, a GPS, for further analyses and policy innovations and reforms for a better future for all human beings in countless years to come. The good news that provides itself and is supported by the theory of Niklas Luhmann (1984a, 1997), and particularly the teachings of Tich Nhat Hanh (1998, 2001, 2010, 2015a, b)—and to some extent Foucault (1975)—is that: every problem, every mental formation, every social problem can be overcome. The only downsides are time and efforts needed, i.e. the longer a problem lasted, or the more severe 8

Here, we use this term, “mental formations,” following the meaning in the teachings of Tich Nath Hanh (1998).

References

77

the repercussions (suffering and harm caused) were, the longer it may in general take to heal and soften them, and in the end to dissolve them.9

References Adler, Alfred (1927), Understanding Human Nature, Garden City Publishing: Garden City. Adler, Alfred (1938), Social Interest: A Challenge to Mankind, Faber & Faber: London. Aspalter, Christian (2007), Towards a Human Capital Welfare State? In Search of Win-Win Solutions, Journal of Societal and Social Policy, 6(1): 1–46. Aspalter, Christian (2010), Towards “Human Capital Solidarity”: Emphasizing Justice in the Distribution of Physical, Mental, Social and Cultural Capabilities—A Normative Study in Social Policy, ISSA Global Research Conference, International Social Security Association, Luxembourg, Sept. 30. Aspalter, Christian (2020a), Third Modernity and Social Policy, www.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2020b), Ideal Types in Comparative Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2021), Understanding Systemic Social Problems: Moving Beyond the Limits of Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory—An Essay in Theoretical Behavioral Social Policy, www. ssrn.com. Balan, Sergiu (2010), M. Foucault’s View on Power Relations, www.researchgate.net/publication/ 321161337. Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity, Sage: London. Beck, Ulrich (1999), World Risk Society, Blackwell: Oxford. Beck, Ulrich (2000), Brave New World of Work, Polity: Cambridge. Bottomore, Tom B. (1972), Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature, Vintage: New York. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M.; Burgess, Jean; Corbetta, Maurizio; Crawford, Kate; Duflo, Esther; Fogarty, Laurel; Gopnik, Alison; Hanafi, Sari; Herrero, Mario; Hong, Ying-Yi, Kameyama, Yasuko; Lee, Tatia M.C.; Leung, Gabriel M.; Nagin, Daniel S.; Nobre, Anna C.; Nordentoft, Merete; Okbay, Aysu; Perfors, Andrew; Rival, Laura M.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Tungodden, Bertil, and Wagner, Claudia (2022), The Future of Human Behaviour Research, Nature Human Behaviour (6): 15–24. Buchanan, James M. (2003a), Public Choice: Politics Without Romance, Policy, www.stephenhi cks.org. Buchanan, James M. (2003b), Public Choice: The Origins and Development of a Research Program, www.sb.cofc.edu/centers/publicchoice. Chartier, Gary (2012), Government Is No Friend of the Poor, www.fee.org/articles. Chomsky, Noam (2002a), Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (ed. by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel) (2002b), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, New Press: New York. Di Iorio, Francesco (2013), Hayek’s The Sensory Order and Gadamer’s Phenomenological Hermeneutics, CHOPE Working Paper, No. 2013-10, Center for the History of Political Economy, Duke University. EG, Econgraphs (2022), Leontief (Fixed Proportions) Production Functions, www.econgraphs.org/ textbook/scarcity_and_choice/production/leontief. Foucault, Michel (1954), Maladie Mentale et Personnalité, Presses Universitaires de France: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1962), Maladie Mentale et Psychologie, Presses Universitaires de France: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1963), Naissance de la clinique, Presses Universitaires de France: Paris. 9

For implications of Buddhist psychology for normative social policy see the teachings and writings of Tich Nath Hanh (1993, 1998, 2001, 2010, 2015a, 2015b), as well as e.g. Aspalter (2021).

78

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

Foucault, Michel (1969), L’archéologie du savoir, Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1976), Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir, Volume 1, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1984a), Histoire de la sexualité: L’usage des plaisirs, Volume 2, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1984b), Histoire de la sexualité: Le souci de soi, Volume 3, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Bertani and A. Fontana) (2003), Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76, Picador: New York. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Senellart) (2009), Security, Territory, Population, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (2010), The Government of Self and Others, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (2018), Histoire de la sexualité: Les aveux de la chair, Volume 4, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Frantz, Roger (2017), Harvey Leibenstein, in: R. Frantz, S.-H. Chen, K. Dopfer, F. Heukelom, and S. Mousavi (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Behavioral Economics, Routledge: Oxon. Frantz, Roger (2018), Harvey Leibenstein, and an Anomaly Called X-Efficiency Theory, Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2(1): 25–31. Gaventa, John (2003), Power After Lukes: A Review of the Literature, Institute of Development Studies: Brighton. Habermas, Jürgen (1981a), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Volume 1, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1981b), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Volume 2, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1987), Excursus on Luhmann’s Appropriation of the Philosophy of the Subject Through Systems Theory, in: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, MIT Press: Cambridge. Handwerk, Brian (2019), Human Ancestors May Have Evolved the Physical Ability to Speak More Than 25 Million Years Ago, Smithsonian Magazine, December 11, www.smithsonianmag.com. Handwerk, Brian (2021), Scientists Discover Oldest Known Human Grave in Africa, Smithsonian Magazine, May 5, www.smithsonianmag.com. Handwerk, Brian (2022), How Did Climate Change Affect Ancient Humans?, Smithsonian Magazine, April 13, www.smithsonianmag.com. Han, Byung-Chul (2015), The Burnout Society, Stanford Briefs: Redwood. Han, Byung-Chul (2017), Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, Verso: London. Hanh, Tich Nhat (1993), Dharma Talks, given in July/August 1993, in Plum Village, France. Hanh, Tich Nhat (1998), Taking Care of Our Mental Formations and Perceptions, Dharma Talk given on August 3, 1998, in Plum Village, France, www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Thich_Nhat_ Hanh_Taking_Care_of_Mental_Formations_and_Perceptions.htm. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2001), Anger: Buddhist Wisdom for Cooling the Flames, Rider: London. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2010), Reconciliation: Healing the Inner Child, Parallax Press: Berkeley. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015a), The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation, Harmony: New York. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015b), No Mud, No Lotus: The Art of Transforming Suffering, Parallax Press: Berkeley. Herman, Edward S., and Chomsky, Noam (2002), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon: New York. Kirchgässner, Gebhard (2008), Homo Oeconomicus: The Economic Model of Behaviour and Its Applications to Economics and Other Social Sciences, Springer: New York. Knufken, Drea (2010), 7 Systemic Problems That Are Killing America, www.businesspundit.com.

References

79

Kurz, Heinz D. (2014), Heterodox Economics in Austria: The Case of Kurt W. Rothschild, in: W. Altzinger, A. Guger, P. Mooslechner, and E. Nowotny (eds), Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: In Honour of Kurt W. Rothschild (1914–2010), Österreichische Nationalbank: Vienna. Lavoie, Don and Chamlee-Wright, Emily (2002), Culture and Enterprise, London: Routledge. Leibenstein, Harvey (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392–415. Leibenstein, Harvey (1976), Beyond Economic Man, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978a), On the Basic Proposition of X-Efficiency Theory, The American Economic Review, 68(2): 328–332. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978b), General X-Efficiency Theory and Economic Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Leibenstein, Harvey, and Maital, Shlomo (1992), Empirical Estimation and Partitioning of XInefficiency, The American Economic Review, 82(2): 429–433. Leontief, Wassily (2019), Essays in Economics: Theories, Theorizing, Facts, and Policies, Routledge: London. Leydesdorff, Loet (1993), “Structure”/“Action” Contingencies and the Model of Parallel Distributed Processing, Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23: 47–77. Leydesdorff, Loet (2000), Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3): 273–288. Leydesdorff, Loet (2001), A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society, Universal Publishers: Irvine. Leydesdorff, Loet (2006), The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, Universal Publishers: Irvine. Leydesdorff, Loet (2021), The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge: CommunicationTheoretical Perspectives on an Empirical Philosophy of Science, in: W. Glänzel, and A. Schubert (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication, Springer Nature: Cham. Luhmann, Niklas (1984a), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1984b) Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft als autopoietisches System, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 13(4): 308–327. Luhmann, Niklas (1988), Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1990), Political Theory in the Welfare State, De Gruyter: Berlin. Luhmann, Niklas (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Lukes, Steven (2005), Power: A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Lunkenheimer, Marc; Kracklauer, Alexander; Klinkova, Galiya, and Grabinski, Michael (2022), Homo Economicus to Model Human Behavior Is Ethically Doubtful and Mathematically Inconsistent, www.researchgate.net. Makhijani, Arjun (1992), From Global Capitalism to Economic Justice: An Enquiry into the Elimination of Systemic Poverty, Violence and Environmental Destruction in the World Economy, Apex Press: Muscat City. McMurty, John (2009), Taxation and Poverty: Injustice Built into Our Tax System Hurts Poor the Most, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, www.policyalternatives.ca. Midgley, James (2002), Discussion, at an international symposium at the School of Social Welfare, The University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, December 11–13. Nash, John F. (1950), The Bargaining Problem, Econometrica, 18(2): 155–162. Nehring, Martin (2011), Homo oeconomicus - Ein universell geeignetes Modell für die ökonomische Theorie?, Diplomica Verlag: Hamburg. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (2008) [1878], Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1887), Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift, C.G. Naumann: Leipzig. Popescu, Gabriela (2014), Human Behavior, from Psychology to a Transdisciplinary Insight, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128(22): 442–446.

80

3 The General Theory of Z-Efficiency

Popper, Karl (1970), Popper to Aron: Letter on Adorno and Habermas, www.stephenhicks.org/ 2021/09/30/popper-to-aron-letter-on-adorno-and-habermas. Powell, Jason L. (2009), Social Theory, Aging, and Health and Welfare Professionals: A Foucauldian “Toolkit”, Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28(6): 669–682. Powell, Jason L. (2012), Foucault: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Nova Science: New York. Powell, Jason L. (2015), Foucault, Power and Culture, International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(4): 401–419. Powell, Jason L. (2020), Foucault and Modern Society, Nova Science: New York. Powell, Jason L., and Wahidin, Azrini (eds.) (2006), Foucault and Aging, Nova Science: New York. Rabinow, Paul (ed.) (2010), Michel Foucault: The Foucault Reader, Vintage: New York. Ricardo, David (1817), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, John Murray: London. Rothschild, Kurt W. (ed.) (1971), Power in Economics, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1993), Ethics and Economic Theory: Ideas, Models, Dilemmas, Elgar: Aldershot. Schlotterbeck, Florian (2007), Homo Oeconomicus: Der Mensch—Ein asoziales Wesen?, GRIN Verlag: Munich. Sinha, Aakanksha (2021), Innovating with Social Justice: Anti-Oppressive Social Work Design Framework, Social Work News, Seattle University, www.cms.seattleu.edu. Smith, Adam (1937) [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Modern Library: New York. Steiner, Elizabeth (1988), Methodology of Theory Building, Educology Research Associates: Sydney. Taylor, Elanor (2016), Groups and Oppression, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 31(3): 520–536. Wade, Lisa (2014), What Causes Inequality? Systemic and Individual Frames for Racism in Media, Sociological Images, www.thesocietypages.org/socimages. Westhues, Kenneth (1973), Social Problems as Systemic Costs, Social Problems, 20(4): 419–431. Whiten, Andrew (2011), The Scope of Culture in Chimpanzees, Humans and Ancestral Apes, The Royal Society, April 12, www.royalsocietypublishing.org.

Chapter 4

The General Theory of Super Inequality

While the roots of the making of the theory of Super Inequality go back a long while, to the time I taught at Seoul National University and worked at the Korean Institute Health and Social Affairs, back in the early 2000s, the making of this theory, however, was in fact a very recent event. Back then, after having finished a previous research program of mine, on explaining why we have (or not have) a welfare state in general, and that in all parts of the world (spanning over 5 books of mine published in 2001 and 2002), I turned on to new things. With the help of an eye-opening, yet very brief, encounter with the idea of normative social policy thanks to James Midgley in Berkeley in the year 2002 (cf. Midgley 2002), I decided to work on a different direction (a new research program, in Buchananian sense) in theory making and social policy making altogether, i.e. normative, instead of explanatory, social policy theory. Shortly thereafter, in Seoul, the connection between the theories of Niklas Luhmann (1984a, 1997) and Pierre Bourdieu (1973, 1983, 2002) caught my attention. In the following, the Seoul years (2003–2005) of mine have been very formative indeed.1 Over the years, these thoughts and research activities led to the publication of several articles and later on a series of books in the realm of normative social policy. By then, for me, explanatory theory was out of the focus, for the most part (with 3 exceptions, on the influence of politics versus culture in general in 2008, on Taiwan in 2010, and on India in 2021b). 1

While at the Department of Social Welfare at Seoul National University, I was teaching postgraduate courses where I developed normative aspects of social policy making, building on Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhman in particular. The Luhmann element then, subsequently, got strengthened with the help of frequent after lunch walks with my dear colleague and friend Ryu Gun-Chun at the Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs, as he is certainly the most excellent expert on Luhmann I met in Asia, who knows many of Luhmann’s books by heart, and turned them into Zettelbooks (instead of Zettelkasten as Luhmann himself), also with hundreds of handwritten notes on the sides. Here, also I would like to thank my professor at National Taiwan University, Chang Ming-De, Gustav, who has become a long dear friend as well, and who was teaching (again) Luhmann to me in the late 1990s—after the first introduction to me by my law and political science professor at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, to whom I am and must be also very thankful!

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7_4

81

82

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Later on, the idea of looking at microeconomics, and hence behavioral economics, was simmering in my head for a while, after it was placed there by Gøsta EspingAndersen who told me that he intended to work in that direction at that time. With the writing of my recent monograph the Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, a new need came to focus. I had to explain why things got worse, in terms of povertization and inequality, and this around the world, in rich countries and the poor alike. A deep plunge into the world and theories of Michel Foucault a bit earlier on2 delivered the answers, and with it a lightning breakthrough. The new theory of Super Inequality emerged. In the following, I will combine (a) the insights and the meta theory of Michel Foucault that covers power relations on micro level, as well as on meso and macro levels of societal analysis, with (b) the insights of an earlier work of mine (2021a) on Harvey Leibenstein, on microeconomics, behavioral economics, and the development of behavioral social policy theory. In so doing, we proceed further with the building the general theory of Super Inequality, while also being able to flesh out the inner workings of this new micro-cum-macro theory. This chapter is largely following and builds on a very fresh publication of mine (a bun that is still very hot, just having left the oven), a journal article entitled “Super Inequality: A General Theory of Mass Poverty” in Social Development Issues. While this new Theory of Super Inequality is designed to cover the causal connections of inequalities of all kinds that are seen and not seen with the naked eye, i.e. historical, cultural and psychological factors included, this theory and its findings do not, and are not designed to, apply to or describe those individual cases of poverty/ inequality that are caused—be it for the most part or entirely—by individual reasons of poverty/inequality alone.

Building the Theory of Super Inequality In order to strengthen the Theory of Super Inequality, its usefulness and validity, the grand theories of a number of true masters of their respective fields have been consulted, employed and in some cases adapted (or extended) to cater to the specific requirements of this research undertaking, to explain systemic inequalities and all their causal factors en group, and hence to explain poverty and the processes of povertization that come about, manifest themselves, get nurtured, grow and extend their reach and intensity at the same time with these systemic inequalities. In order to fully understand, as a result, this general theory of Super Inequality, we have drawn onto the theories of Niklas Luhmann (communication is everything), Pierre Bourdieu (education and culture cause class structure), Ulrich Beck (education and information is the key solution to risk societies), Michel Foucault (power relations force upon us the ways we think, feel, and act, and it are the elites that have 2

The interest in Foucault of mine was nurtured a long time by the writings of Jason L. Powell, a dear and long friend of mine and world-renowned Foucault expert.

Building the Theory of Super Inequality

83

waged a permanent, all-encompassing ‘civil war’ on the masses, the middle and working classes alike, that requires, and can be resisted by, using education, knowledge, culture, philosophy and social policy). Last, but not least, this book is very much supporting and substantiating the ideas, theories and findings of Randall G. Holcombe with regard to his most precise, astonishingly accurate, explanatory description of political capitalism, the theory of which is fully supported by the findings of Foucault, and hundreds of theorists who followed his footsteps around the world. Also included have been the theories and fundamental insights of Charles Tilly (endurable inequality), Max Weber (open and closed relations), Jürgen Habermas (lifeworld), Noam Chomsky (the media is geared by the powerful and rich to control and legitimize sheer everything), Brij Mohan (development paradigm/religion is a psychiatric condition of society and culture, and people in power everywhere more often than not act selfish and follow their narcissistic impulses), David Brady (poverty is unnecessary, it is a public choice, i.e. a political choice), Nancy Fraser (the extend of the havoc capitalism creates as regards to different aspects of people’s lifeworld), and Thomas F. Remington (geography of where people live, study and work decides their chances of suicide, their chances of failure and success in life, even their chances of living through the Covid 19-Pandemic). By means of communication, starting from an early-on stage in childhood, experiences, situations and communication of others form one’s intra-personal psyche, one’s ways of thinking and feeling. In this way, the culture of society—the culture impregnated into and transported through one’s language or dialect, and the intimate community and family—forms the ecologically-bounded ways of rational thinking (and absence and particularities thereof), and with it one’s likelihoods and certainties of personal actions, reactions, and non-actions. As theorized by the representatives of the Frankfurt School (Horkheimer and Adorno 1947; Marcuse 1955, 1970; Habermas 1968, 1987), and Nietzsche before them (1878), Freud’s Über-Ich is the prolonged arm of history, society, culture and language in the formation and development of one’s mind and one’s rationality. The border between the individual and society is a mere artificial one, since language transcends it all the time, constantly, since the beginning of humanity. History, society, culture, and language are manifested in one’s upbringing, in one’s lifeworld (cf. Nietzsche 1878; Habermas 1968, 1987; Leydesdorff 2000, as well as Freud 1921; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1987). Hence, society and culture, the aggregate power relations of the immediate world we live in, and its history, are all part of and the foundation (the reason for its existence) of human rationality, human choice-making and hence human actions and non-action. Immediate self-observation is not enough, by a long way, to enable us to know ourselves. We need history, for the past flows on within us in a hundred waves. We ourselves are, after all, nothing but our own sensation at every moment of this continued flow. … in order to understand history, we must scrutinize the living remains of historical periods; … we must travel … to other nations … where man has doffed or not yet donned European garb. For they are ancient and firmly established steps of culture on which we can stand. … selfknowledge becomes universal knowledge as regards the entire past, and … self-direction

84

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality and self-training in the freest and most far-seeing spirits might become universal direction as regards all future humanity. (emphasis added, Nietzsche 2008 [1878]: 343–344)

With this understanding, now, we are equipped to take on the essence of the human condition, and with it atrocious levels of systemic inequality and mass poverty, throughout all of the world that have and had it roots in history, from the beginnings of humankind. Human action is the product of world-historical rationality, world-historical ecologically bounded rationality, where barriers of culture and society are not only passed along through legislation and government practices (M-barriers), but also by the intermediate and immediate environments (N-barriers and Y-barriers), and the thereof resulting, one’s own personal, rationality (that is formed and limited by Z-barriers) (see the chapter above). Foucauldian power relations that form, shape and feed this world-historical rationality make possible, grow, and maintain systems and practices that produce and are built on inequality: the economy, financial investment markets, property markets, education systems, formaleducation-based hiring and promotion practices, duality of health care systems, and so forth. This is the super matrix of inequality and povertization.

Only through inequality, poverty in form of mass poverty and extreme poverty can exist, and continue to exist. There are of course multiple matrices that generate inequality, they however join forces and even sustain and multiply one another.

On Rationality: Not an Answer, but a Source of Problems To make a long story short, rationality, we may conclude, is not the answer to all problems of the human condition, but quite the opposite. Thus, Habermas is very wrong with his central assumption of his theory of human action, that rational dialogue and discourse can solve everything. Of course, Habermas has also applied a different definition of rationality, one that follows layman terms, and most people when asked on a road would think and say that this is a ‘very nice’ definition (i.e. the original version in German). Habermas on what is a rational person: Rational nennen wir eine Person, die ihre Handlungen mit Bezugnahme auf bestehende normative Kontexte rechtfertigen kann. Erst recht gilt das aber für denjenigen, der im Falle eines normativen Handlungskonfliktes einsichtig handelt, also weder seinen Affekten nachgibt noch den unmittelbaren Interessen folgt, sondern bemüht ist, den Streit unter moralischen Gesichtspunkten unparteiisch zu beurteilen und konsensuell beizulegen. (emphases added, all these words and expressions in italics are very subjective and hence not universally determinable, hence they cannot be used in a scientific sense for sociology, psychology or economics alike, but only in a philosophical sense; Habermas 1981a: 39)

Habermas, on the other hand, had also a different rationality in mind, that of communicative rationality (of a fully educated intellectual, in a genuine discussion, so to speak). But in fact, Habermas’ definition of rationality—for our purpose here, the purpose of understanding human action, human choices, and the resulting human

The Elite-Enabling Forces of Systemic Inequality and Systemic …

85

condition—is a not useful definition in scientific terms, as it focuses on the act of convincing (überzeugen) others, rather than an objective/universal concept of rationality (cf. Habermas 1981a, b; as well as Taylor 2017). Thus, one could say that ‘reasoning’ and ‘reason’ are more instruments of convincing and dominating others than anything else. [R]eason is certainly not the final judge of life. Though, if we pause to think about it, we shall realize that it is not Reason herself whom we have to defy, it is her myrmidons, our accepted ideas and thought-forms. Reason can adjust herself to almost anything, if we well only free her from her crinoline and powdered wig, with which she was invested in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Reason is a supple nymph, and slippery as a fish. (David H. Lawrence 1978: 297)

Rationality—what is perceived, formed and used as rationality—is in fact a weapon of the dominant, of the super-rich and the powerful, to subjugate, control, imprison and exploit the weak, the masses, the ones that grew up in despair, with lack of confidence, lack of linguistic and cultural dominance, lack of educational and financial privileges, lack of social relations that provide, sustain, and grow their dominance (guanxi/relationships with other super-rich and powerful people) and hence lack of their own recourses (power, wealth, health, relationships, etc.).

The Elite-Enabling Forces of Systemic Inequality and Systemic Povertization Important to note is that intention of subjugation, mind imprisonment, cultural imprisonment and real-life imprisonment, and financial/capitalistic exploitation (through trade dominance, unfair prices, inflation, etc.) is not required for, as long as the outcomes are falling in line with this theory, this theory to be substantiated and fully confirmed. There does not need to be intention to create inequality, or dominance in public discourse. It is often, and perhaps more often than not, that cards just fall this or that way, or that initial differences (of inequality, resources, etc.) have tremendous, and never-ending, effects on outcomes (accumulative relative misfortunes or fortunes) decades down the road in one’s life, down centuries in the history of a family line, a locality, a region, a country, or continents. In general, life-time, intergenerational, and inter-historical systemic inequality and systemic povertization are enabled, maintained/nurtured, and exacerbated through e.g.: 1. Oppression passed on through history into people’s minds and lives (Nietzsche 1878, 1887; Bourdieu 1977; Vygotsky 1962; Massey and Denton 1994; cf. also Habermas 1987; Leydesdorff 2000; Johnson 2013, 2019, 2022), 2. suppression through particular uses of language itself (Nietzsche 1887; Marcuse 1969; Bosmajian 1974; Foucault 1976; Fraser 1990; Herman and Chomsky 2002; Chomsky 2002a, b)

86

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

3. suppression through the institutions of democracy itself, by forcing the masses to side with pre-given choices set by the power elites (Holcombe 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2021; Manish and Miller 2022), 4. exclusion from positive social and cultural participation by means of a perpetuation of social and cultural disharmony and inequality (cf. Nietzsche 1887; Mohan 1987, 2011, 2012; Massey and Denton 1994; Mohan and Bäckmann 2020), 5. expulsion from economic, social and cultural life through emphasis on mass incarceration, segregation and hyper-segregation as systemic means of oppression and weakening of the masses, i.e. working and middle classes alike (cf. Foucault 1975, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2014; Massey and Denton 1994; Lukes 2005; Rabinow 2010, as well as DeFina and Hannon 2009; Brady 2009; Caliendo 2021), 6. expulsion from economic, social and cultural life—as these can take on the form of education requirements (level, type and/or specialty of education, time and place of education; plus the fame of educational institution), specific workexperience requirements (number of years, type, time of experience, plus type and fame of the previous employer), license requirements (e.g. government and professional licensing and their requirements), open or hidden age and/ or gender requirements, as well as discrimination based on sexuality, gender, family status, parental status, ethnicity, personal accent, place of dwelling, place of birth, etc. 7. polarization of educational opportunities, including geographical availability/ quality of education, pricing/financing of education, segregation through and in education (cf. e.g. Bourdieu 1973, 2002; Collins 1979; Vygotsky 1978; Massey and Denton 1994; Dronkers 2010; Keys Adair and Sánchez-Suzuki Colegrove 2021), these are exacerbated by systems and practices of rankings and general typification, that include: (a) university and school rankings (government rankings, or private rankings), (b) public versus private schools and universities where either one is in high-esteem and the other not, (c) large research universities versus small community colleges, and (d) small expensive elite colleges/ schools/kindergartens versus the rest. 8. polarization of health, i.e. polarization of health outcomes and access to health care on the one hand and disease, incapacitation and disability on the other (in other words, polarization of health of and health care for the rich versus the poor and near-poor) (cf. OWD 2022), 9. global, national and local wealth polarization (cf. Piketty 2014, 2020; Aspalter 2023; Credit Suisse 2022), 10. polarization related to income: i.e. income polarization, labor market polarization, and polarization of income basis (cf. Kim and Hießl 2017; Kim and Lee 2021; Kim and Aspalter 2021), 11. monopolization and privileged rewards associated with access to finance, access to investment, and access to power connections and power networks (cf. Tilly 1984, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003; Murphy 1988; Collins 1975; Weber 2019),

The Elite-Enabling Forces of Systemic Inequality and Systemic …

87

12. exclusion and punishments delivered through taxation, fees, and social security financing, inflation and devaluation of savings and pensions, cold progression in taxation, as well as exclusion from financing and economic opportunities (cf. Brady 2009, 2019; Brady et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2021; Remington 2023; Aspalter 2023), 13. technologically facilitated and/or caused oppression and exploitation of the poor and the near-poor (Zuboff 2019; Eubanks 2018; Marcuse 1964) and last but not least 14. all kinds of social, political, economic and cultural exclusion based on gender and sexual orientation (cf. Abramovitz 1985, 1996, 2000; Fraser 1990, 2008, 2013, 2017, 2019; Sainsbury 1993, 1994, 1996; Fraser and Gordon 1994; Jónasdóttir 1994; Kingfisher 1996, 2002; Fraser and Honneth 2004; Jónasdóttir and Jones 2008; Saxonberg 2013; Van Der Ros 2013, 2014, 2015; Gould 2014; Olorunshola 2016; Mathieu 2016; Fraser and Jaeggi 2018; Taylor et al. 2018; Haider-Markel et al. 2019; Haider-Markel 2021; Doob 2021; USAID 2021). The above essences of the new meta theory of Super Inequality are to be understood, and used, as a new compound theory, a meta theory that focuses on an extremely large spectrum of groups of causal factors in explaining dire and widespread inequality and poverty, across centuries and across continents. This theory is set to, and now can, explain inequalities and the therefrom resulting systemic poverty, rather than ignoring or mystifying or belittling their existence and horrendous effects on the human condition per se, everywhere and at all times. Not only has this new theory (a) the (operational) power to logically explain systemic inequalities and systemic forms of poverty and (b) the capacity to guide empirical examination and proofs of the matter, but it is also apt to (c) explain the formation, the maintenance of systems that cause and propel inequalities—be it through cultural, linguistic, political, legal, administrative, moral, professional, economic and social suppression of thoughts, hopes and ideas for the betterment of one’s economic, social and health condition all alike. These power relations that are extremely one-sidedly tilted are controlled and maintained by the super-super-rich and the powerful (the economic, political and administrative elites), with the help of the intellectual and media elites, as well as professional, social and cultural elites. In other words, these power relations are elite-enabling and elite-sustaining forces.

We can now—with the foundations that are provided with this new theory of Super Inequality—work on and explain why policies and administrative rulings and court practices/rulings that cause systemic inequalities, systemic lack of opportunities, systemic disadvantages and systemic discriminations/oppressions of all kinds are created, allowed to be created, maintained, and allowed to continue and worsen. It is not enough to point to the general problem of public choice theory that for the most part, for the most time, government officers and administrators, judges and court administrators are acting in their own interests, and not in the interests of the general public, the people, and even not in the interests of their own party or government.

88

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

One needs to look at and examine policy strategies, policies, administrative rulings and actions, financing and taxation strategies and policies, legal practices and rulings, as well as all their side-effects and follow-on effects and explain all forms of inequalities, and the policies that created them and failed to undo them, and the policies that are able (realistically speaking) to lessen, prevent and undo them. It is for this reason that we needed to draw onto many theories, which are applied together, i.e. they work together en group to solve the overall mystery and puzzles of systemic inequalities and systems of dehumanization/povertization. Again, these theories are not randomly pieced together, far from it. The theory of Niklas Luhmann (1984a, b, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2012) has prepared the ground for the theoretical building of Super Inequality Theory. All main ideas and propositions run with and work with the essential Luhmannian theory of social communication, with the one exception that its scope has been expanded, and necessarily so (for this theory to work and make sense), to include the individual and any communication within the individual into the now wholesome theory of communication, what has been best described as a post-Luhmannian (i.e. an extended Luhmannian) approach to communication. The linguistic continuum facilitates individuation and socialization (cf. Habermas 1987; Leydesdorff 2000). Language continues to flow throughout history, into and from our veins. Our dreams, feelings and hopes are as much the product of social communication as they are their embodiment and the root and cause of social communication and their meanings and functions and the human actions they lead to. (cf. Nietzsche 1878)

Further, this new meta theory of social inequality, economic inequality, cultural and educational inequality, financial inequality, health inequality, and so forth also, as a second major pillar, rests on the theory of Michel Foucault, especially and first and foremost on his theory of the ‘civil war’ matrix (cf. esp. Foucault 1975, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2014; as well as Lukes 2005; Rabinow 2010; Powell 2015). Without an extended version of Luhmann’s system theory (or theory of communication), and/ or without this quintessential explanation of social, cultural, linguistic, political, and economic dominance and exclusion of the majority of humankind, by a minority (the powerful and all-dominating elites), there would not be a theory of Super Inequality. The other main theories, of e.g. Herbert Marcuse, Pierre Bourdieu, Charles Tilly, Noam Chomsky, and so many others (see above), are the flesh that is connected to the skeletal structure (the bones) of the theory of Super Inequality. Only, of course, together—drawing on all those theories at once—an apt and competent, and certainly fruitful, theory has come on shore, come to the fore. The rational scientific mind, being now equipped with Foucault’s theory of power relations and his concept of the ‘civil war’ matrix, can now investigate not only using humans, individuals, as the subjects of research, but also history, language, cultural, politics, morality, the fear and desperation of working-class families, and/or wealth accumulated over centuries in the hands of so few (the economic-cum-political elites). Also, at the same time, the war against the common people—by the super-super rich and the super powerful—becomes visible:

The End of ‘Pure Market Theory’ as a General Theory

89

It is a war that is fought, not with guns, but with words, and extremely one-sided power relations, that multiply, expand their reach and sink to new depths, in the minds of the people that are dispossessed by history, battered by culture and language, bullied by politics and the legal system and its practices, and then thrown under the bus by the financial system, inflation, high interest for common people’s housing loans, the financial perils of marriage/ divorce and parenthood, and much more.

Once the foundations of Luhmann’s theory of social communication and Foucault’s theory of power relations are understood, a great vast ocean of possibilities of research—empirical, theoretical, and philosophical research—may unfold ahead. The predictions of this new meta theory, Super Inequality, can be tested, supported and demonstrated by a myriad of possible case studies, and a myriad of different kinds of empirical data and studies altogether. The sheer fact that millions of children have to die every year due to hunger and malnourishment (WHN 2018), while one percent of the earth’s people control half of the earth’s wealth (Credit Suisse 2022), is already proof! 100 percent proof. The theories of Foucault, Chomsky and the data provided by Piketty and others have done so the same. They provided proof, and when taken together, the proof is ever more significant, and valid. For a theory to be disproven, what many scientists and non-scientists alike do not know or pay attention to, there needs to be a new theory that is better, and proves the old theory unworthy. Even the slighted gain in the capacity to explain the world and the state of its inequality of people, across this indeed very sad planet (thinking about these many millions of children that die so unnecessarily, and horribly), would mandate us, scientists, to abandon one theory for another (Steiner 1988). So, the question is, is there any other theory out there that tries to explain all this misery and deplorable human condition?

The End of ‘Pure Market Theory’ as a General Theory There are many sparrows on the roofs and in the halls of academia that have sung the song already. It is the song of the death of academic economics (in the sense of Wassily Leontief). Deans of economics and business administration faculties, established and young scholars alike, are saying it, too, and very publicly: economics as a science is dead! What they are referring to is mainstream theory in economics, which is market theory, the theory of the invisible hand, laissez-faire economics. And, yes, ‘pure market theory’ is dead! As of today, market theory cannot yet accurately account for the dynamics of a real market, or market economy. Economics in the real-life world (not imaginary economics, e.g. on the moon, i.e. moon economics) is so much more complex, that one would think at first glance, or as one is taught at economics departments throughout the world, over and over. Kurt W. Rothschild argued that the subject matter of economics is much more complex than that of physics; and Max Planck supported this very same conclusion (cf. King 2014: 25).

90

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

The question that poses itself then is, is social policy or social science more complicated than economics or only the very same extremely complicated. Whether it is the former or the latter conclusion, the answer is the very same: we need to combine many powerful theories, of different disciplines, all of which having the same lowest common denominator, pieces of communication à la Luhmann, plus personal thoughts, perceptions, feelings, aspirations, fears, etc. of course—thus also integrating the individual, psychology, one’s private/inside thoughts, and one’s mental and emotional internal communications into theory making. Standard economics or academic economics (in a stubborn and over-confident fashion) ignores and factors out according to its standard mode of operation (1) the crucial causal relationships between the economy, economic action and social action in general, (2) cultural factors (including all linguistic and historical factors), and (3) social factors in one’s daily lifeworld (see Habermas 1981b), such as, personal and community ties and exchanges, and social experiences, memberships, social participation, social environment, etc.), plus social and political factors in society at meso and macro levels (labor relationships, taxation, law, government rules and regulations, court rulings, socio-economic geography, transportation, education, health care and long-term care systems, etc.). In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith noted that there were significant differences in the governing policies of, and degrees of independence of, European Colonies (e.g. as regards trade laws and regulations). Mother countries in general went on to “rather to damp and discourage, than to quicken and forward the course of their prosperity” (A. Smith 1937: 556). In the most remarkable case of wealth creation in the British Colonies in North America, the mother country (England), apart from military protection, contributed to their success only one thing: it bred and formed the people who were capable of achieving such success. In short, education and cultural traits are the only thing the new settlers obtained from their mother country that enabled them to prosper, and the relative long distance to their mother country, too, was a positive factor, as it lessened the mother country’s micro-management of both economic and civil affairs. Despite the disadvantage in the quality of the land the English settlers took possession of, they greatly outperformed their Spanish and Portuguese counterparts who conquered lands of superior quality, in agricultural/economic terms (cf. A. Smith 1937 [1776]: 534, 538, 556).

Kurt W. Rothschild knew better as well. Rothschild acknowledged the crucial— i.e. game-changing(!)—role of cultural and social factors and conditions. Rothschild noted that the fact. that cultural, social and political conditions exert a decisive influence upon economic processes ... is largely ignored by the ‘law oriented’ perspective of ‘Economics’. (Rothschild, cited in Kurz 2014: 95)

It is not enough to use students in a classroom and pretend that this is the economy, or the essence of the economy, when conducting market experiments with them (such is e.g. the case of Vernon L. Smith’s works, cf. 1989, 1992, 2000, 2002). One needs to factor in cultural, social and political complexities (all of them) into an experiment, or the theory, one is working on. Otherwise, one ends up with half-true, incomplete theories and a half-correct science, half-out-of-touch science (cf. V. Smith 1991; Smith and Wilson 2019; Inoua and Smith 2019, 2020a, b).

The End of ‘Pure Market Theory’ as a General Theory

91

The market, that is people selling vegetables to you. The institution of a markets are places in the time and space continuum, where goods and/or services are sold and bought, nothing more, nothing less. The market is not a societal theory or general behavioral theory, or an all-guiding, all-solving instrument. Quite the opposite is true, it causes a great deal of problems that needs government support all the time, in many areas, and many aspects of it. The prices, price setting, can go horribly wrong (cf. e.g. Inoua and Smith 2021, 2022), the great inflations of the past have shown that, and so is the current inflation dilemma of the years 2022 and 2023! The current dominant versions of market theory that is silencing, ignoring, neglecting the deaths of millions of children every year due to malnutrition and hunger, while hundreds of tons of tomatoes, for example, are thrown out in Europe, wasted, even thrown out on the streets for fun, in Spain (cf. TWP 2016), is not a general theory. And, arguing the deaths of millions of children every year away in a reductionist manner using notions of rationality (in whatever definition) and equilibrium or balance (by whatever dehumanized mathematical means) is rather absurd, to say the least. A theory needs to explain things, i.e. real-life developments, real-life conditions, otherwise it is not a theory, but a religion or an unrealistic or surreal notion, a fancy idea, or a reckless dream! When someone talks about market, one can ask who is setting the prices (cf. Inoua and Smith 2021), for what (cf. Inoua and Smith 2022), and for whom, i.e. for whose profit, gain, and dominance (cf. Stiglitz 2019; Holcombe 2018, 2013; Breton and Wintrobe 1975; Rothschild 1971)! And with what ‘guns’? All the forces of finance, taxation, inflation, fees-and-tax-setting-and-inventing bureaucrats, taxes on top of taxes, sales taxes next to (on top of) income taxes, price-setting-housing-markets, price-setting-oil-markets, and price-setting-supermarkets included. Consumers are weakened and intimidated by taxes, fees and prices, every day, all of their lives.

Consumers are frightened by any bill in their mailbox, or the thought of any price increases (inflation), fee or tax increase, or the number of bills (and fines) in their mailbox. Consumers are beaten by day-to-day realities, until they are desperate and/or weak, until they give up to resist or think about their role in society and the economy, and what are the causal factors for their misery and marginal existence (cf. especially also Han 2015, 2017; Chomsky 2017). These things can be seen and measured, demonstrated and analyzed, they are not subject of thought or imagination, or of a spiritual/religious nature. These are things overlooked and/or ignored by out-of-laboratory economics (cf. particularly e.g. V. Smith 2017). They should be essential parts, and form the bedrock of, real-life economics, if it comes, when it comes back, to form the mainstream in economics— as it did, mainly, and positively so, in the times of Montesquieu and Adam Smith (cf. Inoua and Smith 2019, 2020a, b). Consumers are market participants. Without consumers, investors and producers, there are no markets. Without general market theory, there is no mainstream

92

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

economics, the current-day dominant version of it. There are forces within economics that are rescuing it—i.e. to bring it back to live—strong economists and their new path-breaking works like Thomas Piketty (2000, 2006, 2014, 2020), William Easterly (2007), Joseph E. Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo (2019), Joseph E. Stiglitz et al. (2010), Joseph E. Stiglitz (2019), Joseph E. Stiglitz et al. (2020), Sabiou Inoua and Vernon L. Smith (2021, 2022), and their colleagues. But, economics of the past, for good hundred years, has been used also as a principal weapon of suppressing divergent, pluralistic, competitive theories and points of thoughts. ‘Pure market theory’—as a theory that replaces everything else—cannot, and cannot be allowed to, lead the way also for these next hundred years and beyond. Pure market theory is a fallacy, a fiction; as are its most basic assumptions, like perfect competition (where profits always must be zero for all companies involved), perfect information (which is simply impossible, and super expensive and hence completely absurd), large number of buyers and sellers of each exact product and service in each exact locality at the same time, and so forth. For economics not being used and abused any further by the power elites, as well as a great number of elite economists (knowingly, or not; willingly or not), there is a still a long way to go. Rather than attacking pure general market theory head on, the theory of Super Inequality, may flesh out and strengthen its theoretical and empirical foundations/ evidence. It seems mainstream economics has made the turn already, leaving its peril positions and fallacious assumptions behind, including perfect rationality of everyone (in doing almost everything), as well as the non-existing invisible hands of the market and its price-setting institutions that simply do not exist in the general way that it had been theorized for a hundred years. The visible outcomes of the historical-cultural-cum-political forces of elitecapitalism theorized by Super Inequality Theory instead are talking for themselves. Systemic inequality, systemic poverty, and the deaths of millions of children due to malnutrition can be explained only by Super Inequality Theory, not by any pure general market theory—which is utterly unequipped for, and thus incapable of, doing so.

The Super-Super-Rich Fooling and Ruling All Others The super-super rich and the super-rich having their fun being super-super rich or super-rich. The world is repulsively unequal. Being equal is not good either, one just has to think back to the times of Mao Ze-Dong, and how things were handled and what the human condition was at that time. Equal meaning, 100 percent equal, that is not good, way no good. But repulsively unequal, as today in most capitalist economies across the globe is at least as horrible, especially when it kills millions of babies and children in the poor countries around the world, and that every year.

The Super-Super-Rich Fooling and Ruling All Others

93

Black and white painting, good and evil painting, a dichotomic view of economics is a tool for either side of the end of the political spectrum to beat the drum of advertising for this or that ideology, pure market capitalism or pure non-market socialism. (cf. e.g. Holcombe 2022, 2018, 2013)

The super-super rich will always gather support from the rich that are just about rich enough to feel that they are among the rich, and that they have, too, a lot to lose, if things do not go the way the super-super rich, and their generals, say they should go. Apart from that, the dichotomic discourse on what is left and what is right, who is left, and who is right, is following the playbook of Ancient Roman Empire building and maintaining: divide and conquer. The super-super rich and the super powerful have friends and followers (admirers) in all the highest places in, and finance and support, major political parties on both the political right and the political left, and in all major media outlets (HR 2022; Herman and Chomsky 2002; Chomsky 2002a, b). It is just a game they play, a power domination game, where the end, either way, always means that the super-super rich and the super powerful gain more influence and dominance, more wealth and power, and the rest (not just the poor, but also the middle classes) are being weakened, in the pretense of protecting them, in the pretense of safeguarding their interests and security. The super-super rich, the powerful and privileged, over time always come to dominate all of culture, politics, economy, social and moral affairs in society, in the community and family, and all aspects of one’s private life as well, because they work together as a group (knowingly or not, rather silently than outspokenly), and because they have a common perceived enemy they see every day on the streets, which they are by and large frightened of (and/or whom they either detest or avoid contact with).

The super-super rich and the super powerful are working together in many ways, constantly and tightly. Politicians get hired after their political career to get the payoff, in form of board of directors’ jobs, the foundations of which have been prepared and secured during the time in office, and with the relationships (power relationships) politicians still hold in their hands after the have left office. This is extremely common, and includes prime ministers and ministers alike across all major countries in Europe, and all over the world. The super-super rich and the super powerful also work together by seizing, creating, and hording opportunities, monopolies, oligopolies, one-sided financial privileges, such as, tax exemptions, tax privileges, and so forth, and all kinds of normative and executive power concentrations (cf. especially Foucault 1975, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2014; as well as Lukes 2005; Rabinow 2010; Powell 2015). The power relationships between and among the super-super rich and the super powerful are building, extending, deepening, and maintaining their own privileges, a whole worldwide machinery of building those privileges is in play, and secret societies (e.g. Free Masons), secretive societies and clubs, as well as secretive discussions at regular meetings (cf. e.g. Bilderberg meetings), and other gatherings (economic summits, like in Davos, etc.) are important pieces in the puzzle that turns the wheels of our economies, financial institutions, the technological-industrial-military complex, our governments, and highest institutions of educations alike.

94

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Important social institutions that are used, and deepened at the same time, include e.g. party member privileges, professional privileges, occupational and educational hierarchies, as well as exclusionary professional standards, testing and licensing mechanisms, hiring requirements, secret or open dress codes, codes of conduct and behavior, special language and accents used, special sports and cultural preferences, etc. (cf. e.g. Weber 2019; Tilly 1998; Murphy 1988; Collins 1975, 1979). Max Weber (2019) in particular theorized the importance of open relationships versus close relationships. Weber’s explanation is a valuable support to the explanatory power of Super Inequality Theory. For the rich and the powerful, open relationships protect them from failure, and support them in their success in all ways imaginable and perceivable—including advantageous phone calls, playing golf or tennis together (the rich with the powerful), going hunting or on holiday together, dinner parties for the rich and powerful, and so forth. The main media companies are working together with the government and supersuper-rich to acquire subsidies and government advertisements, forming a web of cultural and political dominance, where free speech and free thoughts and free actions are only free as long as the media, the government and the super-super-rich agree on it. Hence, the limits of freedom have become a tight corset of options, that are closely set, closely monitored, and permanently micro-managed (on a daily basis) by the ones that not only control the intervals and flecks of our freedom (barriers of communication, thought, expression, and private/social actions), but also nudge and push for public outcry/outrage, public endorsement and sheer outright top-downcontrol of public, social and private discourses all along to achieve their ends (cf. HR 2022; Herman and Chomsky 2002; Chomsky 2002a, b, 2017). Social inequality is political, it is engineered by the super-powerful, who themselves are in the hands and on the strings of the super-super-rich.

Where Is Research? And How Far Did It Come Along? Many social theorists have been taking up this connection and fundamental conundrum of the human condition in modern-day capitalism, as they include, especially e.g.: Collins (1975, 1979), Parkin (1979), Tilly (1984, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003), Mohan (1987, 1993, 2007, 2011), Gil (1998), Tilly and Goodin (2006), Abramovitz (1985, 1996, 2000), Murphy (1988), Jónasdóttir (1994), Jónasdóttir and Jones (2008), and Van Wormer et al. (2014). In addition, a great number of empirical accounts from all corners of the social sciences, and economic sciences included, are identifying the very same culprits of modern-day dysfunctions and non-functions of government systems, strategies, policies, and programs, or simply the missing-in-action status of government, ruling and opposition parties, and of course government bureaucrats, as well as most intellectuals and academics as well (Cox 1970; Massey and Denton 1994; Kingfisher 1996, 2002; Polikoff 2007; Laferrère 2013; Piketty 2014; Teo 2018; Aspalter 2023; Remington 2023).

Where Is Research? And How Far Did It Come Along?

95

Idris Cox, a foremost expert on developing countries, on the grand failure of developmental policies in all developing countries, formerly known as the Third World: The conditions in which the majority of the people in the developing countries live are far worse than those terrible days in Britain in the early days of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. Few of them have decent houses. In the village they live in mud huts, most of them without a piped water supply, drainage, gas or electricity. They simply eke out a bare existence. In the towns, they live in tin shanties, with open sewers running through what pretends to be a street but is nothing more than a rough cart track. They seldom have a piped water supply or any sanitation and are grossly over crowded. (Idris Cox, The Hungry Half , 1970, cited by Bhimasen Hantal 2022)

A long series of the world’s most renowned economists, especially Friedrich Wieser (1910, 1914, 1926); John Maynard Keynes (1926, 1936), Joan Robinson (1933, 1956, 1979), John Kenneth Galbraith (1954, 1958, 1992, 1996), Kurt W. Rothschild (1954, 1971, 1981, 1993), Gunnar Myrdal (1965, 1971), Milton Friedman (1977), William Niskanen (1968, 1971, 1975, 1994), William Easterly (2007), Paul Collier (2007, 2018), Randall Holcombe (2013, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022), as well as of course Thomas Piketty (2000, 2006, 2014, 2020) and his colleagues (Piketty and Saez 2003, 2012; Alvaredo et al. 2013; Piketty and Zucman 2014; Saez and Zucman 2014) have pointed out the problem of economic/government failures (including action and non-actions of governments), both on a global and historical scale. On another front, in social science at large, also a long list of highest-caliber sociologists, philosophers and other social scientists have joined the call and pointed out systemic, historical and developmental government and media dysfunctions all across the globe, in terms of the improvement and defense of the human condition. This list includes first and foremost e.g. Friedrich Nietzsche (1878, 1887), Herbert Marcuse (1964, 1969), Jürgen Habermas (1973, 1979; 1984, 1986), David G. Gil (1973, 1976, 1979, 1985, 1998), Noam Chomsky (1987, 1998, 2002a, b; 2004, 2017), John McMurty (2009), and Brij Mohan (1987, 1992, 1993, 2007, 2011, 2020; cf. also Mohan and Bäckmann 2020). Further into the subject matter of poverty, there, too, are a great number of social policy scientists and others who have pointed out past and current mischiefs by governments: that is, actions and non-actions, as well as actions that were inefficient and/or ineffective. For a greater understanding of the causal factors behind poverty creation on massive scales, and poverty maintenance on historic scales, one can consult e.g. the compelling works by David Brady and his colleagues (see especially e.g. Brady 2009, 2019; Brady and Leicht 2008; Brady et al. 2009; Brady and Sosnaud 2010; Brady and Burroway 2012; Brady and Lee 2014; Brady and Burton 2019), as well as Sherraden (1991), Midgley and Piachaud (2011), Gould (2014), Aspalter (2014, 2015, 2017, 2023), Midgley and Aspalter (2017), Remington (2023). For the political factors that lead to, or more often than not, not lead to, the formation of any kind of welfare state solutions, be they effective and/or efficient or not, one may read the works of Woldendorp et al. (1998), Korpi and Palme (1998), Aspalter (2001a, b, 2002a, b, 2010, 2021b), and Allan and Scruggs (2004).

96

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Governments are not alone in the mismanagement of development, and the selling of the human condition for the interests of the top 0.1 percent. The media, as well as the corporatist sector, and large policy-influencing corporations (industrial/technical conglomerates) themselves, and the intellectual/academic elites (at least a large extent of them, knowingly or not, mostly not) are also full in on the making of our social and economic, i.e. human, conundrums of our times (cf. Holcombe 2018; Herman and Chomsky 2002).

Weathering the War of the Elites Against All Others Now having had a closer look at the causal reasons for governmental distorted decision-making—actions, non-actions, wrong-actions (cf. also Chapter 2 in this volume)—we may turn to the so-what-question. Does it mean we can explain all kinds of inequalities in the universe of human action, non-action, human thought, non-thought, their feelings, motivations and dreams? No, it certainly does not. The theory of Super Inequality is designed and serves the purpose for analyzing, and then in the following measuring, systemic levels and factors of inequality—be they economic, psychological, educational, cultural, lingual, healthwise, health-care-wise, long-term-care-wise, sexuality/gender/non-gender-wise, and so on. Thus, the very focus and scope of the theory of Super Inequality comprises most of all (without precluding other areas of interest and application): systemic exploitation and mass exclusion, systemic mass poverty and oppression/alienation, plus systemic creation and maintenance of poverty, misery and disadvantage of the masses of people, i.e. the stealthily hidden war of the super-super-rich onto the masses of the people, including all the middle and the working classes. This elite war against the rest of society is primarily a war in itself, not for itself.

The elites, more often than not, just continue doing what they have been doing for centuries, and they themselves are copying their parents and close-by (at proximity) peers and more powerful people in general (cf. also Vygotsky 1962, 1978, 1987). The fact that 1 percent of people e.g. owns half of the earth’s assets tells it all, proves it all, there is no need to ask each elite-member about their feelings and intentions for actions and non-actions (as stupid questions always warrant stupid answers, according to psychology professor Ari Cohen, n.d.). So, a class or a group does not have to feel and/or know they are—or act (whichever way) as—a group or class. That is what is called a group/class in-itself, as opposed to a group/class for-itself (cf. Neilson 2017). As for the rationale of having, or pursuing further the routes uncovered or established by, Super Inequality Theory, one can point to a number of aspects. First, the initial and causal push for developing this theory was brought upon by the need to explain empirical results (of the Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism book) and back up

The Concept and Theory of X-Inequality

97

normative social policy theory (the Theory of Developmental Social Policy). Therefore, one can always see and understand Super Inequality Theory as a practical theory that is born out of practical needs, based on empirical evidence and real-life social/ economic/political conundrums, that is designed to be applied in further research, be it normative as well as positive (explanatory and/or simply descriptive). Second, the Theory of Super Inequality, and/or its derivative conclusions or findings, may be put to practice by encouraging and spurring comparative research on topics, in a cross-disciplinary and hopefully also trans-disciplinary fashion, related to social injustice, social exclusion, social/legal/financial/etc. discrimination, extreme forms of inequalities, mass poverty and systemic povertization in all forms in all areas of private and public life, including the welfare state system and its sub-systems, programs, policies and policy strategies and, importantly, exact methods and system designs applied (plus their mechanisms and outcomes). In doing so, this may lead to more and better (that is, more fruitful) theories, more capable, more in-depth, more comprehensive theories yet, or paradigms and theorems. The season for theory development, with the initiation of this research program (in the Buchananian sense), is open, being opened by the Theory of Super Inequality. The Theory of Super Inequality is not a purpose in itself, never so. Its purpose is to turn the wheels of science, in whichever direction, in whatever fashion, as long as it is thought and known to be useful in investigating the big questions and big problems of our times, and in finding better (real and realistic, fully effective and most efficient) policy solutions, methods and strategies included. Last but not least, and perhaps the most important of all, yet another purpose of the Theory of Super Inequality is the guidance and encouragement of further empirical research; ever deeper and wider, reaching into all communities (and all kinds of communities) of the earth, reaching back centuries and millennia, including empirical research in a number of related disciplines, the more the better.

The Concept and Theory of X-Inequality Now in the following, we will be building on Aspalter (2021a), by drawing on Harvey Leibenstein (1966, 1976, 1978a,b) who revolutionized economic and behavioral economic thinking as he looked at people themselves rather than collections of people and their actions. Here, within our theory of super inequality, we also introduce a new kind of thinking when looking at inequalities, i.e. all kinds of inequalities on both societal and individual levels. A new concept can be introduced, which can best be described as the concept of X-inequality—which is, obviously (but yet in a new form), modelled after Leibenstein’s most influential and most useful concept of X-efficiency that has been fully empirically proven on multiple fronts. Therefore, we are here replacing the X-efficiency concept of Harvey Leibenstein with an “X-inequality” concept, that we—for better theoretical understanding and

98

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

possible practical applications—are dividing into (for now) two layers of inequality groupings, to be also able to grasp individual factors, on top of societal factors. The first one, on societal macro and meso levels, may be coined “societal Xinequality” which is composed of a variety of different “societal-ecological inequalities” (Fig. 4.1). On the other hand, on societal micro-level, there is “individual X-inequality” which is in turn composed of “ecologically-conditioned individual inequalities” (Fig. 4.2). Thus, in doing so, the overall concept of Leibenstein’s Xefficiency has been here in the following divided into these two layers (components), now being referred to as (a) “societal X-inequality”, and (b) “individual X-inequality.”

Conclusions This paper and chapter has been peeling away one by one layers of obscurity and tricks employed by military-cum-political-cum-financial—and now also technical— elites for hundreds and thousands of years, in an investigative fashion. The method applied is non-statistical meta-analysis, and theory building of general transdisciplinary theories (Aspalter 2021c; Steiner 1988). The new theory of Super Inequality both draws on a number of disciplines and even a greater number of theorists and their theories, as it is at the same time trying to serve nothing less than academia, science and humanity as a whole, in getting to tackle the current-day theoretical space, that can be described as notorious black holes, which prevented a fullfledged general and detailed understanding of the phenomena of systemic inequality, systemic discrimination and oppression, and thus systemic poverty and systems of systemic povertization. There are loads of empirical data, and data sets, out there that support that inequality is a completely—in terms of size, severity, consequences, plus follow-on effects—underestimated menace of humanity, in historical and global proportions to say the least. Rather than starting to fill this book even with more such data (and perhaps cause nausea or oblivion for the one or other reader of this book), we decide purposefully to leave it to scores of students, scholars, institutions, and governments around the world to jump up and get on with this said mission or task. A great deal of data is easily and readily available, but much more, endless scores more of data are needed, particularly local government/district-level data from all of the world at once on each subject/problem of interest (with the use of smart technology, hopefully). District- and county-government level data of inequality have been super helpful in causing and confirming theoretical breakthroughs in explanatory theory development (cf. especially the results of county-level data comparisons in the United States, in Remington 2023). This is like, from the perspective of the Spanish Government at that time, watching the first ships coming back with gold from Latin America—as found in e.g. Thomas F. Remington’s study (2023) —and be thinking there is more gold to come along soon from where that came from. The gold from Latin America, of course, was the outcome of conquest, murder, genocide, cultural annihilation, etc.,

Conclusions

99 highest level of equality (= lowest level of inequality)

theoretically possible maximal equality

theoretically possible maximal equality at “societal X-inequality”

level of equality at “societal X-inequality” that is actually achieved (at the moment, in this or that society or locality, and/or for this or that group of people)

comparatively lower level of equality (= higher level of inequality)

Fig. 4.1 Integrating the Impact of Societal-Ecological Inequalities (or ‘Equality Barriers’): Institutional, Economic, Social, Cultural and Geographic Environmental Inequalities (‘Equality Barriers’) (Notes (1) According to Leibenstein’s finding, theoretically possible maximal equality (or efficiency, as in his case) is never possible (as is the potential production possibility curve in economics, cf. e.g. Scherer and Ross 1990; in other words, in terms of general economics, for example, potential/ theoretically possible GDP and actually possible GDP always are far apart one another). There is a gap between theoretically possible maximal equality (or efficiency), as pictured on top of Fig. 4.1 and the level of equality (or efficiency) that, in the end, is actually achieved, as pictured at the bottom of Fig. 4.2. Leibenstein’s efficiency gap also applies to different industries, also in different countries, which has been empirically tested and proven multiple times by many researchers (cf. Aspalter 2021a). (2) Both Figures hence need to be read and looked at together. (3) The overall gap (composed of societal and individual X-inequality) is different in different societies with different cultures and policies and resources in place. This gap is different for different communities, localities, and different groups of people (gender, ethnicities, etc.), at different phases of their lives, and in different life situations (e.g. single parents). (4) The overall gap in our concept if X-inequality here—between levels of equality that are theoretically possible and that are actually achieved—has been split up into two dimensions, first the societal dimension that looks at the negative, aggregate impact of societal-ecological inequalities, and second the individual dimension that incorporates the negative, aggregate impact of ecologically-conditioned individual inequalities [cf. Figs. 4.1 and 4.2])

which hence, again, points right on to the heart of the explanatory power of Super Inequality Theory. In the case of China, too, the district level performance shortcomings and resulting inequalities in terms of e.g. health care resources and educational resources per population, in e.g. the Pearl River Delta in the last decades (especially earlier on, at the turn of this century) had been gigantic, from one district to the next (cf. the backward issues of local government statistical yearbooks for each city). Seen from the perspective of the entire country, the same patterns of large county-tocountry—and district-to-district, neighborhood-to-neighborhood, village-to-village,

100

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality comparatively higher level of equality (= lower level of inequality)

the level of equality at “societal X-inequality” that is realized (at the moment, in this or that society or locality, and/or for this or that group of people) theoretically possible maximal equality at “individual X-inequality”

level of equality at “individual X-inequality” that is actually achieved (at the moment, in this or that society or locality, and/or for this or that group of people)

very low level of equality (= very high level of inequality)

Fig. 4.2 Integrating the Impact of Ecologically-Conditioned Individual Inequalities (or ‘Equality Barriers’): The Impact of Individual, Family- and Community-Based, Health- and PsychologyBased, Gender- and Sexuality-Based, Age- and Ethnicity-Based Inequalities (‘Equality Barriers’) (Notes (1) For the concept of ‘ecological rationality’, or ecological (i.e. ‘of the personal environment’) influences on individual psychology and behavior, see the theory of Vernon Smith (2002, 2003, 2008), cf. also Braun (2019). This concept of ecological rationality has been adapted and partially built into the concept of X-inequality on the individual level (which is depicted here in Fig. 4.2) (cf. Aspalter 2021a, for more discussion on the development and insights of behavioral economics and behavioral social policy). (2) In the above (in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2), the concept of X-efficiency has been replaced with a concept of equality; hence, we could talk about X-equality, instead of X-efficiency as Leibenstein did. However, in order to stress the problems with and all aspects connected to inequality, the concept of X-inequality has been introduced it is place (i.e. a reversed version of a possible X-equality concept). Nevertheless, the two figures above are depicting equality losses (instead of a single, but also aggregated, efficiency loss in the case of Leibenstein’s theory) along the way, from the very top of Fig. 4.1 to the very bottom of Fig. 4.2. Therefore, these equality losses are the counterparts of efficiency losses as theorized by Leibenstein before, as well as efficiency losses that cumulatively result in Z-efficiency as debated in the previous chapter of this volume. All three concepts—Leibenstein’s X-efficiency, Z-efficiency, and X-inequality concept here—talk about lost levels of ‘positive’ outcomes. That is what is uniting these three theories)

and especially rural-to-urban—inequalities can be found all over China, as well as all over India (cf. e.g. Li et al. 2019; Kumar Panda et al. 2020). Science, all of social science, and especially also economics, is suffering from its own pitfalls of using nation states—or social classes, the nuclear family, and the traditional binary gender division—as the fundament of their analyses. This may be called container science, including container sociology and container economics, and binary container gender mainstreaming that ignores the existence and sufferings of transgender and non-gender persons, and so forth. This is also the main cause for the creation of zombie science (including zombie sociology and zombie economics!), i.e. parts of science, theories and methodologies alike, that are perpetually continued, even after they lost their reason for existence, i.e. empirical and real-life bedrocks that

References

101

they are supposed to stand on. For the general problem of nation-state, container-type perspective—where everything gets thrown together (arbitrarily and out of touch with reality on the ground, e.g. in different localities3 !)—in theory making and empirical analysis, one may best visit the works of Ulrich Beck on the problems of container sociology (Beck 2006, 2007, 2016; Beck and Sznaider 2006). Beck clearly stated that: all of transnationalism research shows that the idea that one can assume that territorial boundaries, the political boundaries, the cultural boundaries, and the social boundaries are congruent with one another, this situation simply no longer exists. (Beck 2009)

Here, the general critique by Joseph A. Schumpeter of the dominant mainstream perspective in economics of looking mainly at aggregates (national/aggregated data) in theory-making and research enterprise also fully comes into play (Schumpeter 1951). At very last, following the findings of David G. Gil, we can note that high prevailing, and appalling, levels of inequality are ipso facto proof of the existence of the forces of a structurally violent society and culture (cf. Gil 1996, 2008), which are set up, formed, and maintained by wealth elites and political elites and their ways of oppressing the rest of the society, leading into the formation and development of elite capitalism. These are the forces described and analyzed by the general theory of Super Inequality.

References Abramovitz, Mimi (1985), The Family Ethic: The Female Pauper and Public Aid, Social Service Review, 59(1): 121–135. Abramovitz, Mimi (1996), Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present, South End Press: Bell Hooks. Abramovitz, Mimi (2000), Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States, Monthly Review Press: New York. Allan, James P. and Scruggs, Lyle (2004), Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced Industrial Societies, American Journal of Political Science, 48(3): 496–512. Alvaredo, Facundo; Atkinson, Anthony B.; Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel (2013), The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3): 3–20. Aspalter, Christian (2001a), Conservative Welfare State Systems in East Asia, Praeger, Westport. Aspalter, Christian (2001b), Importance of Christian and Social Democratic Movements in Welfare Politics: With Special Reference to Germany, Austria and Sweden, Nova Science: New York. Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2001c), Understanding Modern Taiwan, Essays in Economics, Politics and Social Policy, Ashgate: Aldershot. Aspalter, Christian (2002a), Democratization and Welfare State Development in Taiwan, Ashgate: Aldershot. Aspalter, Christian (ed.) (2002b), Discovering the Welfare State in East Asia, Praeger, Westport. 3

See also the hereto related issue of superdiversity, as first theorized by Steven Vertovec (2007), cf. also Meissner and Vertovec (2017).

102

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Aspalter, Christian (2008), The Welfare State in Cross-Cultural Perspectives, International Social Work, 51(6): 777–789. Aspalter, Christian (2010), Pensionsreform in Taiwan: Die Bedeutung von politischem Wettbewerb und medialem Diskurs, papers.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2014), Social Work Services and Developmental Social Policy, in C. Aspalter (ed.), Social Work in East Asia, Ashgate: Surrey. Aspalter, Christian (2015), New Perspectives for Active Aging: The Normative Approach of Developmental Social Policy, in: A. Walker and C. Aspalter (eds.), Acting Aging in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2017), Saving Lives Through Health Care Policy: A Developmental Social Policy Perspective, in: C. Aspalter, K. Teguh-Pribadi, and R. Gauld (eds.), Health Care Systems in Developing Countries in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2021a), Understanding Systemic Social Problems: Moving Beyond the Limits of Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory—An Essay in Theoretical Behavioral Social Policy, www. ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2021b), Financing the Welfare State System in India, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2021c), Classifying Different Types of Meta Analyses and Meta Syntheses— Developing Methodology in Social Policy and Public Policy Research, papers.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2022), Super Inequality: A General Theory of Mass Poverty, Social Development Issues, 44(2), 1–25. Aspalter, Christian (2023), Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Global Data Analysis, Springer: Cham. Beck, Ulrich (2006), The Cosmopolitan Vision, Polity: Cambridge. Beck, Ulrich (2007), Beyond Class and Nation: Reframing Social Inequalities in a Globalized World, British Journal of Sociology, 58(4): 680–705. Beck, Ulrich (2009), An Interview With Ulrich Beck, Max Planck Institute, www.mmg.mpg.de. Beck, Ulrich (2016), The Metamorphosis of the World, Polity: Cambridge. Beck, Ulrich and Sznaider, Natan (2006), Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A Research Agenda, British Journal of Sociology, 57(1): 1–23. Bosmajian, Haig A. (1974), The Language of Oppression, Public Affairs Press: Washington, D.C. Bourdieu, Pierre (1973), Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction, in R. Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Education, and Social Change, Tavistock: London. Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Bourdieu, Pierre (1983), Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital, in R. Kreckel (ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten, Otto Schwartz: Göttingen, Germany. Bourdieu, Pierre (2002), Cultural Power, in L. Spillman (ed.), Cultural Sociology, Blackwell: Oxford. Brady, David (2009), Rich Democracies, Poor People, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Brady, David (2019), Theories of the Causes of Poverty, Annual Review of Sociology, 45: 155–175. Brady, David and Burroway, Rebekah (2012), Targeting, Universalism, and Single-Mother Poverty: A Multilevel Analysis Across 18 Affluent Democracies, Demography, 49(2): 719–746. Brady, David and Burton, Linda M. (eds.) (2019), The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Brady, David and Lee, Hang Young (2014), The Rise and Fall of Government Spending in Affluent Democracies, 1971–2008, Journal of European Social Policy, 24: 56–79. Brady, David and Leicht, Kevin (2008), Party to Inequality: Right Party Power and Income Inequality in Rich Western Democracies, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 26: 77–106. Brady, David and Sosnaud, Benjamin (2010), The Politics of Economic Inequality, in: K. Leicht and C. Jenkins (eds.), Handbook of Politics: State and Civil Society in Global Perspective, Springer: New York.

References

103

Brady, David; Fullerton, Andrew S., and Moren Cross, Jennifer (2009), Putting Poverty in Political Context: A Multi-Level Analysis of Adult Poverty Across 18 Affluent Western Democracies, Social Forces, 88: 271–300. Braun, Eduard (2019), The Ecological Rationality of Historical Costs and Conservatism, https:// doi.org/10.1515/ael-2015-0013. Breton, Albert and Wintrobe, Ronald (1975), The Equilibrium Size of a Budget-Maximizing Bureau: A Note on Niskanen’s Theory of Bureaucracy, Journal of Political Economy, 83(1): 195–208. Caliendo, Stephen M. (2021), Inequality in America, Routledge: Oxon. Chomsky, Noam (1987), On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures, South End Press: Boston. Chomsky, Noam (1998), Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and the Global Order, Seven Stories Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (2002a), Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (ed. by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel) (2002b), Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, New Press: New York. Chomsky, Noam (2004), Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Holt: New York. Chomsky, Noam (ed. by Peter Hutchinson, Kelly Nyks and Jared Scott) (2017), Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power, Seven Stories Press: New York. Cohen, Ari (n.d.), Personal Conversation, About a Decade Ago, at BNU-HKBU United International College, Zhuhai, China. Collier, Paul (2007), The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, Oxford University Press: New York. Collier, Paul (2018), The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties, HarperCollins: New York. Collins, Randall (1975), Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science, Academic Press: New York. Collins, Randall (1979), The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification, Academic Press: New York. Cox, Idris (1970), The Hungry Half: A Study in the Exploitation of the ‘Third World’, Lawrence & Wishart: London. Credit Suisse (2022), Global Wealth Data Book, Credit Suisse Research Institute, Zürich. DeFina, Robert and Hannon, Lance (2009), The Impact of Mass Incarceration on Poverty, Crime & Delinquency, 59(4): 562–586. Doob, Christopher B. (2021), Poverty, Racism, and Sexism: The Reality of Oppression in America, Routledge: Oxon. Dronkers, Jaap (ed.) (2010), Quality and Inequality of Education: Cross-National Perspectives, Springer: Dordrecht. Easterly, William (2007), The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, Penguin: London. Eubanks, Virginia (2018), Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, St. Martins Press: New York. Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (1976), Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir, Volume 1, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Bertani and A. Fontana) (2003), Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76, Picador: New York. Foucault, Michel (ed. by M. Senellart) (2009), Security, Territory, Population, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (2010), The Government of Self and Others, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Foucault, Michel (ed. by F. Brion and B.E. Harcourt) (2014), Wrong-Doing and Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

104

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Fraser, Nancy (1990), Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, Polity: Cambridge. Fraser, Nancy (2008), Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World, Polity: Cambridge. Fraser, Nancy (2013), Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis, Verso: London. Fraser, Nancy (2017), Crisis of Care? On the Social-Reproductive Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism, in: T. Bhattacharaya (ed.), Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression, Pluto Press: London. Fraser, Nancy (2019), The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born, Verso: London. Fraser, Nancy and Gordon, Linda (1994), A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(2): 309–366. Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel (2004), Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange, Verso, London. Fraser, Nancy and Jaeggi, Rahel (2018), Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory, Polity, Cambridge. Freud, Sigmund (1921), Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse, Psychoanalytischer Verlag: Leipzig. Friedman, Milton (1977), The Future of Capitalism, Speech, Reno, February 7. Galbraith, John K. (1992), The Culture of Contentment, Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Galbraith, John K. (1996), The Good Society: The Humane Agenda, Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Galbraith, John K. (1999) [1958], The Affluent Society, Penguin: New York. Galbraith, John K. (2009) [1954], The Great Crash, Penguin: New York. Gil, David G. (1973), Unravelling Social Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Political Action Towards Social Equality, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (1976), The Challenge of Social Equality, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (1979), Beyond the Jungle: Essays on Human Possibilities, Social Alternatives, and Radical Practice, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (ed.) (with Eva Gil) (1985), Toward Social and Economic Justice, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (1996), Preventing Violence in a Structurally Violent Society: Mission Impossible, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(1): 77–84. Gil, David G. (1998), Confronting Injustice and Oppression: Concepts and Strategies for Social Workers, Columbia University Press: New York. Gil, David G. (2008), Meeting Universal Human Needs as the Foundation of Individual and Social Development and of Social and Global Justice: Comments Upon Receipt of the Justice Studies Association’s 2008 Noam Chomsky Award, Contemporary Justice Review, 11(4): 323–330. Gould, Elise (2014), Inequality Is the Main Cause of Persistent Poverty, Economic Policy Institute, www.epi.org/blog/inequality-main-persistent-poverty. Habermas, Jürgen (1968), Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1973), Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1979), Conservatism and Capitalist Crisis, New Left Review, I/115 May/June, newleftreview.org/issues/i115. Habermas, Jürgen (1981a), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Volume 1, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1981b), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Volume 2, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Habermas, Jürgen (1984), What Does a Crisis Mean Today? Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism, Social Research, 51(1/2): 39–64. Habermas, Jürgen (1986), The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Energies, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 11: 1–18. Habermas, Jürgen (1987), Excursus on Luhmann’s Appropriation of the Philosophy of the Subject Through Systems Theory, in: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, MIT Press: Cambridge.

References

105

Haider-Markel, Donald P. (ed.) (2021), Encyclopedia of LGBT Politics and Policy, Volumes 1–3, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Haider-Markel, Donald; Taylor, Jami; Flores, Andrew; Lewis, Daniel; Miller, Patrick, and Tadlock, Barry (2019), Morality Politics and New Research on Transgender Politics and Public Policy, The Forum, 17(1): 159–181. Han, Byung-Chul (2015), The Burnout Society, Stanford Briefs: Redwood. Han, Byung-Chul (2017), Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power, Verso: London. Hantal, Bhimasen (2022), Social Policy: Worldwide Failure of Social Policy, www.yourarticlelibr ary.com/economics/social-policy-worldwide-failure-of-social-policy/39829. Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam (2002), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Pantheon: New York. Holcombe, Randall G. (2013), Producing Prosperity: An Inquiry Into the Operation of the Market Process, Routledge: Oxon. Holcombe, Randall G. (2015), Political Capitalism, Cato Journal, 35(1): 41–66. Holcombe, Randall G. (2018), Political Capitalism: How Political Influence Is Made and Maintained, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Holcombe, Randall G. (2020), Contractarian Ideology and the Legitimacy of Government, Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(3): 1–13. Holcombe, Randall G. (2021), Elite Influence on General Political Preferences, Journal of Government and Economics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jge.2021.100021. Holcombe, Randall G. (2022), Capitalism, Cronyism, and Inequality, in: G.P. Manish and S.C. Miller (eds.), Capitalism and Inequality: The Role of State and Market, Routledge: Oxon. Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. (1947), Dialektik der Aufklärung, Querido Verlag: Amsterdam. HR, The Herland Report (2022), Forget Politicians: The Super-Rich Control Everything Now, The Herland Report, July 14, hannenabintuherland.com/financialcrisis. Huang, Jin; Sherraden, Margaret S., and Sherraden, Michael (2021), Toward Finance as a Public Good, CSD Working Paper, No. 21-03, Center for Social Development, Washington University, https://doi.org/10.7936/p8dd-p256. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2019), Classical Economics: Lost and Found, www.resear chgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2020a), The Classical Theory of Supply and Demand, www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2020b), Classical Versus Neoclassical Equilibrium Discovery Processes in Market Supply and Demand Theory, www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2021), A Classical Model of Speculative Asset Price Dynamics, www.researchgate.net. Inoua, Sabiou M. and Smith, Vernon L. (2022), Perishable Goods Versus Re-Tradable Assets: A Theoretical Reappraisal of a Fundamental Dichotomy, in: S. Füllbrunn and E. Haruvy (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Johnson, Andrew P. (2013), Education Psychology: Theories of Learning and Human Development, National Social Science Press: El Cajon. Johnson, Andrew P. (2019), Essential Learning Theories, Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham. Johnson, Andrew P. (2022), The Human Dimension in Education: Essential Learning Theories and Their Impact on Teaching and Learning, Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham. Jónasdóttir, Anne G. (1994), Why Women Are Oppressed, Temple University Press: Philadelphia. Jónasdóttir, Anne G. and Jones, Katheen B. (2008), The Political Interests of Gender Revisited: Redoing Theory and Research With a Feminist Face, Manchester University Press: Manchester. Keynes, John Maynard (1926), The End of Laissez-Faire, Hogarth Press: London. Keynes, John Maynard (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan: London.

