Dec
21

Christmas Giftgiving, The economist vs. The anthropologist

By Grant

Gift pile This is the week in which we move from inklings of alarm to flat-out panic.  Have we done our shopping?  No, we haven’t done our shopping.

Economist to the rescue.  Joel Waldfogel has been arguing since 1993 that seasonal gift giving is dodgy and that we ought to rethink the exercise.

Quizzing students in his classroom, Waldfogel has determined that there’s a discrepancy of 20% between value given and value received.  This is another way of saying that our gift giving acuity is sufficiently impaired that people prize our gifts dramatically less that we think they will.  We give lamb, they get mutton.  Let’s call the whole thing off. 

This really is looking the gift horse in the mouth.  In a normal American Christmas, according to The Economist, retailers make 25% of their yearly sales and 60% of their profits between Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

What it ignores is the social point of the exercise.  We give gifts to acknowledge, shape, and celebrate our relationships.  How do gifts work to social effect?  We carry in our heads a set of understandings, cultural understandings, about how the recipient is and what gifts mean.  We use these understandings to fashion a match.  Good matches bring delight and confirmation.  Bad matches try the patience and challenge the relationship.  But so much social value is being created here that economic waste, when this occurs, is modest.

We don’t have good metrics for this social value.  But here’s a laboratory experiment you can try over the holiday season.  Try withholding gifts from someone, and see what difference it makes.  For want of a relatively small amounts of value, our social world can change beyond recognition.  Want to live in soulless social world that Dickens threatens in a Christmas Carol?  Just follow Waldfogel’s advice.

Gary Davies, Manchester Business School, understands this.  He says of Waldfogel’s perspective:

[It's a] typical economist’s view of an issue where it isn’t the economics that are driving the issue. It’s the social side, the symbolism of the gift. [BBC news magazine, ref. below]

The Economist gets it too. 

Gift-giving, some economists think, is a process that adds value to an item over and above what it would otherwise be worth to the recipient. Intuition backs this up, of course. A gift’s worth is not only a function of its price, but also of the giver and the circumstances in which it is given.

Somehow, one feels that if Waldfogel had quizzed his students a little more broadly about gift giving he might have glimpsed the larger significance, the true purpose, of all this “wasteful” spending.

But of course many economists are tone deaf when it comes to the social and the cultural.  What Adam Smith took out, they will not return to the field of study  Most of the time, this is a spectacularly success trade off.  Excising the social and the cultural from the field of study made certain understandings, and an entire discipline, both possible and productive.

The trick then is for the economist to know where the model works and where it can not.  (There may be a simple answer here.  Waldfogel was at Yale when this work first began, and as readers of this blog have heard before, Yalies are famously obtuse when it comes to certain real world problems.  They spring from the wrong kind of Protestants, I think, to be really world embracing.)

But this is something more at issue here that insisting on paradigmatic boundaries.  As just about anyone under 35 can tell us, the very of a marketplace is being challenged by a new set of ideas, the so called “gift economy.”  As this idea claims more people, it will claim more and larger parts of the economy.  Unless economists wants to watch the problem set disappear like a polar icecap, it’s time to do better than Waldfogel. 

References

Anonymous, 2001.  Is Santa a Dead Weight?  The Economist.  December 21.  here.

Cowen, Tyler.  1998.  In praise of commercial culture.  Boston: Harvard University Press.  here.

Davies, Gary.  n.d., Gifts and Giving.  Forthcoming. 

McCracken, Grant.  n.d., Christmas Trees.  This Blog.  here.  (for more on an anthropological approach to the season, specifically that spectacularly wasteful object, the Christmas tree)

Rohrer, Finlo.  2009.  Should We Stop Buying Christmas Gifts?  BBC news magazine.  December 3.  here.

Waldfogel, Joel.  1993.  The Deadweight Loss of Christmas”. American Economic Review, December, vol 83, no 5.

Waldfogel, Joel.  2009.  Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents For The Holidays.  On Amazon here.

Wikipedia entry on the gift economy here.

Categories : Uncategorized

11 Comments

1

Grant, really interesting post, and I agree with your thesis. I’m curious to see if more people give out handmade gifts this year. Since Etsy became popular, I know a lot more people who are crafting and, given that the economy has been bad for two (arguably 3) Christmases in a row, I think people might think a bit more about the additional symbolic value of a handmade gift over the monetary value of a store-bought one. I also know a few families (without children) who are imposing a $20 or $30 limit, which might mean smaller gifts (to the same circle of recipients as in previous years) become more commonplace, but also more symbolic, in a way. I’d be interested to know what trends we’ve seen during previous economic downturns – any idea? Either way, interesting few weeks ahead!

