A really fun time with these two great interviewers on their podcast series Our Long Walk. You can listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_qSYAEneAQ

A really fun time with these two great interviewers on their podcast series Our Long Walk. You can listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_qSYAEneAQ
Sergey Gavrilets and I have a new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. You can find it here.
Abstract:
People and cultures differ in the extent to which they view the world as a zero-sum environment (where one person’s gain is another’s loss) or a positive-sum environment (where certain actions can benefit everyone). These beliefs shape individuals’ willingness to work, invest, collaborate, or show hostility toward out-groups, and accept or reject various social policies. We model dyadic interactions in a heterogeneous population where individuals biased toward a zero-sum worldview are more likely to invest in competition, while those biased toward a positive-sum worldview are more likely to invest in cooperation. The environment alternates stochastically between cooperative and competitive states. Without social influence, the more accurate worldview yields higher utilities and spreads throughout the population. However, assortative matching by bias can favor the positive-sum worldview even if a positive-sum environment is somewhat less likely. With peer conformity, inaccurate worldviews can persist after a structural change in the environment, leading to cultural evolutionary mismatch. In the presence of cultural authorities who can alter beliefs, either both worldviews can coexist or one excludes the other. Moreover, when assortative matching and conformity interact, authorities may profit by amplifying individuals’ biases, creating enclaves of similarly biased people who can pay the authorities enough to make investment in persuasive technology economically viable. Cultural evolutionary mismatch is more likely in cultures marked by strong peer conformity and high responsiveness to authority when the authority promotes a suboptimal worldview. This study demonstrates how real-world conditions, peer influence, and authority interventions can perpetuate or shift zero-sum and positive-sum worldviews-at times leading to inaccurate beliefs.
In a nod to the renewed sexiness of the subject of trade policy, the BBC has re-broadcast my ten-part series from 2018, with a new final episode broadcast on 2nd May. Details here. The episodes will be available for at least a year after they go out.
Episode 6 of the 4th season of IAST’s Crossing Channels podcast, in which Diane Coyle, Jacques Crémer and I try to cut through to the essentials in asking what Europe should do about technological innovation, under the skilful chairmanship of Richard Westcott. Listen here.
I have an essay (in French) in this volume edited by Alain Trannoy and Arundhati Virmani and published by Odile Jacob.
J’ai un chapitre en français dans ce livre sorti en janvier 2025.
Un petit extrait de mon chapitre:
“Une vision assez courante des sciences sociales les représente comme étant en lutte éternelle contre les séductions du récit. Le récit, c’est l’éloge de l’histoire individuelle, anecdotique, suffisamment atypique pour être remarquée – alors que les sciences sociales s’intéressent aux statistiques, à l’expérience générale d’une population, aux réalités agrégées où l’individu se fond dans la masse. On entend même parfois que notre attachement au récit relève d’une « addiction » : c’est la thèse, par exemple, d’un livre du philosophe Alex Rosenberg publié en 2018 par la MIT Press et intitulé How History Gets Things Wrong : The Neuroscience of our Addiction to Stories.[1] Rosenberg va très loin dans sa dénonciation : « Narrative history is always, always wrong. It’s not just incomplete or inaccurate but deeply wrong, as wrong as Ptolemaic astronomy ». Mais même des chercheurs qui sont moins hostiles par principe aux récits ont tendance à penser que l’amélioration des sciences sociales vient de l’utilisation des méthodes statistiques pour surmonter les biais inhérents aux récits que chaque discipline a hérité de son passé. Ceci est le point de vue du livre publié en 2021 par le politologue Matt Grossman et intitulé : How Social Science Got Better : Overcoming Bias with More Evidence, Diversity and Self-Reflection.[2]
Il est indéniable que la place des statistiques est devenue bien plus centrale aux sciences sociales depuis quelques années. Doit-on en conclure que la valeur du récit est devenue moindre, ou encore que le récit soit destiné à disparaître d’une conception des sciences sociales vraiment scientifique, dans le meilleur sens du terme ?Cet essai proposera une réponse négative à la question. Le récit non seulement ne disparaîtra pas. Il sera encore plus ancré dans la pratique des sciences sociales, même les sciences sociales les plus quantitatives….”
[1] Rosenberg (2018).
[2] Grossman (2021). Morgan (2021) montre que l’utilisation du récit dans le travail des historiens économiques a parfois servi à combler des lacunes dans leurs données disponibles. Un point de vue français sur ces biais dans les travaux des historiens se trouve dans Hartog (2003, 2021), et notamment dans son analyse du « présentisme ». “
This page will direct you to the themes of my current research. Some themes have pages of their own, in particular:
Research on the economics of religion here.
Research on behavioral decision making here.
Research on gender, networks and marriage markets here.
In addition I am working with Guido Friebel on the medical science of ageing and its relationship to the organisational economics of selecting, motivating and retiring leaders.
I am working with Sergey Gavrilets on the evolution of zero-sum worldviews. We have a new paper published in PNAS.
My Google scholar page is here.
On reading all Jane Austen’s novels in quick succession:
At the beginning of January 2025 I decided to read all six of the main novels of Jane Austen, whose 250th birthday falls later this year (on December 16th). I began with Mansfield Park (MP), continued with Pride and Prejudice (PP), Emma (E), Sense and Sensibility (SS), Northanger Abbey (NA), and concluded with Persuasion (P). Although I had previously read all of them, some several times, I had never read them close together. Several things stood out for me as a result:
You can listen here. Very thoughtful questions from Louise, who is an excellent interviewer.
Competing for Souls: Paul Seabright Explores Religion’s Economic Power
Michael is a great interviewer – he’d read The Divine Economy carefully and thought hard about the arguments. It lasts a bit over an hour and a half.
I’m happy to hear that The Divine Economy made the longlist, together with 15 other excellent titles out of 600 submitted. It did not make the shortlist, which was announced on September 17th.