Nội dung

economic matters; on the origin and composition of income; on the role of the ‘co-earners’ in a household and the extent of economic ‘integration’ of means and demands; on the economic significance of the various forms of income and the analytical value of the ‘income’ factor; on the income pattern and the standard of living practised as distinct from the one aimed at; on thrifty, planned household economy and its results; on financial reserves, savings, acquisition of property and wealth; on the amount of ready cash; on hoarding; on long-term savings; on taking loans; on subjective liquidity and the role of expectations; on the problems of receiving income or effecting payments through bank remittances and cheques; on forms and motives of money investments; on reactions to interest rates and premiums on savings; on confidence in the value of money and appreciation of the value of money; and on education to induce saving and to impart a knowledge of economics. The analysis of the reasons for a particular kind of behaviour shows many variations in depth: sometimes it can be made on rational considerations alone; in other cases we are compelled to penetrate into individual psychic motivation. As a rule the analysis remains in the nature of a ‘sociological’ explanation, using such concepts as status, role, education, environment, mentality, etc. Only in exceptional cases can we remain on purely ‘economic’ ground; even the income factor cannot, on closer examination, be interpreted exclusively on an economic basis if the analysis is not to be bogged down in such tautological statements as, for instance, that the higher the income, the greater the likelihood of savings from its remainder. In reality, saving is practically always actively motivated; it is true that macroeconomic statements on the ‘savings function’ for instance can – on the surface – manage without anything being said about motivation; but such statements are often valueless as forecasts unless it is possible to resort to a microeconomic causal analysis.62 With respect to many subjects of microanalysis the critic will a priori be inclined to question whether or not they are relevant to the problems of the economy as a whole: does the behaviour of the small saver, the small shareholder, or the payment habits of people with the smallest bank deposits carry any weight for the economy as a whole? But certainly they are all the more significant in a society whose middle threshold of income, and, further, that this threshold is surprisingly high in some population groups – then, so it seems to us, it is well worthwhile to work out an ‘interest theory of the common man’, and to determine the threshold at which it ceases to apply. This would enable us to follow the transition to a more rational ‘interest consciousness’ with greater precision; after all, it does seem quite probable that in this way we might obtain suggestive impulses even for the traditional interest theory.63 It is indeed true to say that even the analysis of rational behaviour derives particular benefit from the methods of microeconomic, psychologically informed behaviour research. Wherever in the real economic world we find human behaviour conforming to economic rationality, this is usually due to institutional training or produced by certain educational influences. In order to forecast which people will behave rationally in a particular way, and under what circumstances, it is necessary to refer to the results obtained by behaviour research. The main problem of economic theory – which is to discover in what fields the hypothesis of rational behaviour approximates reality – can be solved by our empirical research methods just as well as the problem of economic policy, which is to discover when and to what extent economic rationality can be attained or improved by taking particular measures,64 and the problem of forecasting economic developments. As a result of our survey described above, the analysis of behaviour in dealing with money in private households has made considerable progress. More specific research programmes are now being planned. We have already mentioned as examples the subjects ‘Economic behaviour under inflation’ and ‘The thresholds of sensivity to interest rates’. With regard to the interest problem there exists a first, unpublished special study on the possibilities and limits of property formation by employees; this study was commissioned by, and carried out on behalf of, the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Order in 1961. It was an investigation of the effectiveness of certain measures of industrial firms to assist employees in their formation of property. Among those who were the object of this policy a distinction was drawn between those on the one hand who are no longer in need of assistance for their property formation, and those who cannot yet be reached, as well as, on the other various types of property formation. On the other hand – if the longterm view is taken – it is certainly not meaningless (as a first step) to encourage the saving of larger sums on a long-term basis, even if the amounts saved are partially used to acquire consumer durables.65 The assumption that better familiarity with book money, still lacking in the ‘lower’ half of the population, would lead to changes in saving habits, periods of saving contracts and saving goals, is among the subjects that have so far been confirmed by our research but whose final analysis had to be postponed. If not such long-term effects, but only the immediate results of certain measures to encourage saving are at stake, first of all the actual opposition must be tackled which we must expect to encounter. Such opposition can be avoided by suitable methods or be overcome, for example, by promising a sufficiently high reward for conformity. In order to test various possible ways of encouraging saving in business we applied (among other methods) the split-ballot technique, i.e. a number of different but identically constituted groups were chosen at random for interrogation with questions varied according to a set plan. On our behalf, the Frankfurt DIVO Institute questioned two groups, each consisting of 400 employees, while our Research Institute similarly interviewed two groups, each consisting of about 100 employees. In addition, we carried out a pilot study by questioning about 40 employers in various types and sizes of industry in order to supplement our hypothesis about the presumed efficacy of various possibilities by evaluating the chances of realizing them in actual business practice. Among other things we were able to confirm our assumption that the influence on behaviour of interest on capital depends not only on the rate of interest, but also on the amount of the interest-bearing capital and the particular kind of promised interest. Low rates of interest may possibly influence the choice of capital investment, but only above a variable threshold of property the height of which is determined by the strength of the profit motive; also by such information and habit phenomena as familiarity with accounts and banks; while a very much higher rate of interest – optimum 50 per cent – may even serve to awaken a wish to save which was at best only latently present beforehand. But here again the effectiveness of the influence of interest rates on by students as part of their practical work: it concerns the ‘infectious’ effect produced by the acquisition by neighbours of television sets. One of our colleagues took advantage of an invitation to the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan (Professor Katona), to make inquiries of his own, in part also to undertake development studies in British Honduras; and at present a comprehensive survey is being carried out under the auspices of the Association for Social Policy (Verein für Socialpolitik) on the influence of associations, chambers of industry and commerce and labour unions on the economic policy of the Federal Republic. These few examples may suffice to describe some of the actual projects of the Cologne research workers on socio-economic behaviour; but the research aspect must certainly not obscure the part played by teaching. The main lecture course – ‘Socio-economic Behaviour Research’ – in Cologne has been included in the general syllabus for students of economics and sociology. It was held for the first time during the winter term of 1955–56 with one lecture per week. Since the summer of 1958 these lectures have mostly been given twice a week, alternating in courses of two and three terms. A specialized course on fiscal psychology was given once a week in a seminar, and a practical class for junior students in socio-economic behaviour research was held twice a week in 1959 and 1961. To these were added in the summer term of 1960 and the winter terms of 1960/61 and 1961/62 twice weekly seminars for more advanced students, as well as a main seminar for senior students in the winter term of 1961/62. These courses regularly turn out a staff of student assistants who work in the Research Institute and in the Central Archive for Empirical Social Research. This in turn serves automatically to maintain contact with related disciplines, in particular with those of sociology and social psychology.66 For three terms our researchers cooperated with psychiatrists under Professor de Boor in a colloquium on ‘Psyche and Property’, in the course of which new patients of the University Psychiatric Clinic were examined with a view to discovering how far the so-called ‘property function’ is preserved in cases where consciousness of space and time is disturbed or completely lacking, i.e. how much the patients knew of Northrhine-Westphalia (Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) with representatives of law and technological sciences. In 1960 a colloquium was held in Zurich with anthropologists and cultural philosophers; finally, at the meeting in October 1961 of the ‘Munich Discussions’ there were talks with psychologists. Some of those meetings resulted in direct contacts and stimulated our socio-economic research.68 The problem of consistency and change in the economically relevant behaviour of human beings, if taken seriously, requires a research programme that would absorb the working energies of generations. Out of the broad panorama of entrepreneur decisions and purchaser attitudes, of saving and property formation, of the behaviour of taxpayers and citizens, of the different influences on legislation by economic groups and single firms, we have for the present concentrated our research interest on a few specialized areas, in particular on behaviour in dealing with money in private households and on the subject of fiscal psychology as outlined above. In the field of fiscal psychology our preliminary investigations mentioned above are to be followed by a special analysis of the behaviour of the better-off independent taxpayers; as a second step to broaden our knowledge of behaviour in dealing with money, further research is planned by means of an inquiry (already begun) into the behaviour of holders of securities. If conformity and constancy of human behaviour are to be ascribed to the working of institutions and to the effect of attitudes and habits, while any change is due to rational behaviour, socio-economic mobility and the changing conditions of environment – all of which elements are to a great extent accessible to empirical research – then the hope may be justified that, in the near future, such socio-economic behaviour research will be able to contribute to a better understanding and even to the forecasting of economically relevant human behaviour.69 Section 3.1 is translated from Günter Schmölders, Der Umgang mit Geld im privaten Haushalt [in Zusammenarbeit mit G. Scherhorn und G. Schmidtchen], Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1969 (Beiträge zur Verhaltensforschung Heft 10). Section 3.2 (‘A behavioral approach to monetary theory’) was first published in Erich Streissler (ed.), Roads to Freedom. Essays in Honour of Friedrich A. von Hayek, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1969, pp. 201–43. Section 3.3 (‘Level of aspiration and consumption standard: some general findings’), written jointly with Bernd Biervert, was first published in Burkhard Strümpel (ed.), Human Behavior in Economic Affairs: Essays in Honor of George Katona, Amsterdam, New York, etc. 1972, pp. 213–27. 3.1 How money is managed in private households 3.1.1 The head of the house and the housewife When it comes to money management, then I cannot approve of the approach taken by most men of standing, who give their spouse a certain sum which they must get by on in running the home. This creates a conflict of interest; the wife is placed in the category of servants, is tempted to act out of self-interest, seeks to make savings, finds that the husband is too fond of his food, pulls a face if he invites a good friend home to dine; the husband, if he is not noble-minded, always thinks he is not dining well enough for his hard-earned money, or, if on the other hand he exercises excessive sensitivity of thought, does not dare occasionally to request a further modest 49 Do not make any secret of your financial circumstances; but also set aside a small sum for her innocent pleasures, for her toilet, for modest acts of charity, and do not ask for any account to be made for these!1 How should we imagine the division of economic roles in the private household today, two centuries on from Knigge? In a fifth of all households, one could say that economic decisions are taken in the course of a monologue; these are the single-person households. However, 80 per cent of households are faced with a need to reconcile the wishes of several household members with one another. Of this group, we consider below only those households with a complete core of the family, i.e. that 70 per cent of homes where both partners remain together. The main earner in each of these households was asked whether he retained his earnings for himself or whether he passed them on either entirely or to a large degree to his wife, possibly deducting a sum of money for his own personal spending; the housewife was asked whether she receives a regular amount of money to run the home. It was shown that in most families (70 per cent), the housewife managed all or nearly all the household income. Of course, this does not mean that the man might not have any influence on how the money is used; we are not talking here about the needs and desires arising in the household. However, the responses show that in most cases the man leaves ‘budgeting’ on the available income more or less entirely to the woman. Even the fact that in a notably large number of instances (48 per cent) the man ostensibly does not even keep back any money for his own personal spending is not surprising; in general, this probably refers only to the ‘official’ arrangements. It is likely that this takes no account of, for example, the worker’s overtime pay, which he arranges to have paid out separately and in some circumstances conceals from his wife, and similarly it takes little account of the extent to which the man whose wife manages his whole income gradually diverts sums from the joint pot for his own personal use over the course of the income period; ‘personal spending’ here simply means that the man regularly retains a certain amount for himself when handing over his earnings, and that his wife knows how much this is. that the main earner retains some part of his income and therefore has a second account which he himself manages. Looking for the factors which might explain these differences, one first comes across the level of income; where there is little money, it probably makes little sense to divide up this small amount across two accounts. Rather, practically everything will be spent on day-to-day living and smaller purchases, made by the wife, while the man goes about the business of earning an income: why should he give himself the additional trouble of managing his own account? In fact, this hypothesis is immediately confirmed: in households where the head of the family earns less than DM 400 net income per month, in most instances (75 per cent) there is just one account, managed by the wife, whereas in households with a monthly income of DM 1000 or more, in most cases there are two accounts: here the main earner hands over his entire earnings to the wife in only 37 per cent of households, and in 63 per cent a part of his earnings is kept back. Admittedly, this connection in no way proves that the division of economic roles within the home is clearly, or even solely, dependent on the level of income. As Table 3.1 shows, it appears that one’s profession plays a role here. Across all income differences, it appears that independent retailers, freelance professionals and farmers are more likely to manage a part of their income themselves than are white- or blue-collar workers. This trend may be attributable to the irregular income streams experienced by these groups of professionals. However, it remains an open question as to why the percentage of men operating a second account increases with higher income across all professional groups, with the exception of bluecollar workers. This finding is, as will be shown, the key to explaining the phenomenon: blue-collar worker households differ from all others mainly because they are less often able to build up financial assets.2 Looking around further for the factors contributing to this noticeable finding, the conjecture is rapidly confirmed that in addition to the economic situation of the households, a particular type of economic behaviour on the part of the household is decisive in all instances: twoaccount households are consistently somewhat smaller than the singleaccount households, but on average they dispose of somewhat greater and freelance professionals Net monthly income of the main earner Below DM 500 (%) DM 500 and over (%) Below DM 600 (%) DM 600 and over (%) Below DM 600 (%) DM 600 and over (%) Below DM 500 (%) DM 500 and over (%) Type A: Main earner gives all or most of earnings to the wife 78 80 78 64 53 39 53 30 Type B: Wife only receives a part of earnings 18 17 18 30 44 46 28 30 4 3 4 6 3 15 19 40 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Type C: Wife receives money to manage on at very irregular intervals Total a Only households with a complete core of the family (two partners). financial means. In these households, the financial means are contributed by more than one person in almost every instance, and the financial integration of these households is consistently stronger, i.e. the incomeearners in two-account households give on average a bigger share of their earnings to the joint household account. For these reasons the freely disposable income in two-account households, after taking out the regular outgoings, is somewhat larger than in the households with just to the household which causes the head of the house to manage a part of his income himself, but rather the fact that some part of these earnings remains unspent (as a result of joint budgeting) and, over time, builds up into a significant, if still modest, cash reserve. In fact, the proportion of two-account households in all professional groups increases with the increasing amount of the cash sums which have been accumulated in the various accounts (Table 3.2). Since this finding applies across the board, i.e. including for blue-collar worker households, we are inclined to adduce it to explain the facts of the situation; but how should it be interpreted? Is it simply reflecting the fact that in general a specific account is used to build up financial assets, and that if there is any need to do so it is the head of the house and not the housewife who is entitled to draw on that account? An argument against that is the fact that even 63 per cent of the single-account households operate more than one Table 3.2 Financial assetsa and financial managementb Households with assets of: – Under DM 500 One account Two accounts – DM 500–DM 2000 One account Two accounts – Over DM 2000 One account Two accounts a b Blue-collar worker households (%) White-collar worker and civil servant households (%) Households of independent professionals and farmers (%) 84 16 100 80 20 100 54 46 100 79 21 100 83 17 100 47 53 100 56 44 100 52 48 100 28 72 100 Total of all amounts which the household has in its accounts. Only households with a complete core of the family.