As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

The Over-Marketization of Social Behavior

This article was written by in Economics. 9 comments.

Do you reward your children with money for performing well in school? Do you use the promise of an allowance to ancourage appropriate behavior in the family? These are big issues, because they take appropriate behavior and can turn the incentive to financial gain. Children growing up believing that financial gain is the reward for correct social behavior rather than seeing the intrinsic benefit.

The idea that everything has a financial value seems to have become more prevalent over the last two decades, according to a new book. In What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel, the author argues that our trend of attributing market thinking to an increasing array of behavior could be detrimental to society.

The book has not yet been released as of the time of writing this article, so I haven’t read it yet. A review in Fortune Magazine is inspiring me to pre-order the book before its release.

The author notes how Americans are now more comfortable with marketing or selling things they might have not in the past. Selling ad space on foreheads, accepting money for branded tattoos, and paying students for each book they read are a few examples of things that might have been unthinkable a few years ago. I would add that the pervasiveness of the Internet has made some of this possible, when it comes to selling ourselves. Through the democratized ability to self-publish, people can easily market themselves without much effort. If you get enough attention, some company also looking for attention would be happy to pay you to do something newsworthy, like slapping a brand on your car for a year.

With the popularity reality television, the idea that anyone can become famous — not just for fifteen minutes but for an entire television season — and wealthy (think: Kardashians) is enticing.

Here are some thoughts from the Fortune Magazine review of the book:

The price we pay for this behavior plays out in several ways, Sandel argues. First off, poorer people are impacted disproportionately by the commercialization of personal space. How many affluent people are lining up to turn their houses or bodies into billboards? In this way, the decision to sell isn’t necessarily as independent and free as it may look. In a society increasingly driven by financial power, moreover, the wealthy hold even better hands than they would otherwise. Why bother encouraging your kid to study hard if you can simply grease his path into Harvard or Yale with the promise of a massive donation?

The more emphasis we place on money in society, the more power society gives to those who have it. I don’t think that today’s plutocratic oligarchy is too much different than western society in most of recent history, however. Those with money have always had the power. We like to think of government in the United States as “of the people, for the people, by the people,” but the Founding Fathers were mostly wealthy and mostly represented the wealthy, though several did their best to be sympathetic to those who were not as fortunate.

It was difficult to leave all old-world philosophies behind; property owners were afforded more rights than those who did not own property. A subtle class distinction still persists between homeowners and renters today.

Political and societal power has always been focused on an elite group of people who have the most money. This is why social change — giving the right to vote to all adults rather than a select few, extending human rights to all citizens rather than a select few, etc. — is only successful through revolution. Those with power and money aren’t much interested in sharing.

At times, market principles put in place to make an altruistic act look even more attractive do just the opposite. Sandel cites the case of a small village in the Swiss mountains called Wolfenschiessen that was once a candidate to house a nuclear waste site. When surveyed by economists, a majority of residents said they’d accept the site as an act of civic duty. The economists then added money to the equation, offering the residents as much as $8,700 each to accept the waste site. At this point, support for the deal plummeted among the villagers. From their perspective, the cash turned a sacrifice for the greater good into a plain old bribe.

Money changes the equation, whether used to encourage someone to do the right thing — who then learns that doing the right thing should always be rewarded the compensation — or to encourage someone to do something that would otherwise give him or her pause.

Fortune Magazine laments that the book does not offer any alternatives for a way of living that does not suffer from over-commercialization. Were wealth not to provide an individual so much power, it couldn’t be used as an effective incentive for changing someone’s behavior. Is there a way for the United States to hold onto the capitalism that’s such an important piece of the success of its individuals and the nation as a whole while taking money out of the power equation?

Also, how far will you go for money? Everyone has his price. Would you sell your body parts? Your kidney for $1,000? Your foot for $100,000? Your arm for $1 million? Would you kill someone for $100,000? For $50 million? For $1 billion? Morals may stand in the way to an extent — but that extent is most likely broken at some level.

Fortune Magazine

Published or updated April 20, 2012.

Email Email Print Print
About the author

Luke Landes is the founder of Consumerism Commentary. He has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about Luke Landes and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by .

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar 1 Anonymous

I wouldn’t because I have values too. Values seems to be lost in society. Whether they are not taught or not recognized as something important, I don’t know. Values are far more important than money, it is what character is all about.

Reply to this comment

avatar 2 shellye

I’m a marketer, but I won’t wear any clothing that has someone’s name or logo on it (ie Nike, Juicy Couture, etc). I’m not getting paid to wear their clothes, so I’m not going to blast their name across my butt or anywhere else.

Having said that, I applied once to have my car wrapped in a Dasani water ad because the car was the exact shade of blue as the Dasani wrapper. At the time it seemed like a good and harmless way to make some extra money, and I drink Dasani anyway. But I never heard back from the company.

Sounds like a very interesting book I may have to read. But I draw the line at selling body parts.

Reply to this comment

avatar 3 Anonymous

I like the questions about kids. I have thought about rewarding my kids for good grades but ultimately decided against it. Likewise, they have some basic chores they have to do around the house, but then they have chores they are paid for. They can also choose extra chores to earn more money, but my kids seem to value their time over money. :)

I think I want to read this book; there are interesting financial and moral questions.

Reply to this comment

avatar 4 qixx

My kidney should be worth at least $250,000 plus medical costs for it’s removal. I don’t have a problem paying for book reviews (on books not used for school and selected by me). Growing up we were paid for extra chores provided our basic chores were done.

Reply to this comment

avatar 5 Anonymous

I agree that lasting motivation is internal (purposeful) and external motivators (money) soon lose their ability to motivate. You can see this in professional athletes, entertainers and executives. The ones who are truly great have a personal mission to be great and the ones who are more interested in the paycheck usually wind up fading.

Reply to this comment

avatar 6 Anonymous

I think the comparison in the last paragraph is slightly inappropriate. In the first case where some one sells a body part is their own body we are talking about. Killing some one for money involves an act of criminal aggression, which is always a crime.

Reply to this comment

avatar 7 Ceecee

There is one thing that has affected all of this: the internet. Just ask Molly Katchpole. Single individuals can take on mammoth corporations of power by mobilizing the people online. The internet has given the little people a voice, in some cases. Can capitalism thrive without breeding runaway greed? It remains to be seen……..

Reply to this comment

avatar 8 Anonymous

This is a pretty interesting topic. Where should we draw the line between paying kids/not paying kids? You definitely don’t want to reward your kids for everything, but what things should you reward them for? I have no idea. Maybe i need to read the book! haha

Reply to this comment

avatar 9 Anonymous

This article conflates two different issues.

One is: extrinsic motivation (for example, money for good grades) is a weaker motivation than intrinsic motivation (doing something because it’s the right thing to do, as a favor, as a civic duty, etc). Unfortunately the former can replace the latter once it is offered. So for those who would motivate others to some action, take care before you offer a tangible incentive.

The second is: selling advertising on body parts, vehicles, or whatever else. It’s protectionism to say “the rich wouldn’t do this but the poor would.” The poor would do so because they would like the money they could get for doing so. It’s easy to sit in our chairs typing on our computers about how wrong it is. But we aren’t the ones who need the money (to eat, or pay our rent, or whatever). Nobody is forcing anybody else to offer their forehead tattoable space to the highest bidder! So the rest of us should stay out of it.

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

Note: Use your name or a unique handle, not the name of a website or business. No deep links or business URLs are allowed. Spam, including promotional linking to a company website, will be deleted. By submitting your comment you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.