One More Round on Conspicuous Consumption
by Elizabeth Anderson
The Conversation
October 28th, 2009
Wilkinson’s latest post argues that the poor who squander their resources on competition over appearances should take more personal responsibility for their spending decisions. In response, I’d like to point out that there is a difference between a policy perspective and a perspective of individual choice. I thought we were talking policy here, and not giving advice to individuals. As modest Midwesterners, I’ll bet Wilkinson and I would give the same advice to people of all classes engaged in competitive consumption: don’t do it — it’s a waste of money and an exercise in empty vanity. Still, from a policy perspective it’s worth noting that collective action problems can (a) make it difficult for individuals to make the best choices and (b) impose high costs on people. Competitive consumption is a kind of collective action problem. Many people find it hard to resist when they see how their peers mete out costs and benefits in this game. And even if, in central regions of this country, this game is not played vigorously, in many other regions — notably, Southern California, Florida, and the urban-suburban-exurban Northeast, it is played with alacrity, and with cruel results. In the end, it’s a negative-sum game, which, as Robert Frank argues, offers opportunities for public policy to intervene with positive outcomes all around. My point about squeezing the differences between the top and bottom of the income distribution is that this can change the dynamics of the recognition game, by making it more difficult for all classes to distinguish themselves through consumption alone, and making it look more foolish as well, since everyone is more vividly aware of what is being sacrificed in trying to keep up appearances. The quest for distinction is not extinguished, but at least it can be channeled into more worthwhile outlets.
