Money Talks: Explaining How Money Really Works
288
Money Talks: Explaining How Money Really Works
288Hardcover(New Edition)
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Money Talks explores five key questions: How do social relationships, emotions, and morals shape how people account for and use their money? How do corporations infuse social meaning into their financing and investment practices? What are the historical, political, and social foundations of currencies? When does money become contested, and are there things money shouldn't buy? What is the impact of the new twenty-first-century currencies on our social relations?
At a time of growing concern over financial inequality, Money Talks overturns conventional views about money by revealing its profound social potential.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780691168685 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Princeton University Press |
| Publication date: | 04/25/2017 |
| Edition description: | New Edition |
| Pages: | 288 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.40(w) x 9.30(h) x 1.20(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Money Talks
Explaining How Money Really Works
By Nina Bandelj
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Copyright © 2017 Princeton University PressAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-691-16868-5
CHAPTER 1
Economics and the Social Meaning of Money
Jonathan Morduch
IN THE SOCIAL MEANING OF MONEY, Viviana Zelizer steadily takes apart the idea of fungibility — that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. She argues that the notion that "money is a single, interchangeable, absolutely impersonal instrument" (Zelizer 1994: 1) fails to acknowledge the many ways that we separate, personalize, and earmark different sources of money. Zelizer shows how money received as charity is treated differently from gambling winnings, for example, or how money earned by husbands is often demarcated from money earned by wives, with different sets of expectations, obligations, and restrictions around how the money is spent. Zelizer demonstrates that money touches so much of life that studying the meanings we attach to particular monies becomes a way to gain insight into our relationships with others and our self-understandings; our views of what is permissible, regrettable, and admirable; our anxieties and aspirations; our biases and blindnesses; and where lines are drawn between necessities and luxuries.
Zelizer deploys archival evidence on approaches to earning and spending in the United States to challenge arguments — from Karl Marx's (1867) critique of commodity fetishism to Georg Simmel's (1900) depiction of the anonymizing role of money — that view market exchange mediated by money as inevitably impersonal and often depersonalizing. In this way, Zelizer positioned The Social Meaning of Money to enter a conversation in economic sociology around the market and society, an inquiry into the power and limits of the market system. Her evidence and interpretation, though, speak to a wider set of concerns. Approached from the perspective of economics rather than economic sociology, Zelizer's evidence can be seen as laying down a challenge to a different set of ideas — that is, depictions of household choice developed and defended in works such as Gary Becker's Treatise on the Family (1981) and related texts that became central to neoclassical microeconomics in the 1960s through 1990s (Bergstrom 1996). This was not Zelizer's intended target, but, with the passage of time, we can see how the frameworks square off against each other.
In this context, the evidence presented in The Social Meaning of Money can be redeployed as a critique of the way that fungibility was asserted by the Chicago school economists. The Chicago school canon builds a case for flattening various forms of conflict and differentiation within families, and it pushes away from focusing on differences in preferences as explanations for household choices. This flattening — and its focus on the roles of prices and incomes in determining choices — came to define neoclassical analyses of "the economics of the household" (e.g., Becker 1974, 1981; Stigler and Becker 1977). Here, The Social Meaning of Money plays a counterpoint not to the left but to the right. Zelizer's work shows that the assertion of fungibility may have been productive for Chicago school analyses, but it is not productive when trying to understand a broader set of questions about human relations and household choices.
Economists find two types of justification for assuming that money is fungible within households. The first stems from a view that differences in preferences within families are apt to be minor. As a result, for all intents and purposes, the household can be treated as if it acts with one head whose task is to solve a grand optimization problem encompassing all household economic choices. This is an empirical claim with important theoretical implications. If it is true that the household can be imagined as if it was a comprehensive planner with relatively stable and consistent preferences, the analytical focus can then turn to how prices and various constraints drive choices.
Stigler and Becker (1977) capture this spirit in the title of their article, "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum" (there is no arguing about differences in preferences). Their position is that, in principle, differences in preferences — including those within families — may explain some choices but that, in practice, the explanatory power of such differences is usually far weaker than that of variation in prices and incomes. Once conflicts over preferences are removed from consideration, assuming the fungibility of money meets with little opposition. From there, it follows that the task for economists is not to spend much time on the genesis of preferences, nor on intrahousehold conflict, but instead: "On our view, one searches, often long and frustratingly, for the subtle forms that prices and incomes take in explaining differences among men and periods" (76). The view has been contested (see McCloskey 1993) but remains a core of modern microeconomics.
