Abstract

The paper introduces zero-sum environments to explain demotivating beliefs proposing a model and using data from Congo and the World Values Survey to support the model. It assumes demotivating beliefs to be universally incorrect, which is unsupported. In contexts with corruption or instability, hard work may not yield proportional outcomes, therefore demotivating beliefs may reflect true states of the world, thus negating the need for their model.

Summary Measures

We asked evaluators to give some overall assessments, in addition to ratings across a range of criteria. See the evaluation summary “metrics” for a more detailed breakdown of this. See these ratings in the context of all Unjournal ratings, with some analysis, in our data presentation here.1

Overall assessment: We asked evaluators to rank this paper “heuristically” as a percentile “relative to all serious research in the same area that you have encountered in the last three years.” We requested they “consider all aspects of quality, credibility, importance to knowledge production, and importance to practice.”

Journal rank tier, normative rating (0-5): “On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in? (See ranking tiers discussed here)” Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best”.

See here for the full evaluator guidelines, including further explanation of the requested ratings.

Written report

The paper explores the evolution of demotivating beliefs, which are deemed suboptimal from an evolutionary standpoint, by introducing the concept of zero-sum environments. These environments, where the success of one individual directly corresponds to the loss of another, can lead to higher economic payoffs in the short term by reducing competition among those holding similar beliefs. However, in the long run, such environments can result in lower innovation and reduced personal and social welfare. The authors have developed a neat evolutionary model that is well-written and utilizes data from the Democratic Republic of Congo and the World Values Survey to validate the model's predictions. However, the model is based on the very strong assumption that demotivating beliefs are wrong, and alternative interpretations are possible, which makes the argument and evidence problematic

First and foremost, while the introduction of zero-sum environments to explain the evolution of certain beliefs is an interesting angle, the assumption that demotivating beliefs are inherently incorrect seems too strong and unsupported by any evidence provided. In many contexts, these beliefs are actually accurate reflections of the environment. For instance, in environments characterized by high corruption or political instability, hard work may not yield proportional outcomes due to external factors. you may work hard for a promotion, only to see it go to a less skilled colleague who is a friend of the boss. Or you may work hard to grow your business, only for a war to destroy everything. The world can be unjust and demotivating. The authors do not seem to even consider this possibility, which I find puzzling. It’s important to recognize that in many parts of the world, and for many people, this is the rule rather than the exception. The authors cite Benabou and Tirole extensively, but these scholars focused on the opposite puzzle—how people can believe in a just world despite evidence to the contrary. If the authors want to assert that demotivating beliefs are incorrect, they need to substantiate this claim more thoroughly. Entertaining the possibility that these beliefs are sometimes accurate diminishes the need for an evolutionary explanation, as there would then be no "evolutionary puzzle" to solve—beliefs would simply evolve as correct representations of reality. I suggest the authors consider this alternative perspective more thoroughly.

Second, the measurement of witchcraft beliefs through a question asking whether individuals believe in gods or spirits other than the Christian God is problematic. This approach conflates non-Christian beliefs with witchcraft, which is both inaccurate and misleading. In addition, beliefs in the evil eyes are mentioned but not measured at all. The authors should provide more robust evidence to support the correlation between belief in non-Christian deities and witchcraft. Without this, the argument risks oversimplifying belief systems, while presenting the Christian God as the true one.

Third, the authors include under the same umbrella of demotivating beliefs, concepts as diverse as witchcraft, envy, and the notion that poverty results from factors other than laziness. Their connection is not clear and leads to controversial conclusions. Particularly, operationalizing demotivating beliefs through agreement with statements like "The poor are poor because they are lazy" is highly problematic. Such statements are matters of opinion, rather than objective truth, to say the least. But by equating disbelief in such statements with belief in witches (arguably not correct) the authors essentially suggest that people are poor because they are lazy as an objective truth. The paper’s structure, introducing witchcraft first and then the “poor are lazy” argument, seems to reinforce this problematic perspective.

Fourth, the authors' choice to dismiss as incorrect the belief that effort may not always translate into output while simultaneously accepting the idea that outcomes can be appropriated by others in a zero-sum environment is puzzling. What makes this distinction particularly perplexing is that both variables are measured by asking respondents to state their view of the(ir) world. In one instance, the authors accept the respondents' views as accurate, in the sense that the world is their subjective perception of it and therefore true (e.g., "Gaining happiness requires taking it away from others" or "If my ancestors' spirits are looking out for my brother, they are less likely to look out for me"). However, in the other case, they treat the belief that "Hard work doesn’t generally bring success—it’s more a matter of luck and connections" as inherently wrong. This selective acceptance raises concerns about the consistency of the model’s underlying assumptions. Clarifying this distinction would enhance the robustness of the model.

Fifth, while the authors suggest that the correlation between zero-sum environments and demotivating beliefs is coincidental, it might make more sense to explore a causal relationship between the two. For example, in a zero-sum environment, individuals might put in a lot of effort only to see their gains diminished by someone else's success. This environment could naturally lead to the formation of demotivating beliefs, which may, in this case, accurately reflect the effort-outcome relationship. The evidence presented by the authors, which shows a correlation between zero-sum environments and demotivating beliefs, is equally compatible with this causal interpretation. Exploring this possibility could provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between these variables.

Finally, regarding the empirical evidence, I have a few comments:

1. First and more importantly: Even if the data presents a correlation between zero sum and demotivating beliefs, this does not necessarily validate the model, as the correlation could align with alternative explanations that do not require demotivating beliefs to be incorrect.
   

2. The analysis from the Democratic Republic of Congo presents individual-level correlations between demotivating beliefs and zero-sum beliefs. However, Proposition 4 needs a country-level analysis. The authors should test whether the mean demotivating belief is higher in populations with greater zero-sum perceptions, which could then correlate with lower average effort and material welfare. In contrast with the Congo dataset (which, by the way, I do not see any particular advantage of using Congo versus any other country), the WVS dataset offers an opportunity to explore this at a cross-country level but authors choose to correlate zero sum beliefs and demotivating beliefs only at the individual level (with country fixed effects). Note that going a step further and employing a hierarchical analysis could allow testing a potential cross-level moderation effect, where zero-sumness moderates the relationship between demotivating beliefs and happiness.

3. The variables used in the Congo study are somewhat “sketchy”:
   

   • The first way of validation of the perceptions of zero-sum-ness reflecting true zero-sum-ness is slightly unconvincing. The survey uses related questions (like the "banana question") rather than relying on truly revealed preferences, which would be more reliable.
     

   • The measurement of witchcraft beliefs is problematic. The question equates belief in non-Christian gods and spirits with belief in witchcraft, and further equates non-Christian beliefs with the notion that effort does not lead to success. This is both inaccurate and misleading.
     

   • Regarding the envy question, it measures how much people believe in envy, not their beliefs about society (the authors acknowledge this).

4. Regarding the WVS survey variables, the data are robust, and the variables are clear. However, I encountered some difficulty replicating the exact coefficients, as the manuscript does not specify which waves were used. If this information is not already provided, it would be helpful if the authors could include it. That said, the results are consistent across different waves and control variables.

The other part of the evidence, namely the correlation between zero-sum environments, demotivating beliefs, and both subjective and objective welfare, can be better explained by assuming that these beliefs reflect the true state of the environment. The hump-shaped relationship between zero-sum environments and demotivating beliefs can also hold if we assume that beliefs are more or less normally distributed around the true state of the demotivating environment. Finally, the association between demotivating beliefs and growth via innovation is better explained by assuming once again that these beliefs mirror a demotivating environment.

Evaluator details

1. How long have you been in this field?

   • 10 years.

2. How many proposals and papers have you evaluated?

   • 15