106

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Keys Adair, Jennifer and Sánchez-Suzuki Colegrove, Kiyomi (2021), Segregation by Experience, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Kim, Jinsoo and Aspalter, Christian (2021), Income Polarity and the End of Social Insurance, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. Kim, Jinsoo and Hießl, Christina (2017), The South Korean Welfare State System: With Special Reference to the Future of Social Insurance Systems, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Routledge International Handbook to Welfare State Systems, Routledge: Oxon. Kim, Jinsoo and Lee, Minha (2021), Financing the Welfare State System in South Korea, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge: Oxon. King, John E. (2014), Remembering Kurt Rothschild, in: W. Altzinger, A. Guger, P. Mooslechner, and E. Nowotny (eds.), Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: In Honour of Kurt W. Rothschild (1914–2010), Österreichische Nationalbank: Vienna. Kingfisher, Catherine (1996), Women in the American Welfare Trap, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Kingfisher, Catherine (ed.) (2002), Western Welfare in Decline, Globalization and Women’s Poverty, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Korpi, Walter and Palme, Joakim (1998), The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in Western Countries, American Sociological Review (63): 661–687. Kumar Panda, Basant; Kumar, Gulshan, and Awasthi, Ashish (2020), District Level Inequality in Reproductive, Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health Coverage in India, BMC Public Health, 20(1): 58, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8151-9. Kurz, Heinz D. (2014), Heterodox Economics in Austria: The Case of Kurt W. Rothschild, in: W. Altzinger, A. Guger, P. Mooslechner and E. Nowotny (eds.), Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: In Honour of Kurt W. Rothschild (1914–2010), Österreichische Nationalbank: Vienna. Laferrère, Anne (2013), Pauperization and Polarization of French Social Housing, Revue Économique, 64(5): 805–832. Lawrence, David H. (1978), Phoenix, Penguin: London. Leibenstein, Harvey (1966), Allocative Efficiency vs. X-Efficiency, The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392–415. Leibenstein, Harvey (1976), Beyond Economic Man, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978a), On the Basic Proposition of X-Efficiency Theory, The American Economic Review, 68(2): 328–332. Leibenstein, Harvey (1978b), General X-Efficiency Theory and Economic Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Leydesdorff, Loet (2000), Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3): 273–288. Li, Guie; Cai, Zhongliang; Liu, Ji; Liu, Xiaojian; Su, Shiliang; Huang, Xinran, and Li, Bozhao (2019), Multidimensional Poverty in Rural China: Indicators, Spatiotemporal Patterns and Applications, Social Indicators Research, 144: 1099–1134. Luhmann, Niklas (1984a), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1984b), Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft als autopoietisches System, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 13(4): 308–327. Luhmann, Niklas (1988), Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1990), Political Theory in the Welfare State, De Gruyter: Berlin. Luhmann, Niklas (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (2012), Introduction to Systems Theory, Polity: Cambridge. Lukes, Steven (2005), Power: A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan: London. Manish, G.P. and Miller, Stephen C. (2022), Capitalism and Inequality: The Role of State and Market, Routledge: Oxon. Marcuse, Herbert (1955), Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, Beacon Press: Boston.

References

107

Marcuse, Herbert (1964), One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Beacon Press: Boston. Marcuse, Herbert (1969), The Relevance of Reality, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 42: 39–50. Marcuse, Herbert (1970), Five Lectures: Psychoanalysis, Politics, and Utopia, Beacon Press: Boston. Massey, Douglas S. and Denton, Nancy A. (1994), American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Mathieu, Sophie (2016), From the Defamilialization to the “Demotherization” of Care Work, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 23(4): 576–591. McMurty, John (2009), Taxation and Poverty: Injustice Built into Our Tax System Hurts Poor the Most, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, policyalternatives.ca. Meissner, Fran and Vertovec, Steven (eds.) (2017), Comparing Super-Diversity, Routledge: Oxon. Midgley, James (2002), Discussion, at an International Symposium at the School of Social Welfare, The University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, December 11–13. Midgley, James and Aspalter, Christian (2017), Developmental Social Policy: Theory and Implementation, in C. Aspalter and K. Teguh-Pribadi (eds.), Development and Social Policy: The Win-Win Strategies of Developmental Social Policy, Routledge: Oxon. Midgley, James and Piachaud, David (eds.) (2011), Colonialism and Welfare: Social Policy and the British Imperial Legacy, Elgar: Cheltenham. Mohan, Brij (1987), Denial of Existence: Essays on the Human Condition, C.C. Thomas: Springfield. Mohan, Brij (1992), Global Development: Post-Material Values and Social Praxis, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (1993), Eclipse of Freedom: The World of Oppression, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (2007), Fallacies of Development: Crises of Human and Social Development, Atlantic: New Delhi. Mohan, Brij (2011), Development, Poverty of Culture, and Social Policy, Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Mohan, Brij (2012), Agony and Ecstasy: My Omnibus, iUniverse: Bloomington. Mohan, Brij (2020), Ideologies of Development, Social Development Issues, 42(2): 47–53. Mohan, Brij and Bäckmann, Guy (2020), Social Policy on the Cusp: Values, Institutions and Change, Nova Science: New York. Murphy, Raymond (1988), Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Myrdal, Gunnar (1965), The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Myrdal, Gunnar (1971), The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-Poverty Programme in Outline, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Neilson, David (2017), In-Itself For-Itself: Towards Second-Generation Neo-Marxist Class Theory, Capital & Class, 42(2): 273–295. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (2008) [1878], Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1887), Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift, C.G. Naumann: Leipzig. Niskanen, William A. Jr. (1968), The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy, The American Economic Review, 58(2): 293–305. Niskanen, William A. Jr (1971), Bureaucracy & Representative Government, Aldine-Atherton: New York. Niskanen, William A. Jr. (1975), Bureaucrats and Politicians, The Journal of Law & Economics, 18(3): 617–643. Niskanen, William A. Jr. (1994), Bureaucracy and Public Economics, Elgar: Cheltenham.

108

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Olorunshola, Yosola (2016), 7 Shocking Facts About Gender Inequality Around the World, Global Citizen, www.globalcitizen.org. OWD, Our World in Data (2022), website, ourworldindata.org. Parkin, Frank (1979), Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, Columbia University Press: New York. Piketty, Thomas (2000), Theories of Persistent Inequality and Intergenerational Mobility, in: A.B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon (eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution, Volume 1, North Holland: New York. Piketty, Thomas (2006), The Kuznets Curve Yesterday and Tomorrow, in: A.V. Banerjee, R. Benabou, and D. Mookherjee (eds.), Understanding Poverty, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Piketty, Thomas (2014) [2013], Capital in the Twenty-First Century, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas (2020), Capital and Ideology, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel (2003), Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1): 1–41. Piketty, Thomas and Saez, Emmanuel (2012), A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation, NBER Working Papers, No. 17989, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, D.C. Piketty, Thomas and Zucman, Gabriel (2014), Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries, 1700–2010, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3): 1255–1310. Polikoff, Alexander (2007), Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto, Northwestern University Press: Evanston. Powell, Jason L. (2015), Foucault, Power and Culture, International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(4): 401–419. Rabinow, Paul (ed.) (2010), Michel Foucault: The Foucault Reader, Vintage: New York. Remington, Thomas F. (2023), Socio-Economic and Geographic Inequality of the Effects of the Pandemic, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), The Covid-19 Pandemic: Problems Arising in Health and Social Policy, Springer: Cham, forthcoming. Robinson, Joan (1933), The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Macmillan: London. Robinson, Joan (1956), The Accumulation of Capital, Macmillan: London. Robinson, Joan (1979), Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1954), The Theory of Wages, Blackwell: Oxford. Rothschild, Kurt W. (ed.) (1971), Power in Economics, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1981), Einführung in die Ungleichgewichtstheorie, Springer: Berlin. Rothschild, Kurt W. (1993), Employment, Wages and Income Distribution: Critical Essays in Economics, Routledge: London. Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman (2014), Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data, NBER Working Paper, No. 20625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, D.C. Sainsbury, Diane (1993), Dual Welfare and Sex Segregation of Access to Social Benefits: Income Maintenance Policies in the UK, the US, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Journal of Social Policy, 22(1): 69–98. Sainsbury, Diane (1994), Women’s and Men’s Social Rights: Gendering Dimensions of Welfare States, in: D. Sainsbury (ed.), Gendering Welfare States, Sage: London. Sainsbury, Diane (1996), Gender, Equality and Welfare States, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Saxonberg, Steven (2013), From Defamilialization to Degenderization: Toward a New Welfare Typology, Social Policy & Administration, 47(1): 26–49. Scherer, F.M. and Ross, David R. (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (ed. by R.V. Clemence) (1951), Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism, Transaction Publishers: Piscataway. Sherraden, Michael (1991), Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy, Sharpe: Armonk.

References

109

Smith, Adam (1937) [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Modern Library: New York. Smith, Vernon L. (1989), Theory, Experiment, and Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 151–169. Smith, Vernon L. (1991), Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, Journal of Political Economy, 99(4): 877–897. Smith, Vernon L. (1992), Papers in Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smith, Vernon L. (2000), Bargaining and Market Behavior: Essays in Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smith, Vernon L. (2002), Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics, www.nobelp rize.org/uploads/2018/06/smith-lecture-2.pdf. Smith, Vernon L. (2003), Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics, The American Economic Review, 93(3): 465–508. Smith, Vernon L. (2008), Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smith, Vernon L. (2017), The Evidence of Things Not Seen: Reflections on Faith, Science, and Economics, Acton Institute: Grand Rapids. Smith, Vernon L. and Wilson, Bart J. (2019), Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Steiner, Elizabeth (1988), Methodology of Theory Building, Educology Research Associates: Sydney. Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Sen, Amartya, and Fitoussi, Jean-Paul (2010), Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, The New Press: New York. Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Fitoussi, Jean-Paul, and Durant, Martine (2020), Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being, The New Press: New York. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2019), People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent, W.W. Norton: New York. Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Ocampo, José Antonio (2019), Capital Market Liberalization and Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Taylor, Jami K.; Lewis, Daniel C., and Haider-Markel, Donald P. (2018), The Remarkable Rise of Transgender Rights, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Taylor, Kenneth (2017), Habermas, Rationality, and Democracy, www.philosophytalk.org. Teo, You-Yenn (2018), This Is What Inequality Looks Like, Ethos Books, Singapore. Tilly, Charles (1984), Demographic Origins of the European Proletariat, in: D. Levine (ed.), Proletarianization and Family Life, Academic: Orlando. Tilly, Charles (1998), Durable Inequality, University of California Press: Berkeley. Tilly, Charles (2000), Relational Studies of Inequality, Contemporary Sociology, 29(6): 782–785. Tilly, Charles (2001), Relational Origins of Inequality, Anthropological Theory, 1(3): 355–372. Tilly, Charles (2003), Changing Forms of Inequality, Sociological Theory, 21(1): 31–36. Tilly, Charles and Goodin, Robert E. (2006), It Depends, in: R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford University Press: New York. TWP, The Washington Post (2016), Using 160 Tons of Tomatoes, A Town in Eastern Spain Hosts the Ultimate Food Fight, The Washington Post, August 31, washingtonpost.com. USAID (2021), A Briefer: Gender Inequality Causes Poverty, banyanglobal.com/wp-content/upl oads/2021/03/Gender-Inequality-Causes-Poverty-Briefer.pdf. Van Der Ros, Janneke (2013), Transgendered Citizenship in the Norwegian Welfare State: The Non-Recognition of Diversities, or Gender Equality for All Kinds of Gender?, www.researchg ate.net. Van Der Ros, Janneke (2014), The Role of the Welfare State in Creating Trans (E)Quality of Life: Recognizing Differences and Distributing Differently, www.researchgate.net. Van Der Ros, Janneke (2015), Equality Is Not Enough, and Where Is Trans*Gender in the Equation? The Case of Norway, www.researchgate.net.

110

4 The General Theory of Super Inequality

Van Wormer, Katherine; Kaplan, Laura, and Juby, Cindy (2014), Confronting Oppression, Restoring Justice: From Policy Analysis to Social Action, Council on Social Work Education: Alexandria. Vertovec, Steven (2007), Super-Diversity and Its Implications, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 1024–1054. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962), Thought and Language, MIT Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1987), Thinking and Speech, in: R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology, Volume 1, Plenum Press: New York. Weber, Max (2019), Open and Closed Relationships, in: D.B. Grusky (ed.), Social Stratification, Routledge: New York. WHN, World Hunger News (2018), World Child Hunger Facts, World Hunger News, www.worldh unger.org. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1910), Recht und Macht, Duncker und Humblot: Leipzig. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1914), Theorie der Gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft, Mohr: Tübingen. Wieser, Friedrich v. (1926), Das Gesetz der Macht, Springer: Vienna. Woldendorp, Jaap; Keman, Hans, and Budge, Ian (1998), Party Government in 20 Democracies, European Journal of Political Research, 33(1): 125–164. Zuboff, Shoshana (2019), The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Public Affairs: New York.

Chapter 5

On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

“We call that man a free-thinker who thinks otherwise than is expected of him in consideration of his origin, surroundings, position, and office, or by reason of the prevailing contemporary views” (Nietzsche, 2008, 1878]: 133). Hence, all others are imprisoned by history, by culture, their education and upbringing, their peers and superiors, by the political and medial power holders and influencers that we call the power elite—the super-super-rich and the super-powerful—to a lesser or greater degree that is. We can see communication, culture of thought, the boundaries, the ecological boundaries of thoughts, of possible thought intervals (spans or margins) as a continuous flow of communication in the sense of an extended post-Luhmannian way of theorizing human action, where thinking, feelings and memories are all but continues expressions, seemingly subjectively modified (but not much, when seen from a distance, of the as-can-be-neutral observer), of past communication, past cultures and history, i.e. the whole story of our human existence, from the earliest beginnings. Hence, if we do that, we then are in a position to grasp the meaning of development from a free-thinker’s point of view, or a hunter’s stand point of view, if one wishes to imagine it in this way. We cannot look at ourselves with an objective mind as we use the language to think and the culture to form and shape our thoughts and feelings that have been fed to us all our lives (like stuffed gooses, which is a mere more memorable metaphor that we may apply here). Max Weber (2012) and Gunnar Myrdal (1965, 1969) have understood that, as did Friedrich Nietzsche and his most renowned disciple Michel Foucault (all of his works and methodology are not only rooted in, but go back to, Friedrich Nietzsche, see Nietzsche’s works, especially Human, All-Too-Human, 2008 [1878]: 346–347, and all of On the Genealogy of Morals, i.e. Zur Genealogie der Moral, 1887). We are not only prisoners of our anticipation and fear what others will, or might, think and object, or criticize or simply wipe off the table, but also the prisoners of our past thoughts and all that we learned, as history formed cultures and both of which have formed the language we use to grasp any rational thought, notion, feeling and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7_5

111

112

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

interpretation of memories that come to mind (constantly, in an ever and ever altered fashion). Now, if that is done, the freeing of ourselves from our own formed (that we received by cultural, linguistic, educational and parental/peer feeding) and ownnurtured (constantly strengthened and/or refashioned) perceptions, we may see what the majority of thinkers and commentators, and exerts and politicians alike, have not yet had a chance to look at and get a grasp on.

The Notion of Development Without further ado, it can be said, while it is reasonably (in the Habermasian sense, cf Habermas, 1981) true, that: [s]ocial development today is widely seen as a planned and directed change in a social system on democratic lines to ensure that such conditions are created in society that are instrumental in the optimal development of its people, enabling them to effectively perform their social and private roles in accordance with expected social and private status, while also enabling them to achieve greater happiness, satisfaction, and peaceful life. (Singh and Aspalter, 2008: 2)

While bringing in (a bit) the history of the notion or mental formation1 of development, as was mandated by Nietzsche a long time ago (1878: 343), we may get a better hold of what we (humankind) have come to see and understand as development, and why, in different places of the world, in different political, economic, cultural and importantly linguistic and local historical contexts. Social development, ever since this term has risen to international popularity since the 1950s, has been defined in many different ways, to achieve many different purposes, by different social agents (professors, government administrators, journalists, welfare providers, and general public opinion). And to be sure, these meanings have changed across time, as they underlied international exchange processes in terms of scientific exchange, transfer of public discourse, and implication of international development aid and other international social policies and programs. (Singh and Aspalter, 2008: 2)

Building on a post-Luhmannian theoretical framework of communication, language, culture and history (Luhmann, 1975, 1982, 1984, 1997; Aspalter, 2007, 2010, 2021a): we can come to understand and see development as the result of a “seemingly endless motion, bouncing back and forth, resembling an endless ‘cord’ of communication” (Singh and Aspalter, 2008: 2).

1

I.e. in the Tich-Nath-Hanhian meaning of the word, cf Hanh (1993).

The Concept of Development as a Weapon in Itself

113

The Concept of Development as a Weapon in Itself Further we have to integrate Nietzsche, the grandmaster behind Foucault, who again was a grandmaster by himself. Both of them have changed the thoughts (if not lives) of millions, and will continue to do so for centuries. The core of the core for most of Foucault’s teaching certainly (one can hardly not assume, Foucault has not read that following passage—again and again or thought about it again and again, and/or deeply—paid attention to it, and as a consequence changed his outlook) is (one can assume, causally) related to (if not directly derived from) the following passage in Human, All-Too-Human on The Tragi-Comedy of Regensburg): Here and there we see with terrible clearness the harlequinade of Fortune, how she fastens the rope, on which she wills that succeeding centuries should dance, on to a few days, one place, the condition and opinions of one brain [that of Martin Luther]. … now, in order to have a still stronger idea of the dreadful farcicality of it all, let us add that none of the principles about which men [Martin Luther and his followers] then disputed in Regensburg—neither that of original sin, nor that of redemption of proxy, nor that of justification of faith—is in any way true or even has any connection with truth: that they are now all recognized as incapable of being discussed. Yet on this account the world was set on fire—that is to say, by opinions which correspond to no things or realities … Lastly, it only remains to be said that it is true these principles give rise to sources of power so mighty that without them all the mills of the modern world could not be driven with such force. And it is primarily a matter of force, only secondarily of truth (and perhaps not even secondarily)—is it not so, my dear up-to-date friends? (emphases added, Nietzsche, 2008 [1878]: 346-347)

Here, in this long paragraph of Friedrich Nietzsche the (Foucauldian) power relations that run the whole of the modern world have been explained. It has been explained that one person, a few persons, indeed, not hundreds, not millions, can rule the world for decades, if not centuries. Besides Martin Luther, Karl Marx is certainly the second perfect choice to make visible (for once, or twice) this law of invisible forces that control all of society, for long times to come, in the most intrinsic and yet complex ways, i.e. the ‘strings’ of Fortune—which are nothing less than the invisible strings/hands of Foucauldian power relations themselves. These power relations, in all their forms and manifestations, are the ones that start, fight and nurture wars: these include, literal civil wars, but more often than that constant historical and contemporary cultural, political-economy-based, financial, legal/administrative wars.

The above example given by Nietzsche has demonstrated in all sharpness that it only needs at first one person or a few, then more, then many, to be turned and put to work, in all the aspects of their respective fields of influence—surely passing their fight onto to all their future generations, for centuries to come. This is a fight, a war against all else that there are, all others that are not part of that group, and that are not subscribing to any notion or principle, or idea that has been chosen to trigger and propel this or that Foucauldian ‘civil war’ or as we say today ‘cultural war’, and the like, such as financial war, tax war, administrative war—against all the rest. The concept of development is a weapon, it is the manifestation of the war of the rich countries against the rest, the war fought by the super-powerful and the ones that control them, the super-super-rich (not rich, not super-rich, but super-super rich!).

114

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

All of the mills of development are driven by it. The word GDP is evidence, for this religious belief that money transactions from one person or institution to another are all that is worth striving for! It is horrible to see that millions of children worldwide are dying in this war of the super-super-rich and the super-powerful, which they wage from their citadels of ideology and textbook indoctrination, and the subsequent professional fermentation and bending of the brains of the masses in the rich countries, and of course also directly in the poor and rather poor, as well as not so rich countries. The United Nations are willing distributors of ideas like a development ladder, embodied in the notions of progress along the Human Development Index (HDI), which was set-up by a Nobel Prize winner in economics, Armatya Sen—which certainly played a part in him getting that Nobel Prize (which is very ok), but which also distributed the notion that GDP is everything, and an essential part of everything(!). The Human Development Index looks good, and nice, but what it really does is equating human development with GDP per capita! This is appalling! Human achievements, the achievement of humankind, is nothing more (in part or in full) than the sum of economic transactions within a certain region, of a certain year, divided by the number of people (registered) living there. Are we worth nothing! Are the children that die of malnutrition every year worth nothing? The mothers that care for them, the fathers, all parents that care for them, are they worth nothing? Is our culture, is nature, our mother earth, our climate, worth nothing in terms of development? The partial or complete replacing of human development with economic transactions is perhaps good for the professional career of one person, and a whole number of high-level administrators that agreed on the index, and fun for those administrators publishing it and thus determine the ranking of countries, into worthy/excellent/ noble countries and those that are not, or not as much (truly compare hereto Nietzsche pathbreaking book On the Genealogy of Morals, i.e. Zur Genealogie der Moral, 1887). It may (or it may not) be fun for most students to learn about this cute index (HDI), while it may also be part of making them dull, distracted and powerless to understand the misery and poverty, the ‘underdevelopment’ (as it is called, here remember Nietzsche’s point in his On the Genealogy of Morals!) in the whole of the world, without turning it all into ‘religion’ (cf V. Smith, 2017), into worshipping of the rich and successful countries. These rich and powerful countries, and their in-reality-ruling elites, are the ones that are handing out, dishing out all the recipes for success, governance, taxation and social security, i.e. all the ways all the mills of power, the mills of education, the mills of culture, the mills of our welfare state systems, and the mills of our economy in the whole world are to follow and get molded into (remember the Regensburg passage above).

On Development and the Evolution of Humanity

115

On Development and the Evolution of Humanity The real challenge we have today, for development and the evolution of humanity, is to get rid of, once and for all, and that instantly (yes, that is possible), abominable levels of wealth inequality. This needs to be done, in order to have a chance to change the culture of everything (cf Vaclav Havel cited by Lavoie and Chamlee-Wright, 2002: 78), in a positive, and not disruptive, and not revolutionary manner. Solutions may be revolutionary (innovative and farthest-reaching, i.e. effective at once), but revolution is always violence, and as such, has no solution to offer, nor does unrest, censoring, and cancellation of people, artists, politicians, and/or historical figures. Streetlevel revolutions manifest and lead to injustices and dehumanizing forces themselves. Gandhi, on the contrary, e.g. stood for and led a peaceful revolution—so there are real revolutionary humane solutions. Structurally violent societies (Gil, 1996, 2008) cannot be amended with yet more violence!

There are also policy solutions: technical and financial social policy solutions. Take for example, marginal wealth taxes, for all the net wealth per person exceeding e.g. 100 million of US dollars (or Euros), of 78, 88, or 98 percent, one time in a person’s lifetime, are possible (cf Aspalter, 2023), while taxing recent past wealth (to avoid negative incentives). They are revolutionary in terms of thinking, as they also separate the rich (and even the very rich) from the super-super-rich who—with their inhumane concentration of wealth possessions in their hands—are the real enemies of humanity. It are the super-billionaires that need to shed their many billions, in order for essential equality to have a chance, in order for detestable, dehumanizing inequality to go away from the face of this earth, giving people the water they need to drink and the food they need to eat—water and food for children, older people, the poor, the weak, and the socially, culturally or geographically isolated. The author hopes that this constitutes one, merely one, but still, answer to Brij Mohan’s key questions of how to achieve real social development: The challenge is not how to arrange drinking water and prevent malnutrition; the real challenges are: How to reeducate the human animal? How to transform a culture that is universally predatory? How do define ‘social’ in a world that values nearly everything that is inherently anti-social: violence, war, nuclearization, terror, inequality and injustice. (Mohan, 2007: 38)

Without cancelling appalling inequality, education and science have no chance to get back on track of really caring and working for the progress of humanity, i.e. human decency, and thus to say goodbye to status-quo-endorsing, status-quoadoring theories and modes of conduct in the business of day-to-day research, and one’s lifetime education. Of course, other transitional social policies (cf Gil, 1998) are also needed, such as e.g. limiting ownership of public and social media to one percent of maximal one media outlet, applying only for all outlets succeeding e.g. 20 million US dollar capital; or making education from day-crèches to Ph.D. degree’s free for all (with no demeaning loans; with no exceptions, i.e. no special education tracks, no special

116

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

admission tricks and tracks, no exclusive schools for the kids of the super-rich and the super-super-rich). This is possible. The political will for it is unlikely, as the kids of the current political leaders are the favorized ones, the special ones, the ones that have all the good jobs (i.e., the high-paid and filthily high-paid jobs) to themselves—and the exclusion of masses of the masses from privileged university education at privileged universities and colleges guarantees just that! Inequality facilitates privilege! It also strengthens it! Unlikely does not mean impossible. Just, that is more difficult, that is needs more transitory will of the masses, their common members, and their real leaders, including educators, artists, intellectuals, and yes, of course, scientists. It needs sharper will, plus greater endurance thereof. Not a revolution, not violence on the streets, but peaceful transition, first a realization of the minds of the experts and leaders, such as philosophers, educators and scientists, very importantly also media professionals, and then also even more so the realization of the masses. This is necessary to safe this planet, from us, from the evil controlling urges in ourselves, which are growing and perverting ever more with one’s increasing wealth and temptations of power over other people, their thoughts, their language, their morals, their history, their arts and culture—cancel culture is the wrong way to go, as it cancels also our only hope for development and evolution of humanity, and human decency. This is so because, with hate and despise, there comes only more hate and despise! Only full embrace, full intellectual and emotional understanding, and full compassion with the sins of today, and of our past, the past of humankind, there is a chance for anger, hate and violence to be softened and dissipated into thin air (cf Hanh, 2001, 2007, 2010, 2015a,b).

Overcoming the Chains and Shackles of Our Past The truth is that: “Our present civilization has grown up on the soil of the ruling tribes and castes.” (Nietzsche, 2008, 1878]: 44)

Our culture and our language are given to us by the elites of the past. There is no escape from that. Nevertheless, beginning with today, we can proceed (turn the wheel of the world, of evolution of civilization) from now on with our story and we can change our culture by emphasizing e.g. local cultures, local languages and their dialects with all their cultural values that are still intact (they are, if one looks for them, one can appreciate and rescue them), local cultures and languages (including so-called dialects, i.e. local languages, and real dialects, i.e. dialects of local languages), the cultures and languages of indigenous populations. One needs to emphasize indigenous history (ourstory, theirstory) and put up new statues, build new museums, highlight the names of indigenous leaders of the past and their deeds, with school names, street names, and the like—this is indeed helpful and needed, to induce and secure a cultural change for the better.

Overcoming the Chains and Shackles of Our Past

117

We are the prisoners of our past, but we are also the makers of our current story of today, of our times, in our lifetimes.

The chains and shackles of the past, the literal ones and the intangible ones, are to be dealt with, through education, compassion/love and understanding (cf Hanh, 1993, 2001, 2007, 2010, 2015a,b). Transitional change is utterly and absolutely needed. A change of our entire cultures, our way of running education systems, health care systems, media systems. This also includes our despicable tax systems, and the failing ways of our welfare state systems, especially asset- and means-testing that creates more, widens, deepens, and prolongs poverty, but also social insurance as it is a form of taxing the poor, robbing their chance of accumulating any kind of assets (wealth), with inflation (cf Appendix 2), locking them in asset poverty (retirement poverty) and income poverty at the same time—apart from all the negative behavioral incentives it creates that punishes healthy lifestyles and daily life choices (Aspalter, 2021b). In addition to elite capitalism—the history, culture, language, education, institutions, laws, practices and morals formed and reformed by the elites over centuries and millennia (the Foucauldian war chariots), and the inequalities, dehumanization, injustices, divisions, and discrimination and socio-cultural-financial exclusions that derived thereof (the Rothschildian javelins)—there is yet another most troubling behemoth (Ungetüm) and specter (Gespenst) that is needed for us to overcome. And this is us, we ourselves. It is our past, our past communications, the past of our peers and parents, the past of our communities, countries and cultures. A sheer endless individual-cum-collective ‘noodle of communication’ that reaches back millions of years, before we could even speak and grasp the understanding of history (ourstory). The stereotypes that we inherited, that we helped to reinvent, with and at every turn of our thoughts and feelings, also need to be overcome. Enduring acknowledgement, with unlimited compassion and full understanding— i.e. ein Verstehen that encompasses both our peripheral nervous system (the brain, our ‘peripheral’ brain) and our central nervous system (our ‘central brain’, i.e. our stomach, which is actually talked about when we talk about our heart)—goes a long way in achieving that. As consumers, or as scientists, we and our decisions, evaluations and activities are bound by the narrow canons of our culture, language, education, and scientific and political correctness. A great number of divisions, and exclusions, have been built in thousands of years, with hundreds of ways (institutions, practices, notions) of hardening and perpetuating the very same. It is important that we can discover new ways of thinking, new ways of establishing paradigms of scientific conduct, building and testing theories. It is monumentally important for us to reach new horizons, with new ships, new sails, and new compasses. What is needed are a new courage and new ways of thinking and understanding— that preclude the usual ways of foregone conclusions, and herd instincts of jointly jumping on any bypassing bandwagons, or the bandwagons that others have parked right in front of our nose. Open minds, free of etiquette, free of being and letting us be pushed and nudged by others, are essential. To be sure, this is a more or less question

118

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

(sufficiently near perfection is perfection) and a process, rather than an instant or absolute affair. We could choose to leave scientific evolution to the brains and hands of our predecessors, such as, Charles R. Darwin (1839, 1859, 1871), Alfred R. Wallace (1855) and Peter A. Kropotkin (1902), or their successors in the centuries down the road, to cause Kuhnian shifts in our thinking (Kuhn, 1970a,b), about us as humans, about human society as a whole. Or we could build on the knowledge we have gathered already, in science, all over the world, and turn a new page at least, or open new roads of investigation, with new methods and new theories. Albert Einstein, for example, was not the most intelligent person on earth (ever, or in the last millennia), he may have been the smartest. But, for sure, he understood to move forward science, to extraordinarily new heights. He could achieve this, by reading all other scientists’ works, and by daring to venture out into the unknown. Thought experiments carried his, propelled his questions and dreams to become new lands of science, which helped to create the (evil as well as benevolent) world that we have today.

Evolution Means Understanding Our Diversity and Working Together as One Humanity: By Way of Conclusion Albert Einstein’s work and breakthroughs indeed spurred development, that is, it spurred technological and scientific evolution. However, human development and evolution both have not decided yet, it seems, to move forward/upward, or backward/downward. As the state of affairs of humanity, the human condition, is ever more precarious, ever more violent and hateful, ever more ecologically and humanly destructive. For any road out of its, transdisciplinary research is a must. It was natural for Friedrich Nietzsche, to work in all sorts of scientific disciplines, crossing over fervently, crushing and tearing down their divisive and egoistic/narcissistic boundaries and borders. Charles-Louis de Secondat (Montesquieu), Adam Smith, Max Weber and Michel Foucault also perfectly understood (and succeeded doing) that. When it comes to economics, history was a prime choice for interdisciplinary economics, which started with Philipp Wilhelm von Hörnigk in 1684. He was the grandfather of historical economics, leading to a line of greatest theorists that included Max Weber (2013a,b) and Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1939, 1954). Friedrich von Wieser and Friedrich A. von Hayek have also ventured out of their discipline, economics, into sociology and psychology respectively. Others ventured into economics, Gary S. Becker (from sociology) and Richard H. Thaler (from psychology). In the social sciences at large, too, there are transdisciplinary works of greatest effect and importance, these include e.g. both the works of David G. Gil (1973, 1976, 1979, 1985, 1998, ) and Brij Mohan (1987, 1992, 1993, 2007, 2011), as they

Evolution Means Understanding Our Diversity and Working Together …

119

have transcended several disciplines from social work, to psychiatrics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, social policy and politics. Too little common work has been achieved in all of the sciences, of course the social and economic sciences included. This is because they have not worked together as one science. Philosophy and history must always be part of the equation. That is the understanding on which Max Weber and his works thrived, as did those of many countless others. The words of Friedrich Nietzsche in the following may entice here and there wary feelings, but they certainly should not. More, they should hopefully bring about a reassuring understanding of the mission in science, the need for quests, with the excitement and dangers that come along with it. But what would be exploration without freedom of steering, freedom of wondering, freedom of not knowing in advance? Get on the ships! — If one considers how an overall philosophical justification of one’s way of living and thinking affects each individual—namely, like a sun, warming, blessing, impregnating, shining especially for him…—one exclaims longingly in the end: Oh, now I wish that many such new suns would be created! Even the evil man, the unhappy man, and the exceptional man should have their philosophy, their good right, their sunshine! Pity [or hate] for them is not what is needed! We have to unlearn this arrogant notion, however long humanity has spent learning and practicing it—we do not need to present them with confessors, conjurers of souls, and forgivers of sins; rather, a new justice is needed! A new motto! And new philosophers! The moral earth, too, is round! The moral earth, too, has its antipodes! The antipodes, too, have their right to exist! There is another world to discover—and more than one! On to the ships, you philosophers! (Nietzsche, 2009, 1882, 1887]: 163)

Diversity of humans is necessary for the evolution and healthy development of humans. We need to come to an understanding that engulfs both our necessary and precious (and to be highly valued) diversity, as well as our common roots, our commonalities, and common characteristics and nature (cf Gil, 2010). Diversity of science, theories and scientific paradigms, is utterly crucial for science itself to be able to do its job, to break the existing boundaries between the unknown and the known, and, perhaps more important even, to break in the towers of pride, fear and egocentric self-understandings that watch over our every thought, feeling and scientific/philosophical enterprise. Allowing first diversity of theories, and theoretical approaches, to compete with and/or develop alongside one another is crucial, as is, second, the objectivation of scientific research (Luhmann, 2017; Foucault, 1976; Myrdal, 1965, 1969; Weber, 2012), as much as it is possible, given our linguistic, cultural and personal constraints. Removing by force the watch towers that we inherited from our surrounding world as children (cf Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1987; Hanh, 2010), is difficult, but doable, at least in the long run, first by a few and then hopefully by many other daring and hungry souls and minds. Whatever has been done, can be undone. The longer it was done, the longer it will take to be undone (Hanh, 2015a,b, 1993). It is hence vital to energetically and relentlessly focus on the problems of our times, and energetically and relentlessly work on their solutions and improvements, as a team of peoples, as a team of scientific disciplines, as one team of

120

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

humanity—not imaginary races of homo sapiens sapiens, of which there is only one2 race (homo sapiens sapiens).

Apart from singularity perhaps, all things must come to an end. Hence, the author would like to end this book, here, with a hopeful quote by Singh and Aspalter (2008: 3): It is up to other attempts in the future to perhaps, that is our hope, refashion and upgrade, the theoretical understanding of how we missed out on helping the world to come to see a better tomorrow, over the past several decades.

References Aspalter, Christian (2007), Towards a Human Capital Welfare State? In Search of Win-Win Solutions, Journal of Societal and Social Policy, 6(1): 1–46. Aspalter, Christian (2010), Towards “Human Capital Solidarity”: Emphasizing Justice in the Distribution of Physical, Mental, Social and Cultural Capabilities—A Normative Study in Social Policy, ISSA Global Research Conference, International Social Security Association, Luxembourg, September 30. Aspalter, Christian (2021a), Understanding Systemic Social Problems: Moving Beyond the Limits of Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory—An Essay in Theoretical Behavioral Social Policy, https:// www.ssrn.com. Aspalter, Christian (2021b), A Pas de Trois in Social Policy Theory: Understanding the Financing of Welfare State Systems, in: C. Aspalter (ed.), Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia, Routledge, Oxon. Aspalter, Christian (2023), Ten Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: A Global Data Analysis, Springer: Cham. Darwin, Charles R. (1839), Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, H. Colburn: London. Darwin, Charles R. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray: London. Darwin, Charles R. (1871), The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray: London. Foucault, Michel (1976), Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoir, Volume 1, Èditions Gallimard: Paris. Gil, David G. (1973), Unravelling Social Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Political Action Towards Social Equality, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (1976), The Challenge of Social Equality, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (1979), Beyond the Jungle: Essays on Human Possibilities, Social Alternatives, and Radical Practice, Schenkman: Cambridge. Gil, David G. (ed.) (with Eva Gil) (1985), Toward Social and Economic Justice, Schenkman: Cambridge. 2

That is it. There is only one human race, that of homo sapiens sapiens. Anyone saying anything else is not following science, but common practice in some dominant parts of the world (Anglo-Saxon countries in particular). And, common practice does not make it right, or rightful, it does not turn fiction into truth, artificial notions and classifications into actual factual human beings around the world, in every corner of the world, wherever they are, whoever they are. It is in complete denial of the real story of humanity (our story, our ‘history’), from its early beginnings in Africa until today.

References

121

Gil, David G. (1996), Preventing Violence in a Structurally Violent Society: Mission Impossible, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(1): 77–84. Gil, David G. (1998), Confronting Injustice and Oppression: Concepts and Strategies for Social Workers, Columbia University Press: New York. Gil, David G. (2008), Meeting Universal Human Needs as the Foundation of Individual and Social Development and of Social and Global Justice: Comments Upon Receipt of the Justice Studies Association’s 2008 Noam Chomsky Award, Contemporary Justice Review, 11(4): 323–330. Gil, David G. (2010), From Tribal Consciousness and Subjective Rationality Toward Global Consciousness and Objective Rationality, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 26(2–3): 137–144. Habermas, Jürgen (1981), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Volume 1, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Hanh, Tich Nhat (1993), Dharma Talks, given in July/August 1993, in Plum Village, France. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2001), Anger: Buddhist Wisdom for Cooling the Flames, Rider: London. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2007), Living Buddha, Living Christ, Riverhead Books: London. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2010), Reconciliation: Healing the Inner Child, Parallax Press: Berkeley. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015a), The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation, Harmony: New York. Hanh, Tich Nhat (2015b), No Mud, No Lotus: The Art of Transforming Suffering, Parallax Press: Berkeley. Hörnigk, Phillip Wilhelm v. (1684), Österreich über alles, wann es nur will, August Skalweit: Nürnberg. Kropotkin, Peter A. (1902), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, McClure Phillips: New York. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970a) [1962], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970b), Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Lavoie, Don and Chamlee-Wright, Emily (2002), Culture and Enterprise, London: Routledge. Luhmann, Niklas (1970), Soziologische Aufklärung: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft, Volume 1, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden. Luhmann, Niklas (1975), Soziologische Aufklärung: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft, Volume 2, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden. Luhmann, Niklas (1982), The Differentiation of Society, Columbia University Press: New York. Luhmann, Niklas (1984), Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M. Luhmann, Niklas (2017), Trust and Power, Polity: Cambridge. Mohan, Brij (1987), Denial of Existence: Essays on the Human Condition, C.C. Thomas: Springfield. Mohan, Brij (1992), Global Development: Post-Material Values and Social Praxis, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (1993), Eclipse of Freedom: The World of Oppression, Praeger: New York. Mohan, Brij (2007), Fallacies of Development: Crises of Human and Social Development, Atlantic: New Delhi. Mohan, Brij (2011), Development, Poverty of Culture, and Social Policy, Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Myrdal, Gunnar (1965), The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Myrdal, Gunnar (1969), Objectivity in Social Research, Pantheon: New York. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (2008) [1878], Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Wordsworth Editions: Hertfordshire. Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (ed. by B. Williams), (2009) [1882/1887], The Gay Science, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

122

5 On the Notions of Development and Evolution: A Concluding Note

Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1887), Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift, C.G. Naumann: Leipzig. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, McGraw Hill: New York. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press: New York. Singh, Surendra and Aspalter, Christian (2008), Debating Social Development: An Introduction, in: S. Singh and C. Aspalter (eds.), Debating Social Development: Strategies for Social Development, Casa Verde: Taoyuan. Smith, Vernon L. (2017), The Evidence of Things Not Seen: Reflections on Faith, Science, and Economics, Acton Institute: Grand Rapids. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962), Thought and Language, MIT Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1987), Thinking and Speech, in: R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology, Volume 1, Plenum Press: New York. Wallace, Alfred R. (1855), On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species, The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 16(2): 184–196. Weber, Max (2012), The “Objectivity” of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy, in: H.H. Bruun and S. Whimster (eds.), Max Weber, Routledge: London. Weber, Max (2013a), Economy and Society, Volume 1, University of California Press: Berkeley. Weber, Max (2013b), Economy and Society, Volume 2, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Appendices

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7

123

7.02

74.3

Bangladesh

6.70

7.05

3.78

6.67

6.37

74.4

63.4

73.1

72.1

76.8

Belize

Benin

Bhutan

Bolivia

Bosnia & Herz

7.77

7.17

9.14

74.8

81.4

Belarus

Belgium

7.47

73.2

75.8

Bahamas

Bahrain

6.16

71.4

Azerbaijan

9.61

9.20

83.0

81.6

Australia

7.53

7.71

Austria

76.0

Armenia

3.69

63.1

76.6

Angola

Argentina

7.86

77.1

Algeria

3.72

8.13

63.2

78.0

Afghanistan

67.2

63.3

63.4

55.5

65.3

70.6

66.0

64.3

65.9

64.4

63.6

70.9

70.9

67.1

67.1

54.8

66.4

69.1

53.9

HLEab

LEab

SRP

Var. 2

Dim. 1

Var. 1

Dim. 1

Albania

Appendix 1A

7.69

6.39

6.42

3.78

7.06

8.83

7.29

6.72

7.26

6.76

6.49

8.93

8.93

7.66

7.66

3.55

7.42

8.33

3.24

SRP 7.0

15.5

12.8

13.1

7.6

14.1

18.0

14.5

13.7

14.7

13.5

12.6

18.1

18.5

15.2

15.4

7.2

15.3

16.5

7.73

6.38

6.54

3.78

7.06

8.98

7.23

6.87

7.36

6.73

6.32

9.06

9.27

7.59

7.68

3.62

7.64

8.23

3.48

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

10

155

183

397

36

5

2

173

14

70

26

5

6

26

39

241

112

15

638

MMR

Dim. 2

0.07

1.33

1.58

3.44

0.30

0.03

0.00

1.49

0.10

0.59

0.21

0.03

0.03

0.21

0.32

2.08

0.96

0.11

5.54

SRP

Var. 4

4

13

15

30

8

2

1

17

3

7

10

2

2

6

5

27

16

8

35

NMR

Dim. 2

0.70

2.79

3.26

6.74

1.63

0.23

0.00

3.72

0.47

1.40

2.09

0.23

0.23

1.16

0.93

6.05

3.49

1.63

7.91

SRP

0.77

4.12

4.83

10.18

1.92

0.26

0.00

5.21

0.57

1.99

2.30

0.26

0.27

1.37

1.25

8.13

4.45

1.74

13.45

Dim. 2

0.40

2.16

2.53

5.34

1.01

0.14

0.00

2.73

0.30

1.04

1.21

0.14

0.14

0.72

0.66

4.26

2.33

0.91

7.05

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

9.60

7.84

7.47

4.66

8.99

9.86

10.00

7.27

9.70

8.96

8.79

9.86

9.86

9.28

9.34

5.74

7.67

9.09

2.95

SRP rv

124 Appendices

4.17

64.7

Congo

8.51

78.6

Croatia

8.30

8.96

3.63

80.8

62.9

Costa Rica

Cote D’Ivoire

4.97

79.3

67.4

Colombia

Comoros I

7.95

77.4

China

2.65

8.93

59.6

80.7

Chad

0.71

53.1

Cent. Afr. R

Chile

3.48

9.38

62.4

82.2

Cameroon

5.77

6.93

Canada

70.1

Cambodia

3.90

63.8

74.0

Burundi

Cabo Verde

3.57

62.7

Burkina Faso

7.02

7.26

74.3

75.1

Brunei D

Bulgaria

7.50

3.42

62.2

75.9

Botswana

SRP

68.6

54.8

70.0

56.2

58.9

69.0

68.5

70.0

52.0

46.4

71.3

54.5

61.5

64.8

55.6

54.9

66.3

65.6

65.4

53.9

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

LEab

Var. 2

Var. 1

Brazil

(continued)

8.16

3.55

8.63

4.01

4.92

8.29

8.13

8.63

2.61

0.74

9.06

3.44

5.79

6.89

3.81

3.58

7.39

7.16

7.09

3.24

SRP 6.7

16.5

7.2

17.6

8.2

9.9

16.8

16.1

17.6

5.3

1.5

18.4

6.9

11.6

13.8

7.7

7.2

14.7

14.2

14.6

8.23

3.59

8.79

4.09

4.94

8.40

8.04

8.78

2.63

0.73

9.22

3.46

5.78

6.91

3.86

3.58

7.33

7.09

7.30

3.33

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

8

617

27

378

273

83

29

13

1140

829

10

529

16

58

548

320

10

31

60

144

MMR

Dim. 2

0.05

5.36

0.22

3.28

2.36

0.71

0.24

0.10

9.91

7.20

0.07

4.59

0.12

0.49

4.76

2.77

0.07

0.25

0.51

1.24

SRP

Var. 4

3

33

6

19

29

7

3

4

33

39

3

26

13

9

21

26

3

6

9

22

NMR

Dim. 2

0.47

7.44

1.16

4.19

6.51

1.40

0.47

0.70

7.44

8.84

0.47

5.81

2.79

1.86

4.65

5.81

0.47

1.16

1.86

4.88

SRP 6.12

0.52

12.80

1.38

7.46

8.87

2.10

0.70

0.79

17.35

16.04

0.53

10.40

2.91

2.35

9.41

8.58

0.53

1.42

2.37

Dim. 2

0.27

6.71

0.72

3.91

4.65

1.10

0.37

0.42

9.10

8.41

0.28

5.46

1.53

1.23

4.93

4.50

0.28

0.74

1.24

3.21

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

9.73

3.29

9.28

6.09

5.35

8.90

9.63

9.58

0.90

1.59

9.72

4.54

8.47

8.77

5.07

5.50

9.72

9.26

8.76

6.79

SRP rv

Appendices 125

8.24

78.4

Ecuador

6.58

65.5

Gambia

4.40

9.46

4.70

82.5

66.5

France

9.20

Gabon

81.6

Finland

5.15

5.36

68.7

68.0

Ethiopia

Fiji

2.08

57.7

Eswatini

3.99

8.39

64.1

78.9

Eritrea

3.42

62.2

Equat. Guin

Estonia

6.28

7.23

71.8

75.0

Egypt

El Salvador

3.48

72.8

62.4

Dominican R

4.49

D.R.C

65.8

Djibouti

9.11

8.45

79.1

81.3

Czechia

Denmark

8.07

9.64

77.8

83.1

Cuba

Cyprus

57.0

57.6

72.1

71.0

59.6

59.9

50.1

69.2

55.7

53.9

64.9

63.0

68.5

54.1

64.0

58.0

71.0

68.8

72.4

67.8

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

SRP

Var. 2

Var. 1

LEab

(continued)

4.28

4.48

9.33

8.96

5.15

5.25

1.97

8.36

3.85

3.24

6.92

6.29

8.13

3.31

6.62

4.62

8.96

8.23

9.43

7.89

SRP 16.0

8.7

9.2

18.8

18.2

10.3

10.6

4.1

16.8

7.8

6.7

14.2

12.6

16.4

6.8

13.2

9.1

18.1

16.7

19.1

4.34

4.59

9.40

9.08

5.15

5.30

2.03

8.38

3.92

3.33

7.08

6.28

8.19

3.40

6.60

4.55

9.04

8.34

9.54

7.98

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

597

252

8

3

34

401

437

9

480

301

46

37

59

473

95

248

4

3

6

36

MMR

Dim. 2

5.18

2.18

0.05

0.01

0.28

3.48

3.79

0.06

4.16

2.60

0.38

0.30

0.50

4.10

0.81

2.14

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.30

SRP

Var. 4

26

20

3

1

12

27

20

1

18

29

6

10

7

27

23

30

3

2

2

2

NMR

Dim. 2

5.81

4.42

0.47

0.00

2.56

6.05

4.42

0.00

3.95

6.51

1.16

2.09

1.40

6.05

5.12

6.74

0.47

0.23

0.23

0.23

SRP 0.53

11.00

6.60

0.52

0.01

2.84

9.52

8.21

0.06

8.12

9.12

1.55

2.40

1.89

10.15

5.93

8.89

0.48

0.24

0.27

Dim. 2

5.77

3.46

0.27

0.00

1.49

4.99

4.30

0.03

4.26

4.78

0.81

1.26

0.99

5.32

3.11

4.66

0.25

0.13

0.14

0.28

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

4.23

6.54

9.73

10.00

8.51

5.01

5.70

9.97

5.74

5.22

9.19

8.74

9.01

4.68

6.89

5.34

9.75

9.87

9.86

9.72

SRP rv

126 Appendices

6.34

3.07

72.0

Guatemala

4.64

4.46

65.7

Guyana

76.0

Jamaica

7.53

9.49

9.61

82.6

83.0

Israel

9.26

Italy

81.8

Ireland

6.46

7.92

77.3

72.4

Iran

Iraq

6.13

71.3

Indonesia

9.40

5.98

82.3

70.8

Iceland

7.65

76.4

Hungary

India

3.99

6.31

64.1

71.9

Haiti

Honduras

2.83

61.0

60.2

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

9.05

66.3

81.1

Ghana

Greece

6.73

9.23

73.3

81.7

Georgia

Germany

66.6

71.9

72.4

71.1

62.7

66.3

62.8

60.3

72.0

67.2

63.0

55.8

57.2

52.6

53.3

62.3

70.9

58.0

70.9

64.7

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

SRP

Var. 2

Var. 1

LEab

(continued)

7.49

9.26

9.43

9.00

6.19

7.39

6.22

5.38

9.30

7.69

6.29

3.88

4.35

2.81

3.04

6.05

8.93

4.62

8.93

6.86

SRP 13.6

15.0

18.9

18.9

18.3

12.6

15.3

12.4

11.4

18.7

15.3

12.6

7.9

8.8

5.6

6.1

12.4

18.0

9.3

18.2

7.51

9.44

9.46

9.13

6.32

7.65

6.18

5.68

9.35

7.67

6.30

3.93

4.41

2.82

3.05

6.20

8.99

4.63

9.08

6.79

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

80

2

3

5

79

16

177

145

4

12

65

480

169

667

576

95

3

308

7

25

MMR

Dim. 2

0.68

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.67

0.12

1.52

1.25

0.02

0.09

0.55

4.16

1.45

5.79

5.00

0.81

0.01

2.67

0.04

0.20

SRP

Var. 4

9

2

2

2

14

8

12

20

1

2

9

25

17

35

30

11

2

23

2

5

NMR

Dim. 2

1.86

0.23

0.23

0.23

3.02

1.63

2.56

4.42

0.00

0.23

1.86

5.58

3.72

7.91

6.74

2.33

0.23

5.12

0.23

0.93

SRP 1.13

2.54

0.23

0.24

0.26

3.69

1.75

4.08

5.66

0.02

0.32

2.41

9.75

5.18

13.70

11.74

3.14

0.24

7.78

0.28

Dim. 2

1.33

0.12

0.13

0.14

1.94

0.92

2.14

2.97

0.01

0.17

1.26

5.11

2.71

7.18

6.16

1.64

0.13

4.08

0.14

0.59

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

8.67

9.88

9.87

9.86

8.06

9.08

7.86

7.03

9.99

9.83

8.74

4.89

7.29

2.82

3.84

8.36

9.87

5.92

9.86

9.41

SRP rv

Appendices 127

6.99

74.2

Kyrgyzstan

9.70

4.35

65.3

79.6

Maldives

8.60

4.43

7.14

65.6

74.7

Malawi

Malaysia

9.43

Madagascar

7.53

75.8

Libya

76.0

7.47

64.1

82.4

0.00

3.99

50.7

Lesotho

Liberia

Lithuania

7.65

76.4

Lebanon

Luxembourg

5.30

7.35

68.5

75.4

Laos

Latvia

9.02

83.3

81.0

6.52

Korea (S.)