The second justification for asserting the fungibility of money in budgeting is purely practical. Fungibility is not the most hallowed assumption in empirical economics, but it is among the most useful — and economists are understandably reluctant to give it up. Invoking the fungibility of money makes much of empirical household economics possible — or at least far simpler. Once the assumption is accepted, economists can collect data from households composed of different strands of individual activity and then aggregate those data into sums (total household income, total household consumption) that can be plotted, regressed, and submitted to empirical scrutiny as if the data reflected the constrained optimization of a well-defined, unified decision-making unit. Given that most economic surveys collect data on households rather individuals (What did the household buy this year? How much did the household earn?), the assumption makes most empirical analyses of households possible. Even if one wants to probe within households, the data do not allow researchers to go far (Deaton 1997). Nonfungibility is a hard sell.
This perspective on The Social Meaning of Money allows a different appreciation of Zelizer's contribution. It also demonstrates one sense in which her work is "heard" by economists. That context starts by recognizing how useful the fungibility assertion was to Gary Becker and his colleagues in narrowing their scope of inquiry — and how essential it continues to be for generations of economists analyzing household data sets. Against those benefits, Zelizer shows that the assumption of fungibility limits understandings of the mechanics of individual economic choices and what they say about the nature of human relations. When one dollar is the same as any other dollar, there is little scope for earmarking and differentiating income streams by social meanings. Becker's approach not only dismisses concern with the genesis of preferences — which may be a useful way for economists to reinforce disciplinary boundaries — but, perhaps unintentionally, prevents them from probing the earmarking of income as a form of consumer decision making. The latter inquiry, I argue, should be squarely within economists' range.
No matter how much economists are discomfited by hearing her arguments, windows (and ears) are opening. As Zelizer found in her archival research, evidence for nonfungibility spills out from microdata about the decision-making processes of households. The accumulating "anomalies" are pushing economics to open up from within (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1991; Thaler 2015), so that when economists consider reasons for failure of the assumption that money is fungible, they now have at hand at least two well-established directions for departing from Chicago school orthodoxies, both of which exist within the economic mainstream (including at the University of Chicago). The first comes from bargaining theory and the second from behavioral economics. Adding Zelizer's notion of social meanings of money into the conversation provides alternative hypotheses for explaining phenomena usually ascribed to bargaining or behavioral economics. More important, it provides ideas for creating testable, practical interventions that work by evoking social meaning and that rely on earmarking.
The effectiveness of several well-known examples of successful policy interventions has been attributed to insights from game theory or behavioral economics — for example, the use of conditional cash transfers as an alternative safety net and notions of "mental accounts" to increase household saving. Turning to Zelizer's work, and work she has influenced, shows how in practice the interventions also function by evoking social meanings and earmarks. These ideas are described below in the context of new evidence on the social meaning of money drawn from the US Financial Diaries project.
The Social Meaning of Money: Evidence from the US Financial Diaries
Zelizer's insights may contrast with canonical Chicago-style household economics, but they are manifest in evidence on the day-to-day financial choices of low-income Americans, including the US Financial Diaries project. The project involved research teams that set out to track every dollar that 235 households earned, spent, borrowed, saved, and shared over the course of a year. The samples were drawn from sites in California, Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio, and New York City. Roughly one-third of the sample is poor, another third hovers above the poverty line, and a final third is in the bottom and middle of the middle class. The project is unusual in recording high-frequency data through the year and systematically tracking finances, both formal and informal. I led the work jointly with Rachel Schneider of the Center for Financial Services Innovation, and as we tracked households' finances, we also followed their health crises, job crises, personal crises, and various successes and challenges.
Two examples from the Financial Diaries show different instances in which — in the spirit of Zelizer (1994) — families demarcate or label monies to transform meanings. In Mississippi, we met a woman named Susan (names and some details have been changed to preserve confidentiality). Susan has a small store within a flea market where she sells antiques and used goods. She is fifty-one, with two teenagers at home and an older child living on his own. "I've been here all my life except for five years and ten months," Susan announced in response to a question about her background. Those years and months were spent in prison on a conviction for selling drugs. Susan regularly attends church, but she is not always able to come up with the money for the 10 percent weekly tithe typically made by the church's members. She laughs as she recalls once being at a church revival, before her years in prison, and tithing against her drug-selling proceeds. Susan recognizes a subversive element in tithing that money.
When she was incarcerated, Susan also "tithed" against the $50 gifts that her husband gave her to buy supplies at the prison store. Rather than tithing to the church, she made a point to give a share of the $50 to prisoners who did not have a husband or someone else to provide money. Her husband was not happy, though, because he saw the $50 as his gift to her. For Susan, though, tithing against the $50 brought her closer to the practices of the world outside, enabling her to feel a sense of agency as a giver not just a passive recipient. Tithing in that way allowed her to transform the nature of the cash flow from being a gift granted by her husband and turn it into an entitlement: her deserved share of the family's earnings, a notion that was reinforced by her desire to tithe against it. Another time, Susan recalls arguing with her husband about whether one needs to tithe against Social Security. Her husband argued no, since one already tithes when the income is earned in the first place. For Susan, though, the logic of tithe as tax was not fully convincing. "I'm still confused about that," Susan muses, unsure about how to think about money that is not subject to sharing.
Dolores lives in San Jose. Her father, an immigrant from Mexico, spent his life as a farmworker in the agricultural valleys of northern California. Dolores has worked diligently to bring her own family into the middle class. Her husband, Antonio, works steadily as an auto mechanic, and Dolores is a manager at a local nonprofit organization. They lost a house to foreclosure when housing prices crashed in 2007 and now live in a mobile home, sharply paring their expenses to stay free of debt. To save money, Dolores prepares lunch for Antonio and herself every morning. They only eat out on weekends, and family activities often involve visits to state parks.
Dolores and Antonio have suffered for their choices; Dolores's siblings complain that Dolores and Antonio have cut themselves off by sticking rigidly to a budget rather than partaking in family celebrations. Still, Dolores takes it in stride and continues to budget carefully. Paychecks are automatically deposited at their credit union, and then a portion is automatically invested in a retirement account. The rest of Dolores's paycheck goes to an emergency fund. Antonio's regular paycheck is earmarked for all the bills. But Dolores and Antonio also earmark money, earned from Antonio's "side work" fixing motorcycles, "Our side money goes into this pile where we can go and do our fun stuff." Having that extra pile earmarked — both protected and liberated — makes it easier for Dolores and Antonio to budget aggressively everywhere else.
Earmarks and Optimization
The stories of Susan and Dolores, and the evidence that runs through The Social Meaning of Money, provide contrasts with assumptions that drive the neoclassical "economics of the household." Gary Becker was pivotal in making the household a serious focus of economic inquiry, but in Becker's (1981) most central work, the household is depicted as a decision-making unit that operates through consensus (or as if there was consensus). In typical formalizations, Becker begins with a utility function that reflects a household's preferences over goods or services Z1, Z2, Z3, and so forth: U(Z1, Z2, Z3, ...) as if decisions by the household could be analyzed in the same way that decisions by individuals are analyzed. In this framework, Susan and her husband would work out their differences and make choices through consensus (or, equally well from the standpoint of theory, through Susan or her husband dictating decisions to the other). To highlight the way that the household becomes homogenized as a unit, the formalization is sometimes called the "unitary" household model. In Becker's framing, household utility is maximized subject to a household level budget constraint where each of the goods or services has a price p1, p2, p3, and so on. Most important, all sources of household income are aggregated to create a common pool: Y = Y1 + Y2 + Y3 ... + YN. Here, Susan's drug earnings would not be differentiated from her husband's Social Security checks. The budget constraint is then Y ≥ p1 Z1 + p2 Z2 + p3 Z3 ... + pM ZM. The pooling of income implies that all income is fungible and all spending is decided via a grand optimization problem undertaken by the household. Zelizer in effect warns us that the act of writing Y = Y1 + Y2 + Y3 ... + YM is not an innocuous step.
The kind of earmarking described by Zelizer (1994) stems from a different kind of decision process. Perhaps a form of optimization is in the background, but choices arise from processes other than comparisons involving the marginal utility of one thing equaling the marginal utility of another. Instead, particular income flows are separated, demarcated, and earmarked early on, before specific consumption choices are made. Antonio's "side money" from fixing motorcycles is protected for the family's "fun stuff," for example, and the amount of fun stuff depends on how much accrues in the extra pile. Halpern-Meekin et al. (2015), in another example, echo Zelizer's (1994: chap. 4) analysis to show how recipients wall off tax refunds fueled by the Earned Income Tax Credit and spend the money differently from other transfers and income sources. A particular income flow may be fully assigned to a particular expense, such as Y1 = p1 Z1 or perhaps the earmark involves a set of expenses, like Y3 = p3 Z3 + p4 Z4. Some income flows (say, Y4 and Y5) might be pooled together, and allocations of those might arise subject to constrained optimization, but Zelizer's interest in The Social Meaning of Money is in the earmarks rather than the subsequent optimization choices. Zelizer points our attention to the logic of the demarcations and separations (is it right to tithe from drug sales?) and what they can tell us about household relations and their social contexts.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Money Talks by Nina Bandelj. Copyright © 2017 Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface ix
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction Advancing Money Talks 1
Nina Bandelj, Frederick F. Wherry, and Viviana A. Zelizer
PART I BEYOND FUNGIBILITY
1 Economics and the Social Meaning of Money 25
Jonathan Morduch
2 Morals and Emotions of Money 39
Nina Bandelj, Tyler Boston, Julia Elyachar, Julie Kim, Michael McBride, Zaibu Tufail, and James
Owen Weatherall
3 How Relational Accounting Matters 57
Frederick F. Wherry
PART II BEYOND SPECIAL MONIES
4 The Social Meaning of Credit, Value, and Finance 73
Bruce G. Carruthers
5 From Industrial Money to Generalized Capitalization 89
Simone Polillo
PART III CREATING MONEY
6 The Constitutional Approach to Money: Monetary Design and the Production of the Modern World 109
Christine Desan
7 The Market Mirage 131
David Singh Grewal
8 The Macro-Social Meaning of Money: From Territorial Currencies to Global Money 145
Eric Helleiner
PART IV CONTESTED MONEY
9 Money and Emotion: Win-Win Bargains, Win-Lose Contexts, and the Emotional Labor of Commercial Surrogates 161
Arlie Hochschild
10 Paid to Donate: Egg Donors, Sperm Donors, and Gendered Experiences of Bodily Commodification 171
Rene Almeling
11 Money and Family Relationships: The Biography of Transnational Money 184
Supriya Singh
PART V MONEY FUTURES
12 Money Talks, Plastic Money Tattles: The New Sociability of Money 201
Alya Guseva and Akos Rona-Tas
13 Blockchains Are a Diamond’s Best Friend:
Zelizer for the Bitcoin Moment 215
Bill Maurer
14 Utopian Monies: Complementary Currencies, Bitcoin, and the Social Life of Money 230
Nigel Dodd
Selected References on the Social Scientific Study of Money 249
Contributor Biographies 255
Index 261
What People are Saying About This
"Money Talks ranges across the social sciences to show the many faces of a central component to modern life: money. It comes in different forms and guises, and it plays various emotive and budgetary roles. This book proves that our relationship with money is not just the bland, neutral ‘medium of exchange' portrayed in classical economics."—George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics"The essays featured in Money Talks take their inspiration from Viviana Zelizer's pathbreaking Social Meaning of Money, and show us the horizons on which studies of monetary inventiveness now stand. Admirably, this collection opens new vistas for another generation inheriting, and working in new ways from, this intellectual momentum."—Jane Guyer, Johns Hopkins University"In a world in which monetization seems to be gobbling up every remote corner of social life, Money Talks makes a bold case for the continuing importance not only of subjective meaning in our understanding of money, but of social relations above and beyond exchanges between rational actors. This book brings together an interdisciplinary band of uncommonly smart and influential scholars to take stock of what we know about the myriad uses and meanings of money."—Frank Dobbin, Harvard University