Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop University
The Joy of
Economics: Making Sense out of Life
Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop
University
Exploitive Relationships
Almost all of our relationships begin and most of them continue as forms of
mutual exploitation, a mental or physical barter, to be terminated when one or
both parties run out of goods.
...W.
H. Auden
In ninth grade, Sally was the proverbial knockout. And she knew it. And she flaunted it. Especially around my friend Ted. Under most circumstances Ted displayed as much rational behavior as one reasonably could expect from a 15-year-old male. But, the sight and scent of Sally overwhelmed his hormonal equilibrium. He was, in a word, gaga. And she knew it.
Girls of Sally's status typically ignored Ted. Oh, he was bright enough. But, a bit gawky with a loopy stride and a face marred by repeated bouts with acne, Ted was not especially attractive nor athletic nor charming. Like the rest of our group, he was a nerd. His major talent was algebra. Ted was the Michael Jordan of quadratic equations. Though appreciated by his friends, such talent did little to inflame the passions or catch the attention of budding femme fatales.
Except Sally. In any other context, Sally would not have given Ted the time of day. But in algebra, Sally's desk was next to Ted's and Ted had something Sally wanted: answers. And she got them. Coy smiles. Flirtatious winks. Provocative postures. Ted was putty in her hands. At Sally's request, Ted did her homework, coached her for exams, even tilted his test sheets so they could be more easily read from her angle.
Ted anguished over his actions. He knew he was wrong. He knew she was using him. We protested to Ted. Ted protested to Sally. But, Sally met each protest with a new request accompanied by a sexy smile, a seductive shift of her hips, a tantalizing touch. And Ted was dead in the water.
Rational behavior
How does this happen? How can people be coerced into actions they oppose? Why do people allow themselves to be exploited? The answers can be found in simple economics.1
Rational people normally pursue activities only as long as the expected additional or marginal benefit (MB) of the activity is greater than or equal to the expected additional or marginal cost (MC). Should you consume another slice of pizza? Only if the expected benefit of the marginal piece covers its expected cost. Should you sleep an extra hour Saturday morning? Only if the benefit you expect to receive from that marginal hour of sleep covers its cost. Such comparisons of MB and MC are implicit rather than explicit, but they determine behavior nonetheless.
Consider the simplified example below. Suppose that for each hour Laurie sleeps, she must sacrifice some activity that would have created four units of happiness or utility for her [measured as four warm fuzzies].2 The MB of sleep is likely to decline as the number of hours slept rises. The first few hours per night are critical to her health and wellness, the 14th hour per night is of questionable value. For simplicity, suppose the MB of her sleep fall linearly as in Table I.3
TABLE I
Hour of sleep MB MC
1 6.5 fuzzies 4 fuzzies
2 6.0 4
3 5.5 4
4 5.0 4
5 4.5 4
6 4.0 4
7 3.5 4
8 3.0 4
9 2.5 4
10 2.0 4
11 1.5 4
12 1.0 4
13 0.5 4
14 0.0 4
In Table I, Laurie's optimal decision is to sleep six hours per night. The MB of received from each of the first six hours covers her MC of four. But, after the sixth hour, the MC of sleep exceeds the MB. If she sleeps the seventh hour, she will gain an additional 3.5 warm fuzzies, but will lose an additional four. On net that seventh hour costs Laurie 0.5 of a fuzzy.
Of course, Laurie receives positive net benefits overall. Hours one through seven all generate more benefit than cost. Her total cost of six hours of sleep is 24 fuzzies, but her total benefit is 31.5 fuzzies.4 She receives what economists term 7.5 units of consumer surplus -- the difference between the 24 units of cost and 31.5 of benefit.
Exploitation
Are you still with me? Are you wondering what any of this has to do with relationships? Change the example. Instead of hours of sleep, imagine measuring "gifts to your romantic partner." Relationships, after all, are built upon gifts, and not just tangible gifts like candy and flowers. The gifts that matter most are gifts of time, gifts of caring, gifts of loving attention. Each gift we contribute to our partner generates marginal benefits to us through our relationship; but each gift also imposes costs. Just as with slices of pizza and hours of sleep, each rational partner will give as long as the expected MB covers MC.
This time, imagine that Laurie freely grants her partner six gifts and receives, in turn, consumer surplus of 7.5 fuzzies. If her partner asks for a seventh gift, she should refuse; its cost would exceed its benefit. However, suppose her partner issues an ultimatum. Suppose he threatens to walk out and end the relationship if Laurie fails to deliver that seventh gift. Should she give in? Should she allow herself to be exploited? Maybe.