72.6

Korea (N.)

6.93

4.58

Kuwait

74.0

66.1

Kazakhstan

Kenya

77.9

8.10

10.00

84.3

Japan

Jordan

70.0

65.7

57.1

57.3

71.6

66.7

65.2

54.9

44.2

66.0

66.2

60.5

65.8

70.1

73.1

65.0

57.7

65.0

67.6

74.1

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

SRP

Var. 2

Var. 1

LEab

(continued)

8.63

7.19

4.31

4.38

9.16

7.53

7.02

3.58

0.00

7.29

7.36

5.45

7.22

8.66

9.67

6.96

4.52

6.96

7.83

10.00

SRP 20.0

17.2

14.3

8.7

8.7

18.6

15.1

14.5

7.6

0.0

14.9

14.7

10.7

14.2

17.7

19.4

13.5

9.1

13.9

15.9

8.61

7.17

4.37

4.36

9.30

7.53

7.25

3.78

0.00

7.47

7.35

5.37

7.11

8.84

9.68

6.74

4.55

6.95

7.96

10.00

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

53

29

349

335

5

8

72

661

544

29

19

185

60

12

11

89

342

10

46

5

MMR

Dim. 2

0.44

0.24

3.02

2.90

0.03

0.05

0.61

5.74

4.72

0.24

0.15

1.59

0.51

0.09

0.08

0.76

2.96

0.07

0.38

0.03

SRP

Var. 4

4

5

19

20

2

2

6

31

44

4

2

22

12

5

1

9

20

5

9

1

NMR

Dim. 2

0.70

0.93

4.19

4.42

0.23

0.23

1.16

6.98

10.00

0.70

0.23

4.88

2.56

0.93

0.00

1.86

4.42

0.93

1.86

0.00

SRP 0.03

1.14

1.17

7.21

7.32

0.26

0.28

1.77

12.72

14.72

0.93

0.38

6.48

3.06

1.02

0.08

2.62

7.38

1.00

2.24

Dim. 2

0.60

0.61

3.78

3.84

0.14

0.15

0.93

6.67

7.72

0.49

0.20

3.40

1.61

0.53

0.04

1.37

3.87

0.52

1.18

0.01

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

9.40

9.39

6.22

6.16

9.86

9.85

9.07

3.33

2.28

9.51

9.80

6.60

8.39

9.47

9.96

8.63

6.13

9.48

8.82

9.99

SRP rv

128 Appendices

7.53

6.73

76.0

Mexico

5.27

7.50

75.9

Montenegro

3.75

63.3

Niger

9.32

82.6

Norway

9.49

3.54

7.17

62.6

74.8

Nigeria

N. Macedonia

7.23

82.0

75.0

New Zealand

Nicaragua

9.26

81.8

Netherlands

4.14

6.01

64.6

70.9

Namibia

5.48

69.1

Myanmar

Nepal

6.64

2.20

73.0

58.1

Morocco

Mozambique

5.18

73.3

68.1

Moldova

Mongolia

6.96

68.4

74.1

Mauretania

Mauritius

9.29

3.60

62.8

81.9

Mali

SRP

71.4

66.1

54.4

55.5

65.5

70.2

71.4

61.3

56.1

60.9

50.4

63.7

67.0

60.3

64.5

65.8

63.9

59.8

71.5

54.6

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

LEab

Var. 2

Var. 1

Malta

(continued)

9.10

7.32

3.41

3.78

7.12

8.70

9.10

5.72

3.98

5.59

2.07

6.52

7.63

5.38

6.79

7.22

6.59

5.22

9.13

3.48

SRP 7.1

18.6

14.5

7.0

7.5

14.4

18.0

18.4

11.7

8.1

11.1

4.3

13.2

15.1

10.6

13.5

14.8

13.6

10.5

18.4

9.30

7.25

3.48

3.76

7.18

9.01

9.18

5.87

4.06

5.53

2.14

6.58

7.56

5.28

6.76

7.38

6.78

5.24

9.21

3.54

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

2

7

917

509

98

9

5

186

195

250

289

70

6

45

19

33

61

766

6

562

MMR

Dim. 2

0.00

0.04

7.97

4.42

0.84

0.06

0.03

1.60

1.68

2.16

2.50

0.59

0.03

0.37

0.15

0.27

0.51

6.66

0.03

4.88

SRP

Var. 4

1

4

35

24

9

3

3

17

20

22

28

12

1

8

11

8

11

31

4

32

NMR

Dim. 2

0.00

0.70

7.91

5.35

1.86

0.47

0.47

3.72

4.42

4.88

6.28

2.56

0.00

1.63

2.33

1.63

2.33

6.98

0.70

7.21

SRP

0.00

0.74

15.88

9.77

2.70

0.53

0.49

5.32

6.10

7.04

8.78

3.15

0.03

2.00

2.47

1.90

2.84

13.63

0.73

12.09

Dim. 2

0.00

0.39

8.33

5.12

1.41

0.28

0.26

2.79

3.20

3.69

4.60

1.65

0.02

1.05

1.30

1.00

1.49

7.15

0.38

6.34

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

10.00

9.61

1.67

4.88

8.59

9.72

9.74

7.21

6.80

6.31

5.40

8.35

9.98

8.95

8.70

9.00

8.51

2.85

9.62

3.66

SRP rv

Appendices 129

81.3

Slovenia

9.11

9.67

8.18

83.2

78.2

Singapore

3.01

Slovakia

60.8

Sierra Leone

7.50

5.33

68.6

75.9

Senegal

Serbia

7.02

74.3

Saudi Arabia

6.70

5.48

73.2

69.1

Russia

7.41

75.6

Romania

Rwanda

9.20

7.89

81.6

77.2

Portugal

8.21

5.86

Qatar

78.3

Poland

8.69

79.9

70.4

Peru

Philippines

7.47

75.8

Paraguay

8.51

4.35

79.3

65.3

Panama

Papua N.G

6.90

4.43

73.9

65.6

Oman

Pakistan

70.7

68.5

73.6

52.9

66.9

59.4

64.0

60.2

64.2

66.8

67.1

71.0

68.7

62.0

69.5

65.8

57.1

68.7

56.9

64.7

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

SRP

Var. 2

Var. 1

LEab

(continued)

8.86

8.13

9.83

2.91

7.59

5.08

6.62

5.35

6.69

7.56

7.66

8.96

8.19

5.95

8.46

7.22

4.31

8.19

4.25

6.86

SRP

18.0

16.3

19.5

5.9

15.1

10.4

13.6

10.8

13.4

15.0

15.5

18.2

16.4

11.8

17.2

14.7

8.7

16.7

8.7

13.8

8.99

8.16

9.75

2.96

7.55

5.21

6.82

5.41

6.69

7.48

7.77

9.08

8.20

5.91

8.58

7.35

4.33

8.35

4.34

6.88

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

7

5

8

1120

12

315

17

248

17

19

9

8

2

121

88

84

145

52

14

19

MMR

Dim. 2

0.04

0.03

0.05

9.74

0.09

2.73

0.13

2.14

0.13

0.15

0.06

0.05

0.00

1.04

0.75

0.71

1.25

0.44

0.10

0.15

SRP

Var. 4

1

3

1

31

4

21

3

18

2

3

4

2

3

13

7

10

21

8

40

5

NMR

Dim. 2

0.00

0.47

0.00

6.98

0.70

4.65

0.47

3.95

0.23

0.47

0.70

0.23

0.47

2.79

1.40

2.09

4.65

1.63

9.07

0.93

SRP 1.08

0.04

0.49

0.05

16.72

0.78

7.38

0.60

6.10

0.36

0.61

0.76

0.28

0.47

3.83

2.14

2.81

5.90

2.06

9.17

Dim. 2

0.02

0.26

0.03

8.77

0.41

3.87

0.31

3.20

0.19

0.32

0.40

0.15

0.24

2.01

1.12

1.47

3.09

1.08

4.81

0.57

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

9.98

9.74

9.97

1.23

9.59

6.13

9.69

6.80

9.81

9.68

9.60

9.85

9.76

7.99

8.88

8.53

6.91

8.92

5.19

9.43

SRP rv

130 Appendices

6.19

71.5

Suriname

7.80

7.56

76.1

Trinidad & T

5.63

69.7

Turkmenistan

5.65

7.83

8.30

77.0

78.6

Tunisia

Türkiye

4.05

69.6

64.3

Timor-Leste

Togo

8.04

77.7

Thailand

5.60

4.94

69.5

67.3

Tajikistan

6.55

72.7

Syria

Tanzania

9.43

9.73

82.4

83.4

Sweden

Switzerland

5.48

76.9

69.1

9.67

Sri Lanka

83.2

Spain

4.35

3.60

Sudan

65.3

62.8

South Africa

South Sudan

1.73

4.32

65.2

56.5

Solomon I

SRP

62.1

68.4

66.9

66.2

56.2

60.9

68.3

58.5

62.0

62.9

72.5

71.9

62.4

59.9

67.0

72.1

53.7

56.2

49.7

57.8

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

LEab

Var. 2

Var. 1

Somalia

(continued)

5.99

8.09

7.59

7.36

4.01

5.59

8.06

4.78

5.95

6.25

9.46

9.26

6.09

5.25

7.63

9.33

3.18

4.01

1.84

4.55

SRP 8.9

11.6

16.4

15.4

14.9

8.1

11.2

16.1

9.7

11.5

12.8

19.2

18.7

12.3

10.7

15.4

19.0

6.8

8.4

3.6

5.82

8.20

7.71

7.46

4.03

5.61

8.05

4.86

5.77

6.40

9.60

9.35

6.14

5.36

7.71

9.50

3.39

4.18

1.78

4.43

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

7

17

43

67

396

142

37

524

17

31

5

4

120

295

36

4

1150

119

829

104

MMR

Dim. 2

0.04

0.13

0.36

0.57

3.43

1.22

0.30

4.55

0.13

0.25

0.03

0.02

1.03

2.55

0.30

0.02

10.00

1.02

7.20

0.89

SRP

Var. 4

24

5

12

11

24

19

5

20

14

11

3

1

11

27

4

2

40

11

37

8

NMR

Dim. 2

5.35

0.93

2.56

2.33

5.35

4.19

0.93

4.42

3.02

2.33

0.47

0.00

2.33

6.05

0.70

0.23

9.07

2.33

8.37

1.63

SRP 2.52

5.39

1.06

2.92

2.89

8.78

5.41

1.24

8.97

3.15

2.58

0.49

0.02

3.35

8.60

0.99

0.25

19.07

3.34

15.58

Dim. 2

2.83

0.56

1.53

1.52

4.60

2.83

0.65

4.70

1.65

1.35

0.26

0.01

1.76

4.51

0.52

0.13

10.00

1.75

8.17

1.32

SRP

Dim. 2

(continued)

7.17

9.44

8.47

8.48

5.40

7.17

9.35

5.30

8.35

8.65

9.74

9.99

8.24

5.49

9.48

9.87

0.00

8.25

1.83

8.68

SRP rv

Appendices 131

4.73

3.51

66.6

62.5

60.7

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

2.98

6.90

6.85

73.9

73.7

Venezuela

4.35

6.64

Viet Nam

65.3

Vanuatu

8.27

78.5

73.0

USA

Uzbekistan

7.86

77.1

Uruguay

6.64

9.14

73.0

81.4

Ukraine

UK

4.76

7.56

76.1

66.7

UAE

SRP

53.1

54.4

57.5

65.3

64.4

57.8

64.7

66.1

67.5

70.1

64.3

58.2

66.0

HLEab

Dim. 1

Dim. 1

LEab

Var. 2

Var. 1

Uganda

(continued)

2.98

3.41

4.45

7.06

6.76

4.55

6.86

7.32

7.79

8.66

6.72

4.68

7.29

SRP

6.0

6.9

9.2

13.9

13.7

8.9

13.5

15.6

15.6

17.8

13.4

9.4

14.9

2.98

3.46

4.59

6.95

6.83

4.45

6.75

7.80

7.82

8.90

6.68

4.72

7.43

SRP

Dim. 1

Var. 3

458

213

164

43

125

72

29

19

17

7

19

375

3

MMR

Dim. 2

3.97

1.84

1.41

0.36

1.07

0.61

0.24

0.15

0.13

0.04

0.15

3.25

0.01

SRP

Var. 4

26

24

28

10

15

11

8

3

4

3

5

19

4

NMR

Dim. 2

5.81

5.35

6.28

2.09

3.26

2.33

1.63

0.47

0.70

0.47

0.93

4.19

0.70

SRP 0.71

9.79

7.19

7.69

2.45

4.33

2.94

1.86

0.61

0.83

0.51

1.08

7.44

Dim. 2

5.13

3.77

4.03

1.28

2.27

1.54

0.98

0.32

0.43

0.27

0.57

3.90

0.37

SRP

Dim. 2

4.87

6.23

5.97

8.72

7.73

8.46

9.02

9.68

9.57

9.73

9.43

6.10

9.63

SRP rv

132 Appendices

Appendices

133

Appendix 1B

Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

SRP rv

Afghanistan

58

4.96 35.1

6.09 193

2.96 14.01

5.78

4.22

Albania

10

0.71

9.6

1.67

15

0.22

2.59

1.06

8.94

Algeria

23

1.86

9.3

1.61

59

0.89

4.37

1.79

8.21

Angola

71

6.11 37.7

6.55 350

5.38 18.03

7.45

2.55

Argentina

9

0.62

7.8

1.35

31

0.46

2.44

0.99

9.01

Armenia

11

0.80

9.1

1.58

23

0.34

2.72

1.11

8.89

Australia

4

0.18

2.1

0.36

7

0.09

0.63

0.25

9.75

Austria

4

0.18

0.0

0.00

5

0.06

0.24

0.09

9.91

58

0.88

5.21

2.14

7.86

Azerbaijan

19

1.50 16.3

2.83

Bahamas

12

0.88

0.0

0.00

9

0.12

1.01

0.40

9.60

Bahrain

7

0.44

5.1

0.89

13

0.18

1.51

0.61

9.39

Bangladesh

29

2.39 30.2

5.24 218

3.34 10.98

4.53

5.47

Belarus

3

0.09

3.9

0.68

26

0.39

1.15

0.46

9.54

Belgium

4

0.18

2.3

0.40

8

0.11

0.68

0.27

9.73

Belize

12

0.88 13.3

2.31

23

0.34

3.53

1.45

8.55

Benin

86

7.43 31.3

5.43

55

0.83 13.70

5.65

4.35

Bhutan

28

2.30 22.4

3.89 165

2.53

8.72

3.59

6.41

Bolivia

25

2.04 12.7

2.20 105

1.60

5.84

2.40

7.60

0.35

1.58

0.39

9.05

Bosnia & Herz

2.32

0.95

Botswana

45

6

3.81 22.8

9.1

3.96 236

26

3.62 11.38

4.70

5.30

Brazil

15

1.15

6.1

1.06

45

0.68

2.89

1.18

8.82

Brunei D

12

0.88 12.7

2.20

83

1.26

4.35

1.79

8.21

Bulgaria

6

0.35

6.4

1.11

19

0.28

1.74

0.71

9.29

4.43

46

0.69 12.47

5.14

4.86

10.00 103

1.57 16.17

6.68

3.32

0.59

3.33

1.37

8.63

Burkina Faso

85

7.35 25.5

Burundi

54

4.60 57.6

Cabo Verde

14

1.06

Cambodia

26

2.12 29.9

5.19 274

4.21 11.52

4.75

5.25

Cameroon

72

6.19 27.2

4.72 174

2.67 13.58

5.61

4.39

0.27

0.00

0.08

0.13

9.87

Canada

5

9.7

0.0

1.68

39

6

0.34

Cent. Afr. R

103

8.94 40.1

6.96 540

8.31 24.20 10.00

0.00

Chad

110

9.56 35.0

6.08 144

2.20 17.84

7.37

2.63

Chile

7

0.44

0.28

0.22

0.37

9.63

1.6

15

0.94

(continued)

134

Appendices

(continued) Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

4.7

0.82

59

0.89

2.15

0.88

Colombia

13

0.97 11.5

2.00

37

0.55

3.52

1.45

8.55

Comoros I

61

5.22 22.6

3.92

35

0.52

9.67

3.99

6.01

Congo

45

China

Costa Rica Cote D’Ivoire

7

8 78

0.44

SRP rv 9.12

3.81 18.0

3.13 379

5.82 12.75

5.26

4.74

0.53

1.49

0.14

2.16

0.88

9.12

2.06 11.88

4.90

5.10

8.6

6.73 17.8

10

3.09 135

Croatia

5

0.27

0.0

0.00

7

0.09

0.36

0.14

9.86

Cuba

5

0.27

7.0

1.22

6

0.08

1.56

0.63

9.37

Cyprus

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

6

0.08

0.17

0.06

9.94

Czechia

3

0.09

2.5

0.43

4

0.05

0.57

0.22

9.78

Denmark

4

0.18

0.0

0.00

5

0.06

0.24

0.09

9.91

Djibouti

56

3.44 14.12

5.83

4.17

4.78 34.0

Dominican R

34

2.83

D.R.C

81

6.99 40.8

5.9

5.90 224 1.02

41

7.08 319

4.47

1.84

8.16

4.90 18.97

0.62

7.84

2.16

Ecuador

13

0.97 23.1

4.01

48

0.72

5.71

2.35

7.65

Egypt

19

1.50 22.3

3.87

11

0.15

5.53

2.27

7.73

El Salvador

13

0.97 11.2

1.94

55

0.83

3.75

1.54

8.46

Equat. Guin

78

6.73 19.7

3.42 280

4.30 14.44

5.96

4.04

Eritrea

39

3.27 49.1

8.52

81

1.23 13.03

5.38

4.62

Estonia

2

0.00

0.21

10

0.14

0.13

9.87

1.2

0.35

Eswatini

47

3.98 22.6

3.92 319

4.90 12.81

5.28

4.72

Ethiopia

49

4.16 35.3

6.13 132

2.02 12.31

5.08

4.92

Fiji

27

2.21

1.30

1.00

1.86

8.14

7.5

66

4.52

Finland

2

0.00

0.0

0.00

4

0.05

0.05

0.01

9.99

France

4

0.18

0.0

0.00

8

0.11

0.28

0.11

9.89

Gabon

42

8.10 14.14

5.84

4.16 6.14

3.54 14.4

2.50 527

Gambia

49

4.16 16.1

2.80 157

2.40

9.36

3.86

Georgia

9

0.62

5.7

0.99

70

1.06

2.67

1.09

8.91

Germany

4

0.18

1.6

0.28

6

0.08

0.53

0.21

9.79

Ghana

45

Greece

4

Guatemala

24

3.81 14.2

2.47 143

2.19

8.46

3.49

6.51

0.18

2.2

0.38

5

0.06

0.62

0.24

9.76

1.95 42.8

7.43

27

0.40

9.78

4.03

5.97

Guinea

96

8.32 29.4

5.10 179

2.74 16.17

6.67

3.33

Guinea-Bissau

77

6.64 28.0

4.86 361

5.55 17.05

7.04

2.96

(continued)

Appendices

135

(continued) Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

9.0

1.56

79

Guyana

28

2.30

5.07

2.08

Haiti

60

5.13 20.4

3.54 168

2.57 11.25

4.64

5.36

Honduras

16

1.24 19.9

3.45

0.45

2.11

7.89 9.91

30

1.20

SRP rv

5.14

7.92

Hungary

4

0.18

0.0

0.00

5

0.06

0.24

0.09

Iceland

2

0.00

0.0

0.00

3

0.03

0.03

0.00 10.00

India

33

2.74 30.9

5.36 188

2.88 10.99

4.53

5.47

Indonesia

23

1.86 31.8

5.52 301

4.62 12.00

4.95

5.05

Iran

13

0.97

6.3

1.09

13

0.18

2.25

0.92

9.08

Iraq

25

2.04 11.6

2.01

27

0.40

4.45

1.83

8.17

Ireland

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

5

0.06

0.15

0.05

9.95

Israel

4

0.18

0.0

0.00

2

0.02

0.19

0.07

9.93

Italy

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

7

0.09

0.18

0.06

9.94

Jamaica Japan

13

0.97

8.5

1.48

2

0.02

2.46

1.01

8.99

2

0.00

5.5

0.95

12

0.17

1.12

0.45

9.55

Jordan

15

1.15

7.3

1.27

5

0.06

2.48

1.01

8.99

Kazakhstan

10

0.71

6.7

1.16

69

1.05

2.92

1.19

8.81

Kenya

42

3.54 19.4

3.98 10.88

4.49

5.51 4.87

3.37 259

Korea (N.)

16

1.24 18.2

3.16 523

8.04 12.44

5.13

Korea (S.)