2

Grant, I agree that many economists are tone deaf when it comes to the social and the cultural – many of the arguments I have had with people from that profession arise from (what I believe to be) their sociological blindspots. I have long wondered why this is. Is it because standard economics training encourages or forces students to ignore social explanations for phenomena (for example, because these explanations are not easily modeled mathematically), or is it because those who enter the profession already have a predisposition to ignore such explanations?

3

Eleanor, hand crafted gifts are interesting, most of us are too time poor to do them, and if we BUY them what additional value do they have and do we acknowledge that we bought them. As you say, interesting questions that bloom just once a year. Thx, G.

Peter, very good question, I bet its the chicken and the egg, so that a group is attracted to the field and then confirmed in its inclination once it gets there. Thanks, Grant

4

[...] here (via Studio Number One) is Grant McCracken making fun of an economist’s argument that Xmas gifting is inefficient. The significance of this object has been invented by the author; see the project description for [...]

5

Waldfogel’s perspective is an example of the sort of “producer’s myopia” that is so often a by-product of expertise/specialization: the misconception that what is important to you – the thing or way of looking at things you produce – has the same level of importance for others. In design, we go out and do contextual research to understand how something we’re focused on fits into people’s actual lives. Maybe academics like Waldfogel should think about doing something similar.

6

Dan, totally agreed, they should sneak out of the paradigm and live a little. Grant

7

I know people who have taken Waldfogel’s point of view long before he articulated it in economic terms; they feel trapped into gift exchange by social convention, which itself is interesting from an economic point of view. I could go into a long song and dance about how a signaling model can rationalize some gift giving (although it may still generate overall social losses).

Instead I’ll point to the trend in Waldfogel’s direction: the growing use of gift cards as presents and the arrival of websites like Lottay (founded by a former student). Think about it–people are moving in the direction of preferring cash or cash-equivalents for a growing range of their gifts.

8

Steve, but it makes perfect sense. As our culture fragments, its get harder to figure out who the recipient is. I think of us as friends. I have no idea what sort of music you like. Twenty years ago I could have made an mainstream bet. So cash cards help solve this problem, but only because the problem has grown so much harder to address. Best, Grant
p.s., your Black Flag cd is in the mail. Happy new year!

9

Grant:

Two problems.

1) I thought all this social media, “we have no secrets” stuff was supposed to make our identities and tastes far more public. People cultivate their tastes and idiosyncracies and use them to signal their identities. I’m supposed to be able to check somebody’s profile and find out that she likes Enya or whatever, then use recommendation software of some sort to think of other artists she’s likely to enjoy, etc.

The growth of cash-equivalent gifts at the same time that individual tastes are becoming more visible seems most easily explained as a trend toward valuing the signaling quality of gifts less and their hedonic quality more. Lottay, in particular, combines these trends.

2) Now let’s hold constant the visibility of individual tastes. If anything, a very homogeneous culture would improve the hedonic and hinder the intimacy-signaling quality of gifts because it would be too easy to pick out things that people liked but were unwilling to buy for themselves. A fragmented culture, by contrast, offers more opportunities to impress others with our knowledge of their specific wants and so, on the anti-Waldfogel view, we should embrace this diversity rather than happily giving and receiving cash-equivalents.

10

I blogged on this topic at DeepGlamour here: http://www.deepglamour.net/deep_glamour/2009/11/the-glamour-and-peril-of-getting-gifts.html

As I note in passing, Scrooge’s problem was NOT that he gave boring old cash but that he didn’t. In Dickens’s day, Christmas gifts were still mostly cash or its equivalents (e.g., a goose, ham, turkey) from superiors–more like the tips New Yorkers carefully calibrate for their doormen. Scrooge’s fault that he was stingy and didn’t share his good fortune, especially with the employees who made it possible.

Any calculation of the social value of gifts has to deduct the value destroyed by bad gifts, which at worst create resentment on both sides of the transaction. Some fun examples, including not one but two banana carrying cases: http://www.lottay.com/worstgiftever

P.S. Steve likes Metric.

11

[...] smudge nicely into one word (skepticasm, if only). But I was happy to see Grant McCracken articulate some of the problems I had with this concept of wasteful gifting. Mostly that some gifts are supposed to be [...]

Leave a Comment

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes