"Economic Conditions and Religiosity"

Andrew Gelman discusses a paper that finds a link between religiosity and the state of the economy:

Praying for a Recession: The Business Cycle and Protestant Religiosity in the United States In Economics, by Andrew Gelman: In the course of commenting on our article on religion, income, and voting, David Beckworth links to this interesting paper on religiosity and the business cycle:

Mainline Protestant denominations--which tend to have higher income earners--do well in terms of growth during economic booms while evangelical Protestants denominations--which tend to have lower income earners--actually struggle. (During economic downturns the outcomes are reversed--evangelicals Protestant denominations thrive.) In general, I [Beckworth] find mainline Protestants to have a strong procyclical component to their religiosity while evangelicals have a strong countercyclical component. These findings can be explained by again appealing to the labor-leisure choice explained by economic theory.

David Beckworth follows up:

Economic Conditions and Religiosity, by David Beckworth: Andrew Gelman graciously takes note of my research on the business cycle and religiosity over at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. One of his blog readers emailed me and requested I explain more thoroughly how macroeconomic shocks could affect religiosity. Below is an excerpt from a forthcoming article where I attempt to explain the relationship in less technical terms :

The first thing economic theory says is that the cost of being religious can change over the business cycle. During an economic boom individuals may find increased opportunities for higher earnings. The potential for higher earnings, in turn, make time-intensive religious activities like church attendance costly for these individuals. Consider, for example, a Southern Baptist from a low-income family being offered the opportunity of getting overtime pay to work at a retail store on Sunday morning. For this Southern Baptist, going to church suddenly becomes a lot more costly and thus, increases the likelihood of him opting for work instead of church. On the other hand, during an economic downturn, time-intensive religious activities become less costly as opportunities for earnings decline. Here, the overtime opportunity for the Southern Baptist disappears and church attendance suddenly becomes more affordable. This idea that higher earnings lead individuals to substitute out of leisure activities, like going to church, into more work and vice versa is called the substitution effect. It implies there should be a countercyclical component to religiosity.

There are, however, two countervailing forces against the substitution effect. The first one is called the income effect and says that the higher earnings also mean individuals can work fewer hours than before and still get the same pay. They, therefore, have more time for leisure activities, like church attendance, without a loss of income. Consider, for example, an Episcopalian whose consulting business was able to increase its fees because of the increased demand for its services during an economic boom. The Episcopalian can now afford to take on fewer consulting projects, without a loss of income, and enjoy more time at church. During an economic downturn, however, the consulting fees would drop. The Episcopalian would now have to work more hours to maintain his income, leaving less time for church. The second countervailing force is something called the wealth effect. The wealth effect says that as individuals’ wealth increases from valuations gains in their homes, stocks, and other assets they have less need to save and thus less need to work. In turn, there should be more time for church attendance and vice versa. Imagine now that the Episcopalian had a large amount of funds in the stock market during a stock market boom. His wealth would increase dramatically and make leisure activities like church attendance more affordable. Both of these effects imply there could be a procyclical component to religious activities.

Economic theory is generally silent on which of these effects dominates the decision to work. Research has shown, however, that evangelicals Protestants typically fall into a lower socioeconomic grouping than mainline Protestants (Pyle, 2006). This suggests that the substitution effect should be more important for evangelical Protestants. In other words, since evangelical Protestants are starting from a lower income level, like the Southern Baptist above, they should be eager to take advantage of higher earning opportunities, whereas mainline Protestants, like the Episcopal above, who already have relatively high income levels may see less need to do so. Moreover, mainline Protestants have more wealth and should therefore be more sensitive to the wealth effect compared to their poorer evangelical Protestant brethren. A priori, then, the changing cost of being religious perspective points to evangelical Protestants being more countercyclical in their religiosity than mainline Protestants.

The second thing economic theory had to say about this issue is that individuals generally desire to have a steady stream of housing, clothes, food, and other consumption over the business cycle. During a recession individuals may become unemployed or find their earnings fall. To prevent these developments from being disruptive, individuals may turn to churches for consumption needs such as shelter and groceries. Individuals may also turn to churches for less tangible consumption needs such as a sense of certainty and divine guidance in a job search. Such a response implies there should be a countercyclical component to religiosity. Note, however, that the wealthier mainline Protestants are in far less need of churches to provide consumption for them. In addition, mainline Protestant denominations often place less emphasis on absolute truths than evangelical ones and, as a result, are not able to create the same sense of certainty or appeal to an all powerful, job-providing God. Individuals, therefore, may choose to join an evangelical Protestant denomination rather a mainline one during a recession.[1] Consequently, the consumption smoothing ability of churches also points to a stronger countercyclical component for evangelical Protestants.

[1] Conversely, these same individuals may find a mainline Protestant denomination more appealing than an evangelical one during an economic upturn when the need for certainty and employment are less pressing concerns.

Comments

[Farrar]

At first I thought this was a huge hoax, but now I see that Beckworth is from Texas, so maybe we should take it seriously.

[Farrar]

On 2nd thot maybe he's on to something. His comment that lower income groups don't have time for political activism makes some sense. See
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2008/04/opiate-of-elite-or-simply-income-effect.html

Unless they're unemployed, of course

[2slugbaits]

All of this sort of assumes that religiousity is a normal good in the same way that leisure is assumed to be a normal good in the labor/leisure trade-off. I guess that's something that I don't understand. Churchgoing strikes me as the ephemeral giffen good. As the price of going to church increases (e.g., lost opportuntity costs of working more, sleeping in, watching Sunday morning talkingheads), for some reason these costs seem to inspire evangelicals to want to go to church even more. Maybe it's because they're so poor after tithing that they find themselves dependent on the church community for welfare support. If you don't believe me, take a drive through northern Alabama. Shantytown houses and trailers alongside some huge megachurch on every street corner.

[Patricia Shannon]

They have community, acceptance, the feeling of being part of something greater than themselves, part of something greater than the hard life they live, the belief of a better life after they die, the belief that they are loved by God

[anne]

What the heck; there is something highly offensive here but I have to decdie whether such profane idiocy is worth being offended by. What is the point though of trying to be offensive as seems to be the case here? What is the point of trying to mock a person of faith? Disgraceful.

[anne]

Possibly I should ask permission of Beckworth or Gelman before going to Mass? When the title "Opiate of the People" was used, I just thought there was a misunderstanding of a sensitive passage by Karl Marx. I never thought the intent was to mock. Trying understanding, beyond the supposed theoretical ignorance.

[2slugbaits]

anne,

If someone gave you enough money such that you could increase your income tenfold and you never had to work again, would you take advantage of the extra leisure time by going to church more often?

[anne]

WEB Du Bois understood more about church going a century ago than these mockers could ever understand, and that was absent the tools but with a willingness to learn.

[anne]

"If someone gave you enough money such that you could increase your income tenfold and you never had to work again, would you take advantage of the extra leisure time by going to church more often?"

The question of a mocking boor, but I am feeling pleasant.

[Andrew]

I have always assumed that there is a strong negative correlation between religiousity and income, but not at all for the reasons put forth in this article.
In a nutshell, it seems to me that the greater the dissonance between one's everyday experiences and one's religious beliefs, the more passionately a person becomes involved with their religion.

E.O. Wilson once said that art was created to help us make sense of the confusion created by consciousness. I would say that religion is similar to art in this regard. When everyday life is a hardship, and those around you are suffering while those who flourish tell them to eat cake, there is a profound disconnect between their everyday perception of the world and 'love thy neighbor'. So people hold religious belief up as a talisman to ward off the confusion, and the greater the confusion the more ardent the belief.

Unfortunately for us here in the US, the Republicans have hijacked the low income, high religiousity demographic with empty rhetoric while they rob the country blind. Evangelical businessmen like Pat Robertson have been instrumental in this deception. And as income disparity becomes worse, evangelism increases, and the neo-cons expand their base. Win-win.

That's my theory, anyhoo.

[evagrius]

Obviously, those doing the study have never read, let alone heard of, Joseph Pieper and his little work, Leisure, the Basis of Culture.

Here's two reviews from Amazon;

A Most Important Book for Our Time, January 28, 2004
By Charles Comer (Baltimore, Maryland) - See all my reviews

I cannot say enough about this wonderful and important book. It's message is simple: Western culture has taken upon itself a disposition toward life--and an outlook upon the world--of total work; of work-for-work's sake; or, if you prefer, we have internalized the Weberian protestant work ethic to a debilitating degree. In so doing, so Pieper suggests, we threaten to loose our very souls, both culturally and personally. We must make time for contemplation and reflection, and to, more generally, bask in the truth, beauty and goodness that is available to us in every facet of existence.

While Pieper is a Catholic philosopher in the Thomistic tradition, his arguments are solid and broad enough for those who may be non-religious, or of different faiths. Nevertheless, Christians will, I am sure, enjoy Pieper's articulate use of Christian inspired ideas and use of sources.

Those familiar with Heidegger will also appreciate Pieper's line of argumentation and the resemblances it has to the Heideggarian notions of Gelasenheit, Gestel, and Aletheia.

The second half of the book is a fantastic apology for, and description of, philosophy and the contemplative life.

In short, I cannot recommend this book enough for everyone. It's message is so needed now more than ever, as we have as a society become slaves of productivity. When I teach Introduction to Philosophy I will be sure to use this book!

One last note in brief: if anything bad can be said, it would have to be in regard to the multiple typos throughout the text. I do hope that St. Augustine Press makes an effort to rectify this problem, as it seems an injustice to such an important book. --And I certainly do not agree with one of the reviewers who suggested the translation renders the text obtuse; to the contrary I found it remarkably clear and cogent.

ADDENDUM as of 11/2004: Recently the publisher contacted me, stating that the various typos have been corrected. I looked through a recent copy and found this to be the case. St. Augustine Press should be commended for this care and consideration of one of their best books!

This is not like Travel & Leisure, July 13, 2004
By Tony Theil (Philadelphia, PA United States) - See all my reviews

This is the 50th anniversary edition of Josef Pieper's philosophical classic which was originally published in German in 1948. Pieper defines leisure not as we understand it in the 21st century, but within the philosophical-theological context of divine play and its impact on the intellect as it was universally accepted from the pre-Christian Greek philosophers and later developed by Aquinas. The importance of leisure was unchallenged until Kant usurped it in 1796 with a philosophy of reason and work; "...the law of reason is supreme, whereby property is possessed through labor." Kant's philosophy gained acceptance and became well suited to the industrial revolution which soon followed.
Pieper takes the command "Be still (at leisure) and know that I am God" - Psalm 45 and distills it from there. Leisure is non-active; it is receptive and consists of contemplation or celebration. Like grace, intuitive and creative thoughts are communicated while at leisure. I find Pieper's premise true because my most inspiring thoughts come while taking a shower or while on a walk through the woods. Einstein would also agree, because he was riding his bike when the theory of relativity crystalized in his mind.

Also in this 160 pge book are Pieper's 1947 lectures collectively entitled The Philosphical Act. He begins by quoting Thomas Aquinas, "The reason why the philosopher can be compared to the poet is that both are concerned with wonder." It flows from there.

Pieper's philosophy is reflected today in the Slow (Food) Movement. It's also understandable how Pieper made a significant impact on E.F. Schumacher and his Buddhist economics as contained in Small is Beautiful.

[anne]

Andrew:

"E.O. Wilson once said that art was created to help us make sense of the confusion created by consciousness."

Wonderful; do you happen to know where?

[Andrew]

Anne,

It is from Consilience. I grabbed my copy to look up the exact quote, which is in the chapter on The Arts and Their Interpretation:

The dominating influence which spawned the arts was the need to impose order on the confusion caused by intelligence.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wilson-consilience.html

April 26, 1998

Consilience
Unity of Knowledge
By EDWARD O. WILSON

The Ionian Enchantment

I remember very well the time I was captured by the dream of unified learning. It was in the early fall of 1947, when at eighteen I came up from Mobile to Tuscaloosa to enter my sophomore year at the University of Alabama. A beginning biologist, fired by adolescent enthusiasm but short on theory and vision, I had schooled myself in natural history with field guides carried in a satchel during solitary excursions into the woodlands and along the freshwater streams of my native state. I saw science, by which I meant (and in my heart I still mean) the study of ants, frogs, and snakes, as a wonderful way to stay outdoors.

My intellectual world was framed by Linnaeus, the eighteenth-century Swedish naturalist who invented modern biological classification. The Linnaean system is deceptively easy. You start by separating specimens of plants and animals into species. Then you sort species resembling one another into groups, the genera. Examples of such groups are all the crows and all the oaks. Next you label each species with a two-part Latinized name, such as Corvus ossifragus for the fish crow, where Corvus stands for the genus--all the species of crows--and ossifragus for the fish crow in particular. Then on to higher classification, where similar genera are grouped into families, families into orders, and so on up to phyla and finally, at the very summit, the six kingdoms--plants, animals, fungi, protists, monerans, and archaea. It is like the army: men (plus women, nowadays) into squads, squads into platoons, platoons into companies, and in the final aggregate, the armed services headed by the joint chiefs of staff. It is, in other words, a conceptual world made for the mind of an eighteen-year-old.

I had reached the level of the Carolus Linnaeus of 1735 or, more accurately (since at that time I knew little of the Swedish master), the Roger Tory Peterson of 1934, when the great naturalist published the first edition of A Field Guide to the Birds. My Linnaean period was nonetheless a good start for a scientific career. The first step to wisdom, as the Chinese say, is getting things by their right names.

Then I discovered evolution. Suddenly--that is not too strong a word--I saw the world in a wholly new way. This epiphany I owed to my mentor Ralph Chermock, an intense, chain-smoking young assistant professor newly arrived in the provinces with a Ph.D. in entomology from Cornell University. After listening to me natter for a while about my lofty goal of classifying all the ants of Alabama, he handed me a copy of Ernst Mayr's 1942 Systematics and the Origin of Species. Read it, he said, if you want to become a real biologist.

The thin volume in the plain blue cover was one of the New Synthesis works, uniting the nineteenth-century Darwinian theory of evolution and modern genetics. By giving a theoretical structure to natural history, it vastly expanded the Linnaean enterprise. A tumbler fell somewhere in my mind, and a door opened to a new world. I was enthralled, couldn't stop thinking about the implications evolution has for classification and for the rest of biology. And for philosophy. And for just about everything. Static pattern slid into fluid process. My thoughts, embryonically those of a modern biologist, traveled along a chain of causal events, from mutations that alter genes to evolution that multiplies species, to species that assemble into faunas and floras. Scale expanded, and turned continuous. By inwardly manipulating time and space, I found I could climb the steps in biological organization from microscopic particles in cells to the forests that clothe mountain slopes. A new enthusiasm surged through me. The animals and plants I loved so dearly reentered the stage as lead players in a grand drama. Natural history was validated as a real science.

I had experienced the Ionian Enchantment....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/26/reviews/980426.26kelvest.html

April 26, 1998

The New Enlightenment
By DANIEL J. KEVLES

CONSILIENCE
The Unity of Knowledge.
By Edward O. Wilson.

Consilience, an arcane word that achieved some currency in the circles of mid-19th-century science, means at its roots ''jumping together,'' or, more smoothly, concurrence of results from different fields of knowledge. Edward O. Wilson uses it both to summarize recent trends in the natural sciences and to present an intellectual program that entails giant leaps of disciplinary integration. A professor emeritus of biology at Harvard, Wilson is one of the world's leading authorities on ant societies, evolution and sociobiology. He holds that consilience has been attained across a broad range of the natural sciences -- from physics and chemistry to geology, molecular biology and biochemistry -- but that the social sciences and the humanities have by and large remained aloof from the integration movement. It was the aim of the Enlightenment to form a grand union of knowledge built upon a set of universal laws, he observes. He contends that the humanities and social sciences need to join with the natural sciences, that the time has come to revive the Enlightenment vision.

Wilson's book sweeps across vast areas of learning in lucid, unpretentious, often eloquent prose. He begins with sketches of the Enlightenment vision and the Romantic turn against it, then, as though taking his cues from the more ambitious 18th-century philosophes, marches through sociobiology, human nature, genes and culture, brain science, social science, ethics and religion, the arts and some aspects of the humanities, including post-modernism. Wilson is the author of several previous books on some of these matters, two of which won Pulitzer Prizes. In ''Consilience,'' he distills and integrates his ideas to argue that a unity of knowledge is possible -- and that it is sorely needed for more than purely intellectual reasons.

Indeed, Wilson's call for consilience not only articulates a scientific vision, it affirms a personal credo and preaches a biopolitical cause. Wilson tells us that he was raised a Southern Baptist and was ''more pious than the average teen-ager,'' reading the Bible ''cover to cover, twice.'' By then he was well into the study of nature, traipsing through the fields and swamps of his native Alabama. In college, reading about evolution freed him ''from the confinement of fundamentalist religion''; but, retaining a religious hunger, he embraced science -- a ''religion liberated and writ large'' that elevates ''a search for objective reality over revelation'' and makes the unification of knowledge its ''central tenet.'' A humane, well-intentioned scientist, Wilson maintains that without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences into the social sciences and the humanities, most of the world's major problems ''cannot be solved.'' Although he mentions vexing difficulties like ethnic conflict, overpopulation and endemic poverty, the issues that here, as elsewhere, most engage his attention and, seemingly, his passion are those connected with the degradation of the natural environment.

Wilson argues that in recent decades rapidly ripening research into genes, behavior and the brain has been bringing biology ever closer to the domains occupied by the social sciences and parts of the humanities, especially ethics and the interpretation of art. The core of his claim is this: Thought, ethics, creativity, culture -- indeed, mind in general -- are all materially grounded in the physicochemical activities of the brain and its interactions with the body. The modern brain sciences, particularly neurobiology and brain imaging, have revealed that the functions of mind are describable in terms of neurotransmitters, hormone surges, neural networks and the hundred billion intricately connected nerve cells that make up our three pounds of custardlike gray matter. To critics who charge that he is a rank reductionist, Wilson unashamedly responds, ''guilty, guilty, guilty.'' ...

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

I do not see any correlation at all... Other than evangelical = Wal Mart and Episcopalian = CSFB.

That's easy enough, levels of superstion are inverse to levels of education. I'm sure that if someone wanted to waste enough time, they could find empirical patterns. I would not waste my time researching the obvious.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[anne]

Thank you, Andrew.

"The Arts and Their Interpretation

"The dominating influence which spawned the arts was the need to impose order on the confusion caused by intelligence."

[Mario]

Marx still applies here. When things get rough the poor(er) take increased refuge in religion. God is punishing us for our sins, etc.

[reason]

As someone whose Catholic education resulted in a livelong aversion to religion, I can't understand in the least what motivates believers. They are just mysterious.

[Patricia Shannon]

reason, I am an atheist now, but I can understand the appeal of religion, although I don't understand conservatives, despite being raised in a conservative family.

[Steve Salmony]

Time for change is at hand, but we are dawdling.

Why not say “Yes” to Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power and “No” to fossil fuels! But when? And who will lead us?

This perspective is deeply appreciated; but it is evidently not shared by most of the leaders in my not-so-great generation of elders. Our behavior speaks louder than any words. Our behavior indicates with remarkable clarity that Earth and its environs are not nearly as important as the growth of, and profits derived from, the artificially designed, manmade construction called the global economy.

Your perspective appears to suggest that “It’s the ECOLOGY, STUPID!”; whereas the great majority of our leaders would say that “It’s the ECONOMY, STUPID!” Too many leaders think only of economic growth and profits. Earth’s ecology is an afterthought.

Perhaps time is short to make the necessary changes; and, indeed, time is not on our side.

The singer, Madonna, reports to all of us in her latest song that we have just “four minutes to save the world.”

We need to go far fast in a new direction. But, where do we find the leaders to take us in the direction we need to go? Most of our leaders appear to be engaged in idolatry of the global political economy, come what may for our children, biodiversity, a limited resource base, frangible ecosystem services and the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by coming generations.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

[robertdfeinman]

Rational discussions of religion seem hard to come by in the US right now. There seem to be three broad schools of thought:

1. Non-religious (this includes agnostics, atheists and others who just don't think about theology, but also don't participate.)

2. Moderates. This group includes those who find some benefit to religion, but don't necessarily believe in all the dogma. This includes many Catholics who chose which teachings of the Church to follow, as well as many in the mainline Protestant denominations and the majority of Jews.

3. Devout. This includes all those who take the precepts of their religion literally. Currently the most devout in the US seem to be evangelicals, devout Catholics, Jews and Muslims. The last three groups are smaller than the first.

The reason there is any discussion these days is that those in the third group have gained (or regained) too much influence in the political sphere for the likes of those in the first two groups. This is not only true in the US, but in much of the Islamic world and Israel as well. Political decisions backed by religious dogma is incompatible with democracy.

All religions depend upon a core set of beliefs which can only be interpreted by a small group of special individuals and whose word can't be questioned. When these individuals move beyond theology and into politics the results usually aren't pretty.

Those in the moderate group dislike being lumped together with the most devout, while those in the non-religious group tend to see all degrees of religiosity as being a problem.

This is where the lack of nuance comes in. If the moderates take offense at someone like Christopher Hitchens then they need to make a better case for their viewpoint. Hitchins and others have had to take an absolutist position in order to be heard at all. A bit of polemical overreach is sometimes necessary to spark a new round of intellectual investigation.

There is nothing new going on here, I offer two examples from the 19th Century:

The Fixation of Belief, by Charles Peirce - 1877

What is Religion, by Robert Ingersoll - 1899

There is also a nice TV series hosted by Jonathan Miller which was broadcast by the BBC a couple of years ago (and on some PBS stations this year) about the history of atheism. A hunt online can find copies.

The principle point made by Miller is that, until recently, espousing atheism was considered blasphemy and punishable by death. This is still true in certain parts of the Islamic world. As a result atheism has had at most two centuries to make its case compared to millennia for organized religion. Despite this head start, much of western Europe is now effectively non-religious. That those who make a living off religion should oppose this trend in the US can be framed in terms than an economist would understand.

The challenge for the moderates is to demonstrate how they can maintain the structure that they feel provides positive benefits (community, charity, moral instruction, etc.) while resisting the forces that want to make dogma into public policy. Notice that there is no movement trying to control the belief system or activities of Trekkies or Medieval reenactors. Members of these groups feel that they provide community, and other social benefits, but they restrict their activities to their own members.

Religious moderates need to do the same and then they will see attacks by the non-religious become more nuanced as well.

[hari]

My Granny taught me as a kid never to get into a religious debate because it's sacreligious -ie. if you're prepared to challenge someone's belief system then you must be ready for crucifixon or whatnot....

Relevance of economic thinking - in social sciences - to religious or even moral principles does not recognize the seperation of state and religion. Countries in which they are *socially* mixed and filter to the top of heirarchy of leadership we find incidence of more and more class warfare and racism to boot.

Follow my Granny's admonition and leave your relgion behind your door when you leave home for work. You'll be surprised how lucky you are - indeed!

[Real Person from the Real World]

Hari is right, talking religious beliefs to someone of a different denomination almost always leads to animosities. There are enough nuances slights to some religious beliefs as it is. But I also agree with ANDREW:
"E.O. Wilson once said that art was created to help us make sense of the confusion created by consciousness. I would say that religion is similar to art in this regard. When everyday life is a hardship, and those around you are suffering while those who flourish tell them to eat cake, there is a profound disconnect between their everyday perception of the world and 'love thy neighbor'. So people hold religious belief up as a talisman to ward off the confusion, and the greater the confusion the more ardent the belief."