3

0.09

2.2

0.38

49

0.74

1.21

0.49

9.51

Kuwait

9

0.62

6.0

1.04

19

0.28

1.94

0.79

9.21 7.95

Kyrgyzstan

18

1.42 11.4

1.98 105

1.60

5.00

2.05

Laos

44

3.72 30.2

5.24 149

2.28 11.24

4.64

5.36

0.18

0.00

23

0.34

0.52

0.20

9.80

13

0.18

Latvia

4

0.0

Lebanon

7

0.44 10.4

1.81

2.43

0.99

9.01

Lesotho

90

7.79 32.1

5.57 650

10.00 23.36

9.65

0.35

Liberia

78

6.73 28.0

4.86 314

4.82 16.41

6.78

3.22

Libya

11

6.19

0.80 43.5

7.55

59

0.89

9.24

3.81

Lithuania

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

29

0.43

0.52

0.20

9.80

Luxembourg

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

6

0.08

0.17

0.06

9.94

Madagascar

50

4.25 40.2

6.98 238

3.65 14.88

6.14

3.86

Malawi

39

3.27 37.0

6.42 141

2.16 11.86

4.89

5.11

9

0.62 20.9

3.63

1.40

5.65

2.32

7.68

Malaysia Maldives Mali

92

6

0.35 14.2

2.47

37

0.55

3.37

1.38

8.62

91

7.88 25.7

4.46

52

0.79 13.12

5.42

4.58

(continued)

136

Appendices

(continued) Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

0.0

0.00

36

0.54

0.89

0.36

Mauretania

71

6.11 24.2

4.20

87

1.33 11.63

4.80

5.20

Mauritius

17

1.33

1.51

12

0.17

1.23

8.77

Malta

6

0.35

SRP rv

8.7

3.01

9.64

Mexico

14

1.06 12.1

2.10

24

0.35

3.52

1.44

8.56

Moldova

14

1.06

4.9

0.85

74

1.12

3.04

1.24

8.76

Mongolia

15

1.15

7.1

1.23 437

6.72

9.10

3.75

6.25

0.00

8.1

1.41

16

0.23

1.64

0.66

9.34

Morocco

19

1.50 12.9

2.24

98

1.49

5.24

2.15

7.85

Mozambique

71

6.11 37.8

6.56 368

5.65 18.32

7.57

2.43

Montenegro

2

Myanmar

44

3.72 25.2

4.38 308

4.73 12.82

5.29

4.71

Namibia

40

3.36 18.4

3.19 460

7.07 13.63

5.63

4.37

Nepal

28

2.30 30.4

5.28 235

3.61 11.18

4.61

5.39

Netherlands

4

0.18

1.6

0.28

4

0.05

0.50

0.19

9.81

New Zealand

5

0.27

0.0

0.00

8

0.11

0.37

0.14

9.86 8.23

Nicaragua

16

1.24 14.1

2.45

42

0.63

4.32

1.77

Niger

78

6.73 46.7

8.11

83

1.26 16.10

6.65

3.35

114

9.91 35.3

6.13 219

3.36 19.40

8.01

1.99 9.50

Nigeria N. Macedonia

6

0.35

4.1

0.71

12

0.17

1.24

0.50

Norway

2

0.00

0.0

0.00

3

0.03

0.03

0.00 10.00

0.80 12.2

2.12

7

0.09

3.01

1.23

Oman

11

8.77

Pakistan

65

5.58 36.7

6.37 259

3.98 15.92

6.57

3.43

Panama

14

1.06 14.7

2.55

0.48

4.09

1.68

8.32

Papua N.G

44

3.72 48.4

8.40 441

6.78 18.90

7.81

2.19

4.6

0.80

32

Paraguay

19

1.50

48

0.72

3.03

1.24

8.76

Peru

13

0.97 10.8

1.88 116

1.77

4.62

1.90

8.10

Philippines

26

2.12 28.7

4.98 539

8.29 15.40

6.36

3.64

Poland

4

0.18

2.3

0.40

10

0.14

0.71

0.28

9.72

Portugal

3

0.09

3.3

0.57

16

0.23

0.89

0.36

9.64

Qatar

6

0.35

4.6

0.80

34

0.51

1.66

0.67

9.33

Romania

7

0.44

9.7

1.68

64

0.97

3.10

1.27

8.73

Russia

5

0.27

0.0

0.00

46

0.69

0.96

0.38

9.62

Rwanda

40

3.36 32.6

5.66

58

0.88

9.90

4.08

5.92

0.68

8

0.11

1.23

0.49

9.51

2.99 117

1.79

7.96

3.28

6.72

Saudi Arabia Senegal

7 38

0.44

3.9

3.19 17.2

(continued)

Appendices

137

(continued)

Serbia Sierra Leone Singapore

Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

6 108 2

0.35

5.3

1.46

0.59

9.41

9.38 26.8

4.65 298

4.58 18.61

7.69

2.31

0.00

0.49

0.69

0.48

9.52

2.8

0.92

13 46

0.18

SRP rv

1.18

Slovakia

6

0.35

0.0

0.00

3

0.03

0.38

0.15

9.85

Slovenia

2

0.00

0.0

0.00

4

0.05

0.05

0.01

9.99

19

1.50 29.3

5.09

65

0.99

7.58

3.12

6.88 2.26

Solomon I

115

10.00 27.4

4.76 259

3.98 18.73

7.74

South Africa

32

2.65 23.2

4.03 554

8.52 15.20

6.28

3.72

South Sudan

98

8.50 30.6

5.31 232

3.56 17.37

7.17

2.83

Somalia

Spain

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

7

0.09

0.18

0.06

9.94

Sri Lanka

7

0.44 16.0

2.78

64

0.97

4.19

1.72

8.28

Sudan

57

4.87 33.7

5.85

63

0.96 11.67

4.82

5.18

Suriname

18

1.42

8.0

1.39

29

0.43

3.24

1.33

8.67

3

0.09

0.0

0.00

4

0.05

0.13

0.04

9.96

0.18

Sweden Switzerland

0.0

0.00

5

0.06

0.24

0.09

9.91

Syria

22

1.77 29.6

5.14

19

0.28

7.19

2.96

7.04

Tajikistan

32

2.65 15.3

2.66

84

1.28

6.59

2.71

7.29

Tanzania

49

4.16 32.0

5.56 222

3.41 13.12

5.41

4.59

Thailand

9

0.62 12.3

2.14 150

2.30

5.05

2.08

7.92

42

3.54 48.8

8.47 508

7.81 19.82

8.19

1.81

Timor-Leste

4

Togo

64

5.49 23.8

4.13

36

0.54 10.16

4.19

5.81

Trinidad & T

17

1.33

8.7

1.51

18

0.26

3.10

1.27

8.73

Tunisia

17

1.33

8.6

1.49

36

0.54

3.36

1.38

8.62

Türkiye Turkmenistan UAE

9

0.62

0.0

0.00

15

0.22

0.84

0.33

9.67

42

3.54

7.6

1.32

47

0.71

5.57

2.29

7.71

7

0.44

0.0

0.00

1

0.00

0.44

0.17

9.83

Uganda

43

3.63 27.9

4.84 196

3.00 11.48

4.73

5.27

Ukraine

8

0.53 15.9

2.76

73

1.11

4.40

1.81

8.19

UK

4

0.18

0.00

7

0.09

0.27

0.10

9.90

0.0

Uruguay

6

0.35

6.5

1.13

32

0.48

1.96

0.80

9.20

USA

6

0.35

3.2

0.56

2

0.02

0.92

0.37

9.63

14

1.06

9.9

1.72

66

1.00

3.78

1.55

8.45

Uzbekistan Vanuatu

25

2.04 28.7

4.98

38

0.57

7.59

3.13

6.87

Venezuela

24

1.95 10.6

1.84

47

0.71

4.50

1.85

8.15

(continued)

138

Appendices

(continued) Var. 5

Var. 6

Var. 7

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

Dim. 3

U5MR SRP

STUNT SRP b5

TUBERC SRP

SRP

SRP rv

Viet Nam

21

1.68 22.3

3.87 176

2.70

8.25

3.40

6.60

Yemen

60

5.13 37.2

6.46

49

0.74 12.33

5.09

4.91

Zambia

61

5.22 32.3

5.61 319

4.90 15.73

6.49

3.51

Zimbabwe

54

4.60 23.0

3.99 193

2.96 11.55

4.77

5.23

7.40

0.73

3.01

2.74

5.11

17.2

2.6

7.6

7.0

12.2

2.6

3.3

9.1

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Belarus

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bhutan

Bolivia

3.70

1.05

0.73

7.44

1.78

4.9

17.3

Bahamas

3.47

8.6

Austria

Azerbaijan

5.21

1.74

7.26

4.8

16.9

Argentina

0.64

5.71

12.4

2.4

Angola

Australia

13.5

Algeria

3.01

Armenia

7.6

Albania

20.2

6.4

9.6

24.1

22.1

24.5

3.6

29.8

31.6

19.9

20.1

29.0

20.2

28.3

8.2

27.4

21.7

5.5

OB 18- a.s

0.96

SRP

OB 5–19

3.1

Subdim. 1

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Afghanistan

Appendix 1C

5.06

1.20

2.09

6.15

5.59

6.26

0.42

7.74

8.24

4.97

5.03

7.51

5.06

7.32

1.70

7.07

5.47

0.95

SRP

Var. 9

28.3

43.4

31.2

38.0

30.0

49.2

28.8

38.7

44.5

41.0

33.8

29.3

47.3

47.5

38.7

36.2

41.8

40.2

Hypert

Subdim.2

Dim. 4

Var. 10

2.13

6.36

2.94

4.85

2.61

7.98

2.27

5.04

6.67

5.69

3.67

2.41

7.45

7.51

5.04

4.34

5.91

5.46

SRP

Var. 10

17.9

18.5

22.6

16.5

10.6

23.8

18.9

16.1

19.9

27.2

10.4

8.6

19.9

15.7

22.2

13.9

11.4

35.3

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

2.99

3.16

4.32

2.60

0.93

4.66

3.28

2.49

3.56

5.62

0.88

0.37

3.56

2.37

4.21

1.86

1.16

7.91

SRP

Var. 11

9.50

10.65

8.68

13.07

7.70

17.28

6.12

15.10

18.07

14.68

8.79

9.14

14.41

17.17

10.42

12.59

11.31

14.33

Avg

3.69

4.43

3.16

5.99

2.54

8.69

1.52

7.29

9.20

7.03

3.24

3.46

6.85

8.62

4.29

5.68

4.86

6.80

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

6.31

5.57

6.84

4.01

7.46

1.31

8.48

2.71

0.80

2.97

6.76

6.54

3.15

1.38

5.71

4.32

5.14

3.20

SRP rv

Dim. 4

Appendices 139

0.96

1.00

0.82

5.16

0.55

0.23

6.48

0.82

0.46

14.1

10.8

1.0

1.9

3.1

3.2

2.8

12.3

2.2

1.5

15.2

11.7

7.0

2.8

2.0

12.3

Brunei D

Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cabo Verde

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada

Cent. Afr. R

Chad

Chile

China

Colombia

Comoros I

Congo

Costa Rica

5.16

2.74

4.89

0.41

0.00

4.47

5.98

4.47

2.42

6.3

10.8

Brazil

2.01

SRP

Botswana

5.4

OB 5–19

25.7

9.6

7.8

22.3

6.2

28.0

6.1

7.5

29.4

11.4

3.9

11.8

5.4

5.6

25.0

14.1

22.1

18.9

17.9

OB 18- a.s

6.59

2.09

1.59

5.64

1.15

7.23

1.12

1.51

7.63

2.60

0.50

2.71

0.92

0.98

6.40

3.35

5.59

4.69

4.41

SRP

37.8

39.8

33.2

31.0

27.3

36.1

37.9

41.3

22.1

36.8

25.7

44.1

34.2

30.5

45.2

46.4

45.0

44.1

44.2

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Bosnia & Herz

(continued)

4.79

5.35

3.50

2.89

1.85

4.31

4.82

5.77

0.39

4.51

1.40

6.55

3.78

2.75

6.86

7.20

6.81

6.55

6.58

SRP

Var. 10

9.5

22.6

20.6

9.7

15.9

10.0

22.7

36.0

9.6

23.9

22.5

17.4

25.0

23.9

24.2

18.5

15.5

27.0

18.7

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

0.62

4.32

3.76

0.68

2.43

0.76

4.35

8.11

0.65

4.69

4.29

2.85

5.00

4.69

4.77

3.16

2.32

5.56

3.22

SRP

Var. 11

11.29

10.95

8.47

7.75

7.29

11.94

9.84

14.91

7.43

10.91

6.45

11.24

9.45

7.92

17.07

15.03

14.15

15.68

13.01

Avg

4.84

4.62

3.03

2.57

2.27

5.26

3.91

7.17

2.36

4.60

1.73

4.81

3.66

2.68

8.56

7.25

6.68

7.66

5.95

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

5.16

5.38

6.97

7.43

7.73

4.74

6.09

2.83

7.64

5.40

8.27

5.19

6.34

7.32

1.44

2.75

3.32

2.34

4.05

SRP rv

Dim. 4

140 Appendices

6.39

0.55

3.84

7.58

4.89

0.59

0.50

11.4

12.2

9.7

7.2

5.3

15.0

2.2

9.4

17.6

11.7

2.3

2.1

6.3

6.0

Cuba

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Djibouti

Dominican R

D.R.C

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Equat. Guin

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

4.79

9.1

Fiji

Finland

3.70

0.05

1.1

11.5

Ethiopia

2.28

2.42

1.96

2.83

3.97

5.11

4.75

4.52

10.9

Croatia

1.10

SRP

3.4

OB 5–19

22.2

30.2

4.5

16.5

21.2

5.0

8.0

24.6

32.0

19.9

6.7

27.6

13.5

19.7

26.0

21.8

24.6

24.4

10.3

OB 18- a.s

5.61

7.85

0.67

4.02

5.34

0.81

1.65

6.28

8.35

4.97

1.28

7.12

3.18

4.92

6.68

5.50

6.28

6.23

2.29

SRP

35.9

38.6

27.4

42.5

40.2

23.7

38.1

32.7

38.2

27.2

34.3

49.1

34.2

35.9

41.6

30.8

39.9

48.4

37.3

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Cote D’Ivoire

(continued)

4.26

5.01

1.88

6.11

5.46

0.84

4.87

3.36

4.90

1.82

3.81

7.96

3.78

4.26

5.85

2.83

5.38

7.76

4.65

SRP

Var. 10

9.6

37.7

17.1

35.2

14.9

26.8

22.1

10.7

28.0

11.0

24.0

19.1

22.0

10.8

14.3

8.2

16.6

16.1

21.7

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

0.65

8.59

2.77

7.88

2.15

5.51

4.18

0.96

5.85

1.05

4.72

3.33

4.15

0.99

1.98

0.25

2.63

2.49

4.07

SRP

Var. 11

9.56

19.92

5.00

17.14

11.49

7.00

10.18

9.91

18.72

7.27

9.44

18.05

10.51

9.12

13.16

8.39

13.52

15.62

10.41

Avg

3.73

10.39

0.80

8.60

4.97

2.09

4.13

3.95

9.62

2.26

3.66

9.19

4.34

3.45

6.04

2.98

6.28

7.63

4.28

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

6.27

-0.39

9.20

1.40

5.03

7.91

5.87

6.05

0.38

7.74

6.34

0.81

5.66

6.55

3.96

7.02

3.72

2.37

5.72

SRP rv

Dim. 4

Appendices 141

4.06

0.32

0.64

4.11

4.52

3.93

4.61

2.33

4.02

2.8

6.8

8.9

2.1

13.8

9.9

1.7

2.4

10.0

10.9

9.6

11.1

9.9

2.0

6.1

9.8

14.4

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

6.12

0.46

4.06

5.84

0.50

3.61

2.65

0.82

1.46

4.2

Gabon

3.24

SRP

8.1

OB 5–19

30.4

25.8

6.9

3.9

21.9

26.4

21.4

22.7

20.2

9.5

7.7

21.2

24.9

10.9

22.3

21.7

10.3

15.0

21.6

OB 18- a.s

7.91

6.62

1.34

0.50

5.53

6.79

5.39

5.75

5.06

2.07

1.56

5.34

6.37

2.46

5.64

5.47

2.29

3.60

5.45

SRP

48.1

26.2

40.3

31.1

27.5

48.3

33.9

42.9

40.0

38.0

40.9

32.2

31.3

33.9

29.7

44.5

37.6

37.4

29.1

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

France

(continued)

7.68

1.54

5.49

2.91

1.90

7.73

3.70

6.22

5.41

4.85

5.66

3.22

2.97

3.70

2.52

6.67

4.73

4.68

2.35

SRP

Var. 10

23.5

14.8

24.8

21.9

8.7

22.1

18.7

31.3

29.2

24.9

24.9

16.5

12.5

22.5

12.1

24.9

21.1

21.3

10.6

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

4.58

2.12

4.94

4.12

0.40

4.18

3.22

6.78

6.19

4.97

4.97

2.60

1.47

4.29

1.36

4.97

3.90

3.95

0.93

SRP

Var. 11

19.26

8.98

12.27

7.52

7.10

17.61

11.58

18.14

16.18

11.17

11.57

10.52

10.54

9.47

8.50

15.70

10.19

11.16

7.63

Avg

9.97

3.36

5.47

2.42

2.15

8.91

5.03

9.24

7.98

4.77

5.02

4.35

4.36

3.67

3.05

7.68

4.14

4.76

2.49

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

0.03

6.64

4.53

7.58

7.85

1.09

4.97

0.76

2.02

5.23

4.98

5.65

5.64

6.33

6.95

2.32

5.86

5.24

7.51

SRP rv

Dim. 4

142 Appendices

3.42

3.42

10.00

2.3

8.5

8.5

22.9

Kenya

Korea (N.)

Korea (S.)

6.21

6.8

Lithuania

2.65

0.41

1.9

14.6

Libya

1.83

Liberia

5.0

Lesotho

5.89

2.74

7.0

13.9

Lebanon

1.69

4.7

Laos

Latvia

1.32

3.9

2.51

Kyrgyzstan

Kuwait

0.59

6.5

Kazakhstan

5.43

1.05

5.48

3.3

13.0

Jamaica

5.25

4.98

12.9

12.5

Italy

Jordan

11.9

Israel

4.02

SRP

Japan

9.8

OB 5–19

26.3

32.5

9.9

16.6

32.0

23.6

5.3

16.6

37.9

4.7

6.8

7.1

21.0

35.5

4.3

24.7

19.9

26.1

25.3

OB 18- a.s

6.76

8.49

2.18

4.05

8.35

6.01

0.89

4.05

10.00

0.73

1.31

1.40

5.28

9.33

0.61

6.31

4.97

6.70

6.48

SRP

48.0

42.7

39.4

40.1

38.1

43.9

28.5

40.9

40.5

26.7

26.5

33.2

41.9

37.7

31.4

46.3

33.8

29.1

32.3

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Ireland

(continued)

7.65

6.16

5.24

5.43

4.87

6.50

2.18

5.66

5.55

1.68

1.62

3.50

5.94

4.76

3.00

7.17

3.67

2.35

3.25

SRP

Var. 10

19.3

18.6

17.8

42.7

19.9

21.6

26.8

20.3

11.9

7.3

23.9

21.0

22.4

15.3

8.3

16.9

9.0

8.8

9.7

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

3.39

3.19

2.97

10.00

3.56

4.04

5.51

3.67

1.30

0.00

4.69

3.87

4.27

2.26

0.28

2.71

0.48

0.42

0.68

SRP

Var. 11

15.74

16.71

9.50

18.37

15.55

14.91

8.99

12.02

16.85

3.76

8.68

8.37

14.10

14.40

4.11

15.78

9.26

8.62

9.18

Avg

7.70

8.32

3.69

9.40

7.58

7.17

3.36

5.31

8.41

0.00

3.17

2.96

6.65

6.84

0.23

7.73

3.54

3.13

3.48

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

2.30

1.68

6.31

0.60

2.42

2.83

6.64

4.69

1.59

10.00

6.83

7.04

3.35

3.16

9.77

2.27

6.46

6.87

6.52

SRP rv

Dim. 4

Appendices 143

1.37

1.55

6.30

1.46

1.51

3.01

4.20

1.78

0.32

2.0

12.7

7.4

2.6

13.4

4.0

4.4

14.8

4.2

4.3

7.6

10.2

2.3

3.7

4.9

1.7

7.0

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Mauretania

Mauritius

Mexico

Moldova

Mongolia

Montenegro

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

Nepal

Netherlands

2.74

1.23

0.59

5.66

0.73

2.92

5.34

0.46

0.37

1.8

Madagascar

3.33

SRP

8.3

OB 5–19

20.4

4.1

17.2

5.8

7.2

26.1

23.3

20.6

18.9

28.9

10.8

12.7

28.9

8.6

8.6

15.6

5.8

5.3

22.6

OB 18- a.s

5.11

0.56

4.22

1.03

1.42

6.70

5.92

5.17

4.69

7.49

2.43

2.96

7.49

1.82

1.82

3.77

1.03

0.89

5.73

SRP

30.5

36.1

43.8

37.8

38.6

35.3

45.1

42.8

48.3

32.1

33.1

37.9

29.5

34.6

34.1

40.8

29.5

36.9

30.5

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Luxembourg

(continued)

2.75

4.31

6.47

4.79

5.01

4.09

6.83

6.19

7.73

3.19

3.47

4.82

2.46

3.89

3.75

5.63

2.46

4.54

2.75

SRP

Var. 10

10.3

21.5

22.6

24.9

30.6

24.1

22.3

35.0

24.1

15.6

23.2

16.1

10.5

22.3

11.6

18.4

22.6

26.0

9.7

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

0.85

4.01

4.32

4.97

6.58

4.75

4.24

7.82

4.75

2.34

4.49

2.49

0.90

4.24

1.21

3.14

4.32

5.28

0.68

SRP

Var. 11

7.52

8.76

13.79

10.89

12.61

14.29

15.54

17.35

15.55

12.43

9.96

9.47

9.94

9.40

7.34

13.32

7.53

10.45

7.95

Avg

2.42

3.22

6.45

4.59

5.69

6.77

7.58

8.74

7.58

5.58

3.99

3.67

3.98

3.63

2.30

6.15

2.43

4.30

2.70

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

7.58

6.78

3.55

5.41

4.31

3.23

2.42

1.26

2.42

4.42

6.01

6.33

6.02

6.37

7.70

3.85

7.57

5.70

7.30

SRP rv

Dim. 4

144 Appendices

3.24

2.79

19.5

8.1

7.1

1.7

Romania

Russia

Rwanda

0.32

8.45

4.29

Qatar

3.70

9.1

1.51

4.3

Philippines

10.4

3.11

7.8

Peru

Portugal

4.34

10.5

Paraguay

Poland

4.02

9.8

6.35

Papua N.G

14.9

Oman

3.70

3.79

4.34

9.1

Norway

0.96

9.3

N. Macedonia

0.41

3.1

1.9

Nigeria

0.18

4.47

10.5

1.4

Niger

Panama

10.8

Nicaragua

6.99

SRP

Pakistan

16.3

OB 5–19

5.8

23.1

22.5

35.1

20.8

23.1

6.4

19.7

20.3

21.3

22.7

8.6

27.0

23.1

22.4

8.9

5.5

23.7

30.8

OB 18- a.s

1.03

5.87

5.70

9.22

5.22

5.87

1.20

4.92

5.08

5.36

5.75

1.82

6.96

5.87

5.67

1.90

0.95

6.03

8.02

SRP

29.8

44.3

48.4

40.9

32.3

49.2

33.8

20.7

56.4

27.8

36.1

43.2

45.6

30.5

45.1

36.1

41.5

35.8

30.9

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

New Zealand

(continued)

2.55

6.61

7.76

5.66

3.25

7.98

3.67

0.00

10.00

1.99

4.31

6.30

6.97

2.75

6.83

4.31

5.83

4.23

2.86

SRP

Var. 10

20.2

24.2

21.0

10.7

11.0

17.0

24.5

9.7

16.0

36.0

10.7

29.4

21.5

8.7

22.7

16.9

21.0

15.3

10.3

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

3.64

4.77

3.87

0.96

1.05

2.74

4.86

0.68

2.46

8.11

0.96

6.24

4.01

0.40

4.35

2.71

3.87

2.26

0.85

SRP

Var. 11

6.87

15.71

16.10

15.45

9.05

15.51

9.88

4.69

17.17

14.79

10.32

13.93

17.64

7.92

15.92

8.18

10.26

11.74

11.21

Avg

2.00

7.68

7.93

7.52

3.40

7.55

3.94

0.60

8.62

7.09

4.22

6.54

8.92

2.68

7.82

2.84

4.18

5.13

4.79

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

8.00

2.32

2.07

2.48

6.60

2.45

6.06

9.40

1.38

2.91

5.78

3.46

1.08

7.32

2.18

7.16

5.82

4.87

5.21

SRP rv

Dim. 4

Appendices 145

1.51

0.91

4.70

0.05

9.8

2.5

6.8

8.1

9.2

4.3

3.0

11.3

Serbia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon I

Somalia

South Africa

4.79

3.0

Tajikistan

0.91

2.19

5.8

11.5

Syria

2.60

Switzerland

6.7

Sweden

5.89

3.74

9.2

13.9

Sri Lanka

Suriname

1.74

4.8

Spain

Sudan

4.47

1.1

10.8

South Sudan

3.74

3.24

2.65

0.68

4.02

0.37

1.8

Senegal

7.49

SRP

17.4

OB 5–19

14.2

27.8

19.5

20.6

26.4

21.2

5.2

23.8

4.5

28.3

8.3

22.5

20.2

20.5

6.1

8.7

21.5

8.8

35.4

OB 18- a.s

3.38

7.18

4.86

5.17

6.79

5.34

0.87

6.06

0.67

7.32

1.73

5.70

5.06

5.14

1.12

1.84

5.42

1.87

9.30

SRP

46.8

41.1

21.9

30.2

42.9

40.8

35.6

27.2

34.2

44.1

36.1

29.8

45.3

42.7

31.5

40.8

46.1

40.5

34.0

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Saudi Arabia

(continued)

7.31

5.71

0.34

2.66

6.22

5.63

4.17

1.82

3.78

6.55

4.31

2.55

6.89

6.16

3.03

5.63

7.11

5.55

3.73

SRP

Var. 10

28.3

22.1

7.9

8.4

22.7

22.8

13.2

9.6

16.8

24.1

30.4

39.2

11.4

15.5

9.5

23.5

22.0

19.5

20.9

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

5.93

4.18

0.17

0.31

4.35

4.38

1.67

0.65

2.68

4.75

6.53

9.01

1.16

2.32

0.62

4.58

4.15

3.45

3.84

SRP

Var. 11

15.39

15.88

4.03

6.86

16.91

14.55

7.14

7.74

6.82

17.31

12.16

15.16

12.45

12.67

5.53

11.47

15.99

10.11

15.96

Avg

7.48

7.80

0.18

1.99

8.45

6.94

2.18

2.56

1.97

8.71

5.40

7.33

5.59

5.73

1.14

4.96

7.86

4.09

7.85

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

2.52

2.20

9.82

8.01

1.55

3.06

7.82

7.44

8.03

1.29

4.60

2.67

4.41

4.27

8.86

5.04

2.14

5.91

2.15

SRP rv

Dim. 4

146 Appendices

5.84

9.32

5.98

0.73

13.8

21.4

4.0

8.3

14.1

2.6

7.0

Uruguay

USA

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela

Viet Nam

Yemen

2.74

3.33

1.37

4.20

UK

2.74

7.0

10.2

Ukraine

0.32

1.7

4.79

Uganda

11.5

Türkiye

3.42

4.61

7.44

8.5

Tunisia

1.69

11.1

Trinidad & T

0.46

4.7

2.0

Togo

1.46

4.70

17.3

4.2

Timor-Leste

UAE

11.3

Thailand

0.68

SRP

Turkmenistan

2.5

OB 5–19

17.1

2.1

25.6

25.2

16.6

36.2

27.9

27.8

24.1

5.3

31.7

18.6

32.1

26.9

18.6

8.4

3.8

10.0

8.4

OB 18- a.s

4.19

0.00

6.56

6.45

4.05

9.53

7.21

7.18

6.15

0.89

8.27

4.61

8.38

6.93

4.61

1.76

0.47

2.21

1.76

SRP

29.3

29.7

39.4

39.5

45.7

31.6

42.4

26.4

43.1

32.5

41.4

39.0

32.8

34.7

42.4

36.0

35.3

29.2

33.2

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Tanzania

(continued)

2.41

2.52

5.24

5.27

7.00

3.05

6.08

1.60

6.27

3.31

5.80

5.13

3.39

3.92

6.08

4.29

4.09

2.38

3.50

SRP

Var. 10

27.6

21.2

14.8

39.7

25.3

13.6

16.5

10.3

25.5

21.2

18.5

27.7

15.6

15.7

17.1

23.9

19.9

13.7

17.4

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

5.73

3.93

2.12

9.15

5.08

1.78

2.60

0.85

5.14

3.93

3.16

5.76

2.34

2.37

2.77

4.69

3.56

1.81

2.85

SRP

Var. 11

11.61

6.81

13.63

19.31

14.80

14.25

15.20

8.13

15.86

7.84

16.82

14.04

12.32

11.47

13.46

10.08

8.62

7.64

7.58

Avg

5.05

1.97

6.35

10.00

7.10

6.75

7.36

2.81

7.78

2.62

8.40

6.61

5.51

4.96

6.24

4.07

3.12

2.50

2.46

SRP

Dim. 4

(continued)

4.95

8.03

3.65

0.00

2.90

3.25

2.64

7.19

2.22

7.38

1.60

3.39

4.49

5.04

3.76

5.93

6.88

7.50

7.54

SRP rv

Dim. 4

Appendices 147

2.9

4.0

Zimbabwe

OB 5–19

1.37

0.87

SRP 15.5

8.1

OB 18- a.s 3.74

1.68

SRP 42.3

32.3

Hypert

Subdim.2

Subdim. 1

Var. 10

Subdim. 1

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 9 Dim. 4

Var. 8

Dim. 4

Var. 8

Zambia

(continued)

6.05

3.25

SRP

Var. 10

28.4

24.6

CVD(30–70)

Subdim. 3

Dim. 4

Var. 11

5.96

4.89

SRP

Var. 11

14.57

9.41

Avg

6.95

3.63

SRP

Dim. 4

3.05

6.37

SRP rv

Dim. 4

148 Appendices

Appendices

149

Appendix 1D

Var. 12

Var. 13

Dim. 5 DRs Afghanistan

Dim. 5 SRP

NURSs

Dim. 5 SRP

SRP

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs

2.5

0.27

4.5

0.15

0.43

0.26

14.12

2.257

Albania

18.8

2.21

60.5

2.68

4.89

3.02

34.41

6.990

Algeria

17.2

2.02

15.5

0.65

2.67

1.65

29.48

5.840

Angola

21.0

2.48

4.1

0.14

2.61

1.61

19.24

3.450

Argentina

40.6

4.81

26.0

1.12

5.93

3.66

31.07

6.209

Armenia

44.0

5.21

49.6

2.18

7.40

4.56

33.48

6.773

Australia

41.3

4.89

131.4

5.87

10.76

6.64

42.06

8.773

Austria

52.9

6.27

105.6

4.71

10.98

6.77

42.38

8.847

Azerbaijan

31.7

3.75

64.3

2.85

6.60

4.07

30.02

5.965

Bahamas

19.4

2.29

45.7

2.01

4.29

2.65

28.73

5.664

Bahrain

9.3

1.08

24.9

1.07

2.16

1.33

30.49

6.075

Bangladesh

6.7

0.77

4.9

0.17

0.94

0.58

28.68

5.652

Belarus

45.4

5.38

110.0

4.91

10.29

6.35

34.42

6.991

Belgium

60.8

7.21

200.8

9.00

16.21

10.00

46.04

9.701

Belize

10.8

1.26

23.4

1.00

2.27

1.40

30.01

5.962

Benin

0.6

0.05

3.0

0.09

0.13

0.08

19.70

3.559

Bhutan

5.0

0.57

20.8

0.89

1.46

0.90

26.89

5.234

Bolivia

10.3

1.20

15.6

0.65

1.86

1.14

29.26

5.789

Bosnia & Herz

21.6

2.55

57.3

2.53

5.08

3.13

33.56

6.791

3.8

0.43

54.6

2.41

2.84

1.75

19.52

3.516

Brazil

23.1

2.73

74.0

3.28

6.01

3.71

31.90

6.403

Brunei D

16.1

1.89

59.0

2.61

4.50

2.78

30.09

5.981

Bulgaria

Botswana

42.1

4.99

47.9

2.11

7.10

4.38

32.16

6.463

Burkina Faso

0.9

0.08

9.3

0.37

0.45

0.28

21.53

3.985

Burundi

0.7

0.06

6.5

0.24

0.30

0.19

18.77

3.342

Cabo Verde

8.3

0.96

13.0

0.54

1.50

0.93

30.43

6.060

Cambodia

1.9

0.20

10.1

0.41

0.61

0.37

28.14

5.528

Cameroon

1.3

0.13

3.6

0.11

0.24

0.15

17.95

3.151

Canada

24.4

2.88

110.7

4.94

7.82

4.82

41.27

8.588

Cent. Afr. R

0.7

0.06

2.6

0.07

0.13

0.08

5.22

0.183

Chad

0.6

0.05

2.0

0.04

0.09

0.05

12.30

1.834

Chile

28.4

3.36

43.5

1.91

5.27

3.25

35.98

7.355

China

22.3

2.63

30.8

1.34

3.97

2.45

36.97

7.585 (continued)

150

Appendices

(continued) Var. 13

Var. 12

Dim. 5

Dim. 5 DRs Colombia

23.3

SRP

NURSs

2.75

14.6

Dim. 5 SRP 0.61

SRP 3.36

2.07

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs

35.36

7.210 4.522

Comoros I

2.6

0.29

14.8

0.62

0.90

0.56

23.83

Congo

1.0

0.10

9.7

0.39

0.48

0.30

20.59

3.766

33.0

3.90

38.0

1.66

5.57

3.43

35.78

7.308

Costa Rica

1.6

0.17

6.6

0.25

0.41

0.26

17.95

3.151

Croatia

34.7

4.11

81.2

3.61

7.72

4.76

34.96

7.117

Cuba

84.2

10.00

75.6

3.36

13.36

8.24

39.03

8.066

Cote D’Ivoire

Cyprus

31.4

3.71

52.5

2.32

6.03

3.72

40.08

8.311

Czechia

41.5

4.92

89.3

3.97

8.89

5.48

37.43

7.693

Denmark

42.2

5.00

105.4

4.70

9.70

5.98

41.23

8.579

Djibouti Dominican R D.R.C Ecuador Egypt El Salvador

2.2

0.24

73.0

3.24

3.48

2.14

21.87

4.065

14.5

1.70

14.6

0.61

2.31

1.43

23.89

4.536

3.8

0.43

11.1

0.45

0.88

0.54

17.12

2.958 7.096

22.2

2.62

25.1

1.08

3.70

2.28

34.87

7.5

0.87

19.3

0.82

1.69

1.04

24.18

4.602

28.7

3.39

18.3

0.77

4.17

2.57

33.35

6.740

Equat. Guin

4.0

0.45

3.1

0.09

0.54

0.33

18.80

3.348

Eritrea

0.8

0.07

14.4

0.60

0.67

0.41

22.61

4.237

Estonia

34.7

4.11

66.1

2.93

7.04

4.34

37.58

7.729 2.367

Eswatini

1.4

0.14

25.1

1.08

1.22

0.76

14.59

Ethiopia

1.1

0.11

7.8

0.30

0.41

0.25

24.68

4.721

Fiji

8.6

1.00

39.6

1.73

2.73

1.69

23.10

4.351

Finland

46.4

5.50

223.1

10.00

15.50

9.56

44.90

9.434

France

32.7

3.87

117.8

5.26

9.13

5.63

42.16

8.796

Gabon

6.5

0.75

21.1

0.90

1.65

1.02

21.55

3.990

Gambia

0.8

0.07

9.5

0.38

0.45

0.28

20.86

3.829

Georgia

51.1

6.06

55.5

2.45

8.51

5.25

32.68

6.585

Germany

44.3

5.25

141.9

6.34

11.59

7.15

42.83

8.951

Ghana

1.7

0.18

36.2

1.58

1.76

1.09

24.47

4.672

Greece

63.1

7.49

37.3

1.63

9.12

5.63

39.88

8.264

Guatemala

12.4

1.45

22.4

0.96

2.41

1.49

27.66

5.415

Guinea

2.2

0.24

5.8

0.21

0.45

0.28

15.47

2.573

Guinea-Bissau

2.0

0.21

7.9

0.31

0.52

0.32

14.15

2.265

14.2

1.67

35.3

1.54

3.21

1.98

23.60

Guyana

4.469 (continued)

Appendices

151

(continued) Var. 13

Var. 12

Dim. 5

Dim. 5 DRs Haiti

2.3

SRP 0.25

NURSs 4.0

Dim. 5 SRP 0.13

SRP 0.38

0.23

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs

15.17

2.503

Honduras

5.0

0.57

7.3

0.28

0.85

0.52

28.42

5.592

Hungary

60.6

7.19

69.2

3.07

10.26

6.33

34.84

7.089

Iceland

41.4

4.90

167.8

7.51

12.41

7.66

44.85

9.424

India

7.4

0.86

17.5

0.74

1.60

0.98

26.75

5.202

Indonesia

6.2

0.71

39.5

1.73

2.44

1.51

25.12

4.822

15.8

1.86

20.8

0.89

2.74

1.69

34.15

6.929 4.543

Iran

9.7

1.13

23.9

1.03

2.16

1.33

23.92

Ireland

Iraq

34.9

4.13

179.8

8.05

12.18

7.51

42.97

8.985

Israel

36.3

4.30

119.9

5.35

9.65

5.95

42.10

8.781

Italy

39.5

4.68

62.7

2.77

7.45

4.60

40.31

8.365

5.3

0.61

9.4

0.37

0.98

0.61

28.05

5.505

24.8

2.93

119.5

5.33

8.26

5.10

44.40

9.319

Jamaica Japan Jordan

26.6

3.14

33.5

1.46

4.60

2.84

31.77

6.372

Kazakhstan

40.7

4.82

72.9

3.23

8.06

4.97

33.55

6.787

1.6

0.17

11.7

0.48

0.64

0.40

23.62

4.473 6.184

Kenya Korea (N.)

36.8

4.36

44.5

1.95

6.31

3.89

30.96

Korea (S.)

24.8

2.93

81.8

3.64

6.56

4.05

43.20

9.039

Kuwait

23.4

2.76

46.8

2.06

4.82

2.97

32.08

6.445

Kyrgyzstan

22.1

2.61

56.0

2.47

5.08

3.13

31.27

6.257

3.5

0.39

11.9

0.49

0.88

0.54

24.52

4.683

Latvia

34.0

4.02

44.3

1.95

5.97

3.68

33.47

6.769

Laos Lebanon

22.1

2.61

16.7

0.70

3.31

2.04

30.44

6.064

Lesotho

4.7

0.54

32.6

1.42

1.95

1.21

4.44

0.000

Liberia

0.5

0.04

19.5

0.83

0.86

0.53

17.18

2.971

Libya

20.9

2.46

65.3

2.89

5.36

3.30

27.49

5.374

Lithuania

50.8

6.02

100.8

4.49

10.51

6.49

35.96

7.350

Luxembourg

30.1

3.56

121.7

5.43

8.99

5.55

41.96

8.749

Madagascar

2.0

0.21

3.0

0.09

0.30

0.18

20.26

3.690

Malawi

0.5

0.04

7.1

0.27

0.31

0.19

23.46

4.436

Malaysia

22.9

2.70

34.8

1.52

4.22

2.60

30.68

6.120

Maldives

20.5

2.42

46.6

2.05

4.47

2.76

37.09

7.613

Mali

1.3

0.13

4.4

0.15

0.28

0.17

18.33

3.238

Malta

28.6

3.38

94.8

4.22

7.60

4.69

39.18

8.101 (continued)

152

Appendices

(continued) Var. 13

Var. 12

Dim. 5

Dim. 5 DRs Mauretania

1.9

SRP 0.20

NURSs 9.3

Dim. 5 SRP 0.37

SRP 0.57

0.35

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs

19.97

3.623

Mauritius

27.1

3.20

39.3

1.72

4.92

3.04

33.11

6.685

Mexico

24.3

2.87

28.2

1.22

4.09

2.52

31.89

6.400

Moldova

31.0

3.67

46.8

2.06

5.73

3.53

30.16

5.999

Mongolia

38.5

4.56

42.1

1.85

6.41

3.95

25.69

4.956

Montenegro

27.4

3.24

53.7

2.37

5.61

3.46

32.76

6.605

7.3

0.85

13.9

0.58

1.42

0.88

26.88

5.233

Morocco Mozambique

0.8

0.07

4.8

0.17

0.24

0.15

14.43

2.329

Myanmar

7.4

0.86

10.8

0.44

1.29

0.80

22.75

4.271

Namibia

5.9

0.68

19.5

0.83

1.51

0.93

19.71

3.562

Nepal

8.5

0.99

33.4

1.45

2.44

1.51

26.75

5.202

Netherlands

40.8

4.83

116.4

5.19

10.03

6.19

42.49

8.873

New Zealand

36.2

4.29

117.8

5.26

9.54

5.89

39.69

8.219

Nicaragua

16.6

1.95

15.5

0.65

2.60

1.60

30.46

6.068

0.3

0.01

2.2

0.05

0.06

0.04

17.85

3.128

38.0

4.50

15.0

0.63

5.13

3.16

17.46

3.035

Niger Nigeria N. Macedonia

28.7

3.39

37.9

1.66

5.05

3.12

31.66

6.348

Norway

50.5

5.99

184.2

8.25

14.24

8.78

45.40

9.551

Oman

17.7

2.08

39.4

1.73

3.81

2.35

28.51

5.613

Pakistan

11.2

1.31

4.8

0.17

1.48

0.91

17.32

3.005

Panama

16.3

1.92

32.1

1.40

3.31

2.04

33.42

6.757

0.7

0.06

4.5

0.15

0.21

0.13

16.47

2.806

Papua N.G Paraguay

10.5

1.23

16.6

0.70

1.92

1.19

27.20

5.308

Peru

13.7

1.61

29.8

1.29

2.90

1.79

36.74

7.533

7.7

0.89

54.4

2.40

3.29

2.03

25.64

4.943 7.070

Philippines Poland

37.7

4.46

68.7

3.05

7.51

4.63

34.76

Portugal

54.8

6.50

74.1

3.29

9.79

6.04

41.21

8.574

Qatar

24.9

2.94

72.0

3.19

6.13

3.78

32.97

6.652

Romania

29.8

3.52

73.9

3.28

6.80

4.20

32.16

6.463

Russia

38.2

4.52

62.3

2.76

7.28

4.49

32.92

6.642

Rwanda

1.2

0.12

9.5

0.38

0.50

0.31

26.44

5.130

27.4

3.24

58.2

2.57

5.81

3.58

31.75

6.369

Senegal

0.9

0.08

5.4

0.19

0.28

0.17

24.14

4.595

Serbia

31.1

3.68

60.9

2.69

6.37

3.93

32.61

Saudi Arabia

6.570 (continued)

Appendices

153

(continued) Var. 13

Var. 12

Dim. 5

Dim. 5 DRs Sierra Leone

0.7

SRP 0.06

NURSs 7.5

Dim. 5 SRP 0.29

SRP 0.35

0.21

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs

11.76

1.708

Singapore

24.6

2.90

62.4

2.76

5.67

3.50

41.61

8.667

Slovakia

35.6

4.21

60.5

2.68

6.89

4.25

36.27

7.423

Slovenia

32.8

3.88

104.6

4.66

8.54

5.27

38.64

7.975 4.410

Solomon I

1.9

0.20

21.6

0.92

1.13

0.69

23.35

Somalia

0.2

0.00

1.1

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.48

1.408

South Africa

7.9

0.92

49.7

2.19

3.11

1.92

19.35

3.477 2.305

0.4

0.02

3.4

0.10

0.13

0.08

14.32

Spain

South Sudan

44.4

5.26

61.4

2.72

7.98

4.92

41.67

8.682

Sri Lanka

12.3

1.44

25.0

1.08

2.52

1.55

34.85

7.091

Sudan

2.6

0.29

11.5

0.47

0.75

0.47

19.57

3.527

Suriname

8.2

0.95

39.3

1.72

2.67

1.65

26.25

5.086

70.9

8.42

118.5

5.29

13.70

8.45

45.76

9.635

Sweden Switzerland

43.8

5.19

182.6

8.18

13.37

8.25

47.32

10.000

Syria

12.9

1.51

15.4

0.64

2.16

1.33

25.62

4.940

Tajikistan

17.2

2.02

47.5

2.09

4.11

2.54

26.47

5.136

Tanzania

0.5

0.04

5.7

0.21

0.24

0.15

22.44

4.197

Thailand

9.5

1.11

31.5

1.37

2.48

1.53

34.35

6.975

Timor-Leste

7.6

0.88

17.5

0.74

1.62

1.00

22.46

4.202

0.8

0.07

5.1

0.18

0.25

0.16

21.32

3.937

Trinidad & T

44.8

5.31

40.7

1.78

7.09

4.38

32.81

6.616

Tunisia

13.0

1.52

25.1

1.08

2.60

1.61

31.45

6.299 6.899

Togo

Türkiye

19.3

2.27

30.5

1.32

3.60

2.22

34.02

Turkmenistan

22.2

2.62

44.3

1.95

4.56

2.82

26.91

5.240

UAE

26.0

3.07

57.5

2.54

5.61

3.46

31.95

6.415

Uganda

1.5

0.15

16.4

0.69

0.84

0.52

23.98

4.558

Ukraine

29.9

3.54

66.6

2.95

6.49

4.00

30.53

6.084

UK

30.0

3.55

88.5

3.94

7.48

4.62

40.34

8.371

Uruguay

49.4

5.86

72.2

3.20

9.06

5.59

34.82

7.085

USA

26.1

3.08

156.8

7.01

10.10

6.23

36.59

7.497

Uzbekistan

23.7

2.80

112.8

5.03

7.83

4.83

31.95

6.415

1.7

0.18

14.2

0.59

0.77

0.47

20.26

3.688

Venezuela

17.3

2.04

20.7

0.88

2.92

1.80

28.17

5.533

Viet Nam

8.3

0.96

14.5

0.60

1.57

0.97

31.27

Vanuatu

6.256 (continued)

154

Appendices

(continued) Var. 12

Var. 13

Dim. 5 DRs

Dim. 5 SRP

NURSs

Dim. 5 SRP

SRP

ALL 5 DIMs

ALL 5 DIMs 3.858

Yemen

5.3

0.61

7.9

0.31

0.91

0.56

20.99

Zambia

1.2

0.12

10.2

0.41

0.53

0.33

19.89

3.603

Zimbabwe

2.0

0.21

21.4

0.91

1.13

0.70

16.82

2.888

Appendix 2 This Declaration of Independence from Dependency is to large parts inspired by, based on and modelled after the American Declaration of Independence (even great parts of the wordings, even quite many parts word for word!, especially in the first section that is). It depicts a way forward, out of centuries of elite capitalist (and before that feudal) oppression across all of (but not in all parts of) the world:

The Declaration of Independence from Financial and Economic Oppression and Welfare Dependency When in the course of human events and History, it becomes necessary for one side of the people to dissolve the economic and financial bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Humanity entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to their separation from the existing relationship of most unequal distribution of wealth (capital, land, houses, etc.), financial and economic dependency, and welfare dependency at the same time. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Freedom, Health, Education, Family and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, new methods and principles of Social Policy are instituted among all people on earth, deriving their just financial and economic powers from the consent of humanity. That whenever any Form of Financial and Economic (a.k.a. capitalist) Exploitation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Forms of Financial and Economic Relationships (reversal of taxes, government finances and social security financing), laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most

Appendices

155

likely to effect their Safety, Happiness and Decent Forms of Economic Existence for themselves and their families. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Financial and Economic Relationships long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience and History itself have proven, that humankind are more disposed to suffer, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a many-centuries-long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Financial and Economic Arrangements, and to provide new Guards for their future social and economic Security. Such has been the patient sufferance of most peoples; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Taxation and Social Security. The history of the present Form of Financial Deprivation and Economic Exploitation is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the lives of these peoples, and their next generations. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. The Feudal System of Land Ownership and De-Facto Enslavement of the working people for over a thousand years in many cases (e.g. since the ninth century A.D. across Europe) and its continuation in form of the Global Capitalist System have refused Human Decency, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. They also have caused countless wars and ceaseless human suffering on unimaginable scale that have already lasted many centuries. Poverty, Human Suffering and Pain that are caused by the lack of proper housing, health care, education, and lack of access to financial and economic opportunities are of immediate and pressing importance. These have been Ignored, Denied, and Blamed on the very people who suffer these abuses and the resulting permanent Lack of Human Decency by the very same people that inflict and tenaciously profit from them: the super-super rich and, hence, the super powerful. They have worked for centuries against the making of new laws and regulations that would alleviate or put an end to such Dehumanizing Wealth Inequality, as well as Income Inequality, of the people who work so hard and try so hard to ever get a chance of improving their and their families’ lives. They super-super rich and the super powerful have enriched themselves directly through the Labor and Lowest Wages of the working poor, the near-poor and the underpaid middle classes by means of ownership and/or control of their workplaces, their taxes and social security arrangements, and control of the real estate markets, plus super market and gas-station/electricity prices. In addition, they have enriched themselves—not less devastatingly so—indirectly through Inflation-Profiteering, as they are the only ones that entirely can pass on the cost of inflation to consumers and hence the average and poor citizens, by means of property and company ownership and control (that is, price control). They have also enriched themselves—on an unmeasurable scale throughout the centuries, and throughout the world—indirectly through Social ReproductionProfiteering, as they are pushing down working wages to extreme lows and at the same time they are pushing up the taxes and social security payments, government

156

Appendices

fees, and most-important the prices of goods and services that are absolutely needed for decent life-support of families, including the proper support to raise, attend to, take care of, feed, cloth, house, and educate their children, who then sadly become the next generation of oppressed workers and consumers. They have incessantly erected an immense of regulations, laws, codes of conduct, licensing and testing systems, education and media systems that now—and have done so for many centuries—control and subdue every aspect of human economic, public and private, social and cultural life, as well as the acquisition and maintenance of any crumble of wealth or assets of the ordinary citizen, working people and family. Ever since centuries before, the super-super rich are controlling and designing their own financial and economic opportunities based on the lack and diminution of the very same in the hands of the ordinary people, which make the opportunities and riches of the super-super-rich possible in the first place and sustain their growth in eternity, through capital bearing interests, profits, and capital value increase, and being protected from inflation via price control and ownership of assets. We, the people, their scientific and political representatives, therefore solemnly publish and declare, That this our planet Earth—its lands, riches and finances—and the right to live Decent Lives belongs to All humans, wherever they are, whoever they are. Humans ought to be Free and Independent from Dependency. They must be free of dependencies created by means of centuries-long, multi-generational lack of financial and economic opportunities (wealth and income) throughout their lifetime, regarding to the ownership of and access to land, housing, finance, health care, education, and full-fledged (just and proper-behavior-rewarding) social security systems. As Free and Independent people, all humans must have full Power to Work, Invest, and Safe for their future and times of hardship and misfortune, and benefit fully according to the rules of finance and capital accumulation in Free (and then just, and for the first time Equal) capitalist societies with Equal starting points at the beginning of their lives and working lives—with fully Equal access to health care, education and real Equal economic and financial opportunities. Based on the American Declaration of Independence, Fundamentally Changed and Extended (mostly in the second part) by Christian Aspalter Note: While the context and content (meaning) has been changed, this text is based, to very large parts, even mostly word for word, especially in the first section, on the American Declaration of Independence, see the first several paragraphs.

Poems to Go

Wanderers Gemütsruhe (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) Übers Niederträchtige Niemand sich beklage; Denn es ist das Mächtige, Was man dir auch sage. In dem Schlechten waltet es Sich zu Hochgewinne, Und mit Rechtem schaltet es Ganz nach seinem Sinne. Wandrer! - Gegen solche Not Wolltest du dich sträuben? Wirbelwind und trocknen Kot, Laß sie drehn und stäuben. Note: This cannot be translated without changing the exact meanings of the original text. It is a perfectly suited description of elite capitalism (and of course the conundrums of the ‘Sturm und Drang’). Source: www.oxfordlieder.co.uk.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Aspalter, Super Inequality: Theoretical Essays in Economics and Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5169-7

157

158

Poems to Go

Nietzsche to Goethe (an Adapted/changed Version) The ever enduring is merely our parable! Science the all-blurring your fictions unbearable... World-wheel, the turning one, loosens our poise: Truth—sighs the yearning one, the fools call it—choice... World-play, the ruling ones blend truth and tricks, the eternally fooling ones blend us—in the mix!... based on, with only a few words changed (to capture better the content and meaning of this book above, i.e. the workings and effects of elite capitalism), Friedrich Nietzsche’s “To Goethe,” in: The Gay Science (ed. by B. Williams), 2009 [1882/1887], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p. 249.