Remember, Laurie is getting 7.5 surplus fuzzies from the relationship. These go down the tube if her partner takes a hike. If his threat is credible, Laurie might well decide to supply that seventh gift. She loses 0.5 of a fuzzy by doing so. But that's a small price to pay if it allows her to keep the 7.5 surplus fuzzies. She's still seven fuzzies ahead.
What form might such exploitative demands take? One obvious form of demand is sexual. Perhaps Laurie's ideas of acceptable sexual practices are more limited than her partner's. Many a woman has reluctantly risked unwanted pregnancy for fear that withholding her sexual favors would cause a potential mate to leave the relationship. Physical and/or mental abuse is a second possibility. Might Laurie accept such abuse if she estimates its net cost to be less than what she would lose if the relationship ended?5
Limits
There are limits. If Laurie's partner demands too much, she'll let him walk. Using Table I numbers, her partner could not successfully demand more than ten gifts. With ten gifts, Laurie's total benefits would equal 42.5 and her total costs 40. Her consumer surplus is a mere 2.5 fuzzies, but 2.5 still exceeds zero. However, the eleventh gift would push her over the edge. Her benefits would rise by 1.5 to 44, but her costs would rise by four to 44. At that point, her consumer surplus is gone and ending the relationship costs her nothing.
Such exploitation can occur in any relationship. Sally's demands of Ted were for algebra homework -- a clear prerequisite for her continued attentions. There are other examples. Students often place exploitive demands on their friends [let me copy your homework, or I won't be your friend]. Children can exploit parents [give me a new car, or I'll run away]. And parents can exploit children [if you want to stay in this house, you'd better eat that cauliflower].
Why? Exploitation is common, but not universal. Why are some relationships exploited and others not? Easy. It's competition. If Pepsi tries to exploit me, I will switch to Coke. If Wendy's makes exploitive demands, I will drive to Burger King. The consumer surplus I can enjoy with one product will nearly match what I could get from the other. If no other soft drinks or hamburger joints are available, Pepsi and Wendy's have me by the throat. But close substitutes make exploitation impossible.
The same holds with personal relationships. If Laurie is confident of finding another man who can give her an equal amount of consumer surplus, she will rebuff any exploitive demands her current partner may make. However, if she despairs of finding a suitable replacement, she will hold on more ardently to the one she has -- even if it means accepting exploitation. All else equal, the higher is Laurie's self-esteem, the more confident she will be of finding a close substitute relationship, and the less likely she will allow herself to be exploited.6
A man with violent tendencies, subconsciously at least, might understand these competitive constraints. Wanting to find a partner willing to tolerate his destructive behavior, he might deliberately seek out women with few perceived alternatives. Just as Wal-Mart scours the country for towns with no competing discount stores, a potentially abusive husband will find it profitable to seek mates with no competing beaus.
Competition is good for those of who consume soft drinks and hamburgers. It is also good for those of us who "consume" relationships.
___________________________________________
Notes:
1. The initial concept was developed in Schmidt, Wilson E., "Charitable Exploitation," Public Choice, volume 10, Spring 1969, p. 103(2). The notion was later developed in more detail and popularized by McKenzie and Tullock. See McKenzie, Richard B. and Tullock, Gordon, The Best of the New World of Economics, 5th ed., Homewood, IL, Irwin, 1989, chap. 8.
2. Economists typically measure utility in the equally illusory concept of "utils."
3. The assumption that each additional hour has less marginal benefit is an application of what economists term "diminishing marginal utility."
4. The total benefit is simply the sum of the benefits received for each of the six hours. Thus, 6.5 + 6 + 5.5 + 5 + 4.5 + 4 = 31.5
5. As McKenzie and Tullock point out, op. cit., women also can exploit men.
6. There also is some evidence that women's increasing economic independence makes them less prone to exploitation and domestic violence. Their independent income creates substitute options. See The Economist, April 16, 2005, page 50.
_______________________________
Testing Yourself
To test your understanding of the major concepts in this reading, try answering the following:
1. Using a table of MB and MC data, find the allocatively efficient output and explain.
2. Explain the concept of consumer surplus and know how to calculate it from MB and MC data.
3. Explain how one partner in a relationship can exploit the other; explain what limits the amount of exploitation possible.
4. Describe the circumstances under which exploitation is most likely to occur in a relationship and why.