Coronavirus is made up, designed to disguise the wanton destructiveness of 5G? Our leaders are lizard shapeshifters from Epsilon 5? Never setting foot on the moon, NASA is really a front for Government manipulation. These are just a small snippet of conspiracies shared by my friend Reg. My purpose today is to ascertain how Economics can be used to understand the conspiracy phenomena. Should we be focused on simply understanding Reg’s attitudes? Alternatively, might we gain more insight by concentrating on the consequences for our policy-makers?
We start with definition. The Psychologist, Thresher-Andrews, defines conspiracy theories as “unsubstantiated, less plausible alternatives to the mainstream explanation of an event; they assume everything is intended, with malignity”. This definition also reveals the source of standard economic dialogue: a behavioural perspective describing how cognitive biases short circuits rational discourse. It leads to a concerted effort to try and explain the source of Reg’s error. A summary of such analysis might include:
- Hostile Attribution Error: Reg goes to his local shop. Two people, seemingly perusing the newspapers, whisper as he limps past. He looks for meaning. Rather than just two people whispering “should we buy the Daily Mail?”, they must be gossiping about him. It becomes a malignant encounter. Might such negative translations become the norm? Our brains are, after all, wired to find patterns in the seemingly random. Benign becomes hostile; objectivity is swamped; an everyday encounter become a source of paranoia. Conspirators are merely the ultimate in harm merchants.
- Confirmation Bias: Reg is a Norwich supporter and believes that they are the Pride of Anglia. To prove his case, he only selects league results from the last decade. He can happily ignore Ipswich Town’s League, FA Cup and European achievements. To what extent do we similarly information select? Do we first derive a position and then scramble to fit information within that chosen narrative? Anything inconvenient can be binned. Call it ‘Fake News’; condemn the messenger; the expert, after all, no longer exists.
- Egoism: Reg wants to be noticed. His social media pictures of his pet hamster fall through the cracks. The latest conspiracy, in contrast, demands attention. The ‘likes’ are confirmation of his importance. Even the scathing remarks are celebrated. The sceptics are the deluded; incapable of joining the in-crowd. Satisfaction can be derived by lording the ludicrous.
This method of analysis is undoubtedly revealing. We pick away at a naïve application of hyper-rationality in economic modelling. We fine-tune a distinction between the rational and the rationalising. But do we really gain much by wondering whether Reg deems the Queen to be an alien hybrid? Might there be something more substantive to talk about, rather than just trying to explain away the preposterous?
To suggest an alternative standpoint, lets switch focus to Public Choice comment. Traditionally, we might voice a difference between Joe Public’s Folk Economics and some notion of ‘true’ Economics. This is often voiced within an American Libertarian context. Thus, bad law is enabled through knowledge deficiency. A conspiracy theory of ‘big business’ profiteering inspires the hollow view of a Knightly Government protecting us from pending doom. Wrongly promoting economic trade as a ‘zero-sum game’, the bureaucratic State is allowed to grow unimpeded. False dialogue over ‘market failure’ is celebrated to allow politicians and corporations to feed at the trough of ‘government failure’.
But there is a weakness in this economic conspiracy. How can it account for the rise of Right Wing Populism? Rather than a false narrative into a saintly Government here to protect the downtrodden, there is instead focus on a moral corruption. This is advertised in Mudde and Kaltwasser’s (2012) definition: “[P]opulism is defined here as a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people”. Conspiracy theory, via the likes of Reg, isn’t centred on Folk Economics. It is instead celebrating a peculiar form of moral politics where Economics is necessarily side-lined. Ironically, Government can also harness it for its own aims. This is most discernibly demonstrated with the QAnon conspiracy, focused on the belief that there is a child-molesting devil-worshipping elite seeking global domination. For Trump, this might offer an opportunity. The New York Times, after all, writes: “The [QAnon] movement is unabashedly pro-Trump, casting the president as something of a god-emperor figure“.
But might we speak more generally? Might there be value in these populist-inspired conspiracies for the more dour politician? Take, for example, the concept of ‘rational irrationality’. Here, there is no cost from having a bizarre political attitude. The probability that your individual vote will matter, given millions of votes, tends to zero. Given that, it’s best to avoid the dissonance associated with accepting any notion of being mistaken. No matter the evidence, and no matter the reality, the conspiracy theorist should continue to voice their righteousness. That ensures that they avoid any disutility associated with admitting any ridiculousness. The political ball-game itself deviates. It means, for example, that information is no longer a game changer. Consider, for example, our Prime Minister and his anti-working class rhetoric: “If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment“. Extraordinarily harsh stuff, but arguably without any consequence. The ‘Red Wall’ still swapped allegiance and helped to elect his Government.
This leads me to my downbeat conclusion. Can we really separate the Economics of Conspiracy from the phenomena of a Post-Truth Society? Consider Neoliberalism. Mainstream Economics is perhaps a sub-set of this particular philosophy. But, from the climate crisis to extreme inequalities, it is arguably losing its grip on policy rationality. This should necessitate economic reform. The voter, preoccupied with outlandish conspiracy, is then useful for even the greyest of politicians. Too busy to notice this crisis in neoliberalism, centrist political parties can continue to go their merry way and support the neoliberal orthodoxy. It is business as usual; optimal policy change is not demanded.
Of course this is a conspiracy theory in itself. Over to you Reg!
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash