The Economics of Generosityand MethodologicalIndividualismDouglas R. White

SFI WORKING PAPER: 2016-02-002

SFIWorkingPaperscontainaccountsofscienti5icworkoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheSantaFeInstitute.Weacceptpapersintendedforpublicationinpeer-reviewedjournalsorproceedingsvolumes,butnotpapersthathavealreadyappearedinprint.Exceptforpapersbyourexternalfaculty,papersmustbebasedonworkdoneatSFI,inspiredbyaninvitedvisittoorcollaborationatSFI,orfundedbyanSFIgrant.

©NOTICE:Thisworkingpaperisincludedbypermissionofthecontributingauthor(s)asameanstoensuretimelydistributionofthescholarlyandtechnicalworkonanon-commercialbasis.Copyrightandallrightsthereinaremaintainedbytheauthor(s).Itisunderstoodthatallpersonscopyingthisinformationwilladheretothetermsandconstraintsinvokedbyeachauthor'scopyright.Theseworksmayberepostedonlywiththeexplicitpermissionofthecopyrightholder.

www.santafe.edu

SANTA FE INSTITUTE

1

TheEconomicsofGenerosityandMethodologicalIndividualismDouglasR.White,U.C.Irvine

Abstract

Development economists have superseded any necessity of using Arrow’smethodological individualism (MI) in focusing on cross-cultural, cross-national, ordevelopmentaleconomics.Thisstudyexamineswhetheranalysisofcross-culturaleconomicmodelsmight includeaconceptofeconomicgenerosityasa typeofeconomicstructurationthat deviates from MI principles and is closer to what economists study in developingeconomies. A cross-cultural variable formeasuring economic generosity is developed herefrom the Murdock and White (1969: SCCS) dataset, rediscovered through online internetsearchesofethnographicsourcesaconsistent“economicgenerosityvariable” thatcontrastswithArrow’sMIasapossiblevariableforcomparativemodelingofeconomies.1.Introduction

AcenturyagoBritishanthropologistsstartedatradition“NotesandQueries”torecordtheir efforts in comparative ethnographic research. Due to the complexities of humanevolution,which forcedanumberofdivergencesbetweenanthropologyandothersciences,theinitialpaceofcomparativeresearchinitiatedinthe1880’scametobeseenasimpossiblein termsofdevelopinganthropological theory.Closerrelationswithothersciencesarenowfeasible.

Inparticular,someconvergencebetweenthefieldsofanthropologyandeconomicsre-emerged after decades during which the dictates of methodological individualism, asstrikinglydefinedbyKennethArrow,hadseriouslylimitedeffectivescholarshipinstudiesofeconomicandsocialdevelopmentindevelopingcountries.Arrowhadinsistedthat:

Itisatouchstoneofacceptedeconomicsthatallexplanationsmustrunintermsoftheactionsand reactions of individuals. Our behavior in judging economic research, in peer reviews ofpapersandresearch,and inpromotions, includes thecriterion that inprinciple thebehaviorwe explain and the policies we propose are explicable in terms of individuals, not of othersocialcategories.KennethJ.Arrow.1994.Methodologicalindividualismandsocialknowledge.AmericanEconomicReview84(2):1-9.

Anewgenerationofdevelopmenteconomists representedbySpolaoriandWacziarg

(2013) and (Spolaori 2016) reopened the possibility of fruitful cross-disciplinary study ofsocial interaction, enabling economists and anthropologists to investigate those socialstructures wherein resources are jointly held and wherein social goals are the product ofinterestsheldbygroups,ratherthanexclusivelybypairsofindividuals.

New software (Eff and Dow 2009 Eff 2016) facilitates the testing of economic andother theories in the evolutionary context of diffusion, historical language families andecology. Together, the new software is essential to efforts to test theories of humanevolutionary history and development, function and causality in human organization.Previously all such attempts were thwarted by the evident failures of Edward B. Tylor’s(1889)attempttostudyinstitutionalprocessandimputedevolutionaryprocesseswithcodeddata for hundreds of ethnographies. As attested by polymath scientist Sir Francis Galton(1889),theproblemrecognizedtodayisthatofautocorrelationor“Galton’sProblem.”LargeworldsamplesconstructedbyMurdock(the1167societyEthnographicAtlas),andtheSCCS

2

maximum diversity subsample ofMurdock andWhite (1969) all failed to solve the Galtonproblem.SodidBinford’s(2001)thirtyyearsofworkonanewhunter-gatherersample,withtwicethenumberofsocietiesthantheSCCS. Itprovidedarchaeologistswithanewstrategyfor associating standard archaeological artifacts with the cultural contexts that may haveproduced them. Gamble (2013), in contrast, provided a socially atomistic networksmethodology for archaeology that eschewed cultural artifacts. Binford moves to a moreexciting and challenging use of available data, still not a solution to autocorrelation, butbeyondtheoversimplificationsassociatedwithmethodologicalindividualism:

“Wemustseektounderstandtherelationshipsbetweenthedynamicsofalivingsysteminthepastandthematerialby-productsthatcontributetotheformationofthearchaeologicalrecordremaining today. In stillmore importantwayswe seek to understand how cultural systemsdifferandwhatconditionssuchdifferencesasa firststeptowardmeaningfulexplanationforpatternsthatmaybechronologicallypreservedforus inthearchaeologicalrecord.“(Binford1980:5).

It would seem today that the massive datasets available for cross-cultural studies,

including SCCS, those of Jorgensen (1980), and others, still do not solve the problems ofautocorrelation in the deeply integrated interrelations among human cultures. Arrow’s(1994)edictprovidesapanaceaforaneconomicsthatignoresthatcultureisinvolved.

2.TheProblemsofSocioculturalDatabases

Autocorrelationfromdatabaseswithoverlyintermeshedvariablesposesaproblemfora specieswith culture, speech and complex evolutionary histories. EvolutionistMark Pagel(2011) studies evolutionary variables that are not individualistic: cultural variablescomprised of socially shared concepts, such as the emergence or ecological context ofgenerosityasanevolutionaryelementofculture.Roberts(2012)citesPagel forbehavior inwhich:

We seek out the best individuals with whom to form alliances and try to establish soundreputations so thebestwill seekusout.Thuswegiveup seats in trains, give to charityandevenriskourlivestosaveanimals–toenhanceourreputationssootherswillcooperatewithus.

Anotherproblemisthatofhumancodingdecisionsthatderivefrominterpretationof

ethnographiesandwhatthejudgmentsofcodersmeanincross-culturalresearch,wherethecoder’snotesandcommentsusuallydonotaccompanythecodes.Aproblemexaminedhereishowcanaresearcherbesurethataninterpretationofacodedcategoryiscorrect?Arethereways to return to validate these codes from the primary ethnographic texts? Given thethousandsofcodedvariablesinSCCS,cantheoriginalethnographictextsmakethebestsenseofthem?Giventhatmanyofthecodedvariables inthesedatasetsaregrowingold,aretheyworthourwhile tostudygiven that therearenowmethods tomakevalid inferencesaboutevolutionary history and development, function and causality in human organization? Andinferencesabouteconomics?

Newevolutionarymethodsofanalysis,andhighlyfundedprojectsofhistoricalanalysis(e.g., “SESHAT”) are now providing much more careful and specific databases for cross-linking, analyzing, and explicating alternative textual and quantitative materials in highlycomplexresearchandpermanentlyaccessiblearchives.Similarly,electronicaccesstoHRAFis

3

extendingalltheoriginaltextsrelatingtothemajorcross-culturaldatabases(e.g.SCCS)alongwithalltheprimarytextualsourcesandcodes,andalsoextendingthosecodes.

Thenextheadingdealswithnewprocedures torecovercodes thatweredone in theearly 1970s (SCCS) or later that have been supplemented by scores of subsequent codedvariablescontributedbydifferentauthorsandcodingprojectsnowmountingintothousandsbut still not explicated by codebooks alonewithout detailed comments and page numbersfrom the ethnographic sources. My own codings of polygyny variables (White 1988) arenearly theonly codes thathavedoneso, carriedoutbecauseMurdock (1967)had failed toadequately distinguish different types of polygyny and their different types of statisticaldistributions.3.GenerosityasaCulturalVariableandElementofEconomics

Arrow’s concept of methodological individualism in accepted economics – whereinexplanationsmust run in termsof theactionsandreactionsof individualsandnotofothersocial categories – is contrastedherewithoneofmanyexamplesof economies thatdonotoperate on this basis. In these terms, examples ofMI cannot accept the study of economicdevelopment,asoutlinedabove.ThequestionisnotthevalidityofArrow’semploymentoftheconceptofMIbutitslimitedapplication.Inthecross-culturalliteraturegenerosityisamongthecodedvariablesintheSCCSdataset(v334)butitsdefinitionwasnotsufficientlyprecisetodistinguish what specific topics the coders encountered for “the presence or absence ofgenerosity”indifferentethnographiccontextsandsocieties.

Barry,Josephson,LauerandMarshall(1976:217)definedtheirvariableforGenerosityas “a specific rather than a general attitude, but a wide range of actions may exemplifygenerosity.Theseincludegivingandsharingoffood,possessions,time,orservicestootherofthe community or outsiders, e.g., sharing the product of a hunt among the communitymemberswhetherornottheywereactiveinitsattainment,orsharingandgivingoftoys.”

Logically, generosity is attributed to the extraordinary provision of time and otherresourcestoothersathousehold,lineage,tribal,stateorotherlevelsofaggregation.Inorderfor theprovisionordistributionof a resource tobeextraordinary, theremustbea sociallydefinedminimalstandardofadequacy,belowwhichbehaviorisdeemedtobeinadequateandabovewhichitmaybeconsideredtobegenerous.Whilethestandardofadequacyisseldomwelldefined,itneverthelessconstitutesattheconceptuallevelarightfulclaimwhichgovernstheallocationofriskandrewardwithinparticularsocialgroups(WhiteandBell2015).

Considerthedescriptionofchiefly“generosity”amongtheThonga:[TheKing]receivedmostofthecattleandwomencapturedinwarandfinesforcertainoffences;hewaseasily the richest man in the nation. In return for this, he was expected to feed and help his peoplegenerously.Hehadtocareforhisregimentsandgivethemtheirshields;infaminehewasexpectedtohelpallhispeopleandalsoatalltimesthoseindifficulties.Thusifthekingruledaccordingtotradition,hewas generous tohis subjects, usinghiswealth for them; he gave them justice; heprotected theirinterests;andthroughhimtheyhopedtosatisfytheirambitionsonbattlefieldandinforum.(emphasisadded)Intheparagraphaboveaparticularchiefisexpectedtobegenerous,meaningthatin

previousdistributionshehasprovidedmorethanmighthavebeenexpectedfromotherchiefswhodefinethe“standard”.Generositywillbesociallyrecognizedbydistributionsabovethisstandard, but distributions below it can be said to bemiserly, even constituting a form oftheft. Consequently, the standard is a rightful claim(Bell 1995, 2006), being the legitimate

4

property of thebeneficiaries evenprior to its distribution.However, under the yokeofMI,rightfulclaims,whicharesofoundationaltosocialactioninanysocietyandateverylevelofaggregation, arenot allowed to be elements of formalmodels. Indeed,Arrow suggests thateconomistsshouldbepunished forrecognizingethnographicsocialrelationsaselements ineconomicbehavior.

Every society possesses some form of domestic group inwhich basic resources areallocatedtochildrenandothersinrelationtorightfulclaims.However,societiesvaryinthenumberoflevelsabovethehouseholdforwhichrightfulclaimsarerecognized.Inhuntingandgatheringsocieties,gatheredfoodsarecommonlythepossessionofthehouseholds,alone;buttherewardsofhuntingareoftendistributedmorewidely.Inmanycases,thevariouspartsofan animal are given clearly and unambiguous social destinations far beyond the domesticgroup, often effected by the wife of the principal hunter, so that neither miserliness norgenerositycanbeexpected.Ontheotherhand,huntersmayconsumemuchoftheirpreypriorto returning to the village, or theymaydecide to focuson small animalswhichwould lackbroaddistribution.Suchmenmightbeknownasselfishrelativetosomestandard,whilemenwhooperatedifferentlymightbesaidtobegenerous.Furthermore,manysocietieslackanyformofchieflydistributionoftheformmentionedfortheThonga.Therearenotfewersuchdistributions among agriculturalists. In fact, agricultural societies often have kings whoexpropriatelargesharesoftheproductofdirectproducersandredistributeittosmallelites.

• HypothesisA:Fromtheseconsiderations,itmaybehypothesizedthatthesaliencewithin societies of the concept of generosity will be greater as the relativeimportance of hunting increases in hunter-gatherer societies and that generositywillhavegreatersalienceamonghunter-gathersthanamongagriculturalists.

• HypothesisB:Furthermore, if thehousehold leveldistributionsunderthecontrolofwomenareperceivedtobeonlynormalandstandard,“evidence”ofgenerositywilltendtoberecognizedonlyinrelationtodistributionscontrolledbymen.

ADEfWystudyofgenerositywassuggestedbyeconomistMichaelMcCullough,whoinpraisingfelloweconometricianAnthonEffforhisworkwithMalcolmDowonglobalandlocalcausalities, explored a recent version of the SCCS in order to study the occurrence ofgenerosity–avariablecodedbyBarry, Josephson,LauerandMarshall (1976) in theirSCCScodesv293-v336.ADEfWyanalysisofvariables in theStandardCross-CulturalSamplehasthe potential of discovering howperceived generositymay vary among themany social oreconomiccontexts.Barry(personalcomm.2015)notedthattheSCCSgenerosityvariablewasdescribedasoneof three ‘Sociability’measures thatwerepublished in the formofa singlescorebecausetherewereveryfewdifferentialratingsbythecodersforthetwogendersandtwostagesofchildhood.”Yethiscoderswereabletorate“generosity”for104of186societiesonascalefrom0-10,asshownbelow.Theothertwovariables,trustandhonesty,weremuchless commonlygivenhigh ratingsby thecodersas salient.Generosity receivedsignificantlyhigher scores,with 85%at themedian of the generosity scale or higher (15:89 or 85.6%).Therewasnocodingofaltruism,whichishardtogaugebehaviorally.

012345678910ScorebyCoders01464243122741Generosity85.6%>median16195153418112531Trust66.6%>median1518151328155811Honesty52.7%>median

5

Itwould have been useful to knowwhether Barry’s coders had coded generosity ofparents or a type of economic behavior where generosity can be imputed directly fromresourcedistributionsatvarioussocial levels1but thishadtobeascertainedanewbysomeothermeans fordifferent societies in theoriginal ethnographic sources.Fortunately, itwaspossibletofindasimplemeansfor locatingrelevantethnographictextsunderthenamesofspecific societies where texts relevant to each society would differentiate familial fromeconomicgenerosity.4.EthnographicExamplesofGenerosity To verify what SCCS coderswere reporting under the name of Generosity requiredconsultation of observations on different societies in the SCCS ethnographies of differentsocieties.Anoncommercialsearchengine,Tor,wasemployedinthesesearchesforthewordsgenerousorgenerosityplusanSCCSsocietalname.Two-word internet searcheswereusedforeachethnographicgroupandformentionofGenerosity,e.g.!KungGenerosityorThongaGenerosity,orforothersocieties.OnlyonegroupofsocietiesfromAfricaandonefromNorthAmericaareincludedinthisexperimentalstudy.Societynumberssuchas2*arecoded(e.g.,!Kung)withnumeralssuchas8thatindicatehighscoresforGenerosity(2*8).Noneoftheseparticularfindingsmentiongenerositywithinhouseholds,sinceparentalbehaviorisnormallyperceivedasconventional.Thesocietynumbers followedbelowbyaminussign (e.g.,Lozi)did not mention economic Generosity but others such as !Kung or Nyakyusa did mentioneconomic generosity. It became evident that none of the coders were describing family-membergenerosity,andthatwhenGenerositywasmentioneditwaseconomicgenerosity.2*8 !Kung: generosity was important in a society that needed to share to survive. 3*8 Thonga: As described above (generous). 4-5-Lozi:(nomentionofgenerosity). 8-5 Nyakyusa society from the 1890s—the period of first written records: commitment to generosity between age mates and generosity in urban kinship relations carry prestige in the same way. 9-4- Hadza impulse of pure generosity explains little (there is a Generosity Research Project there). 16*8 Tiv consider it rude and improper to discuss services in terms of “exchange” but insist rather that such matters be viewed as individual acts of generosity or as kinship or age-set obligations. They recognize the reciprocity, of course, but do not themselves cast it into terms which we would consider “economic.” 21*8 “The Wolof are famous for their hospitality … and generosity … which extends past every barrier of race or religion. Every visitor will readily find lodging and meals for as long as he wants to stay with nothing asked in return. Hospitality is one of the central values in their culture and something which every Westerner living among them needs to learn to emulate or risk having a reputation for being miserly, greedy or even a non-person. Their generosity extends as far as lavish gifts bestowed on certain occasions such as family festivals or on return from a prolonged voyage, and sharing with those in need who ask, especially relatives.” • 133*9 Klamath “people are traditionally hospitable and generous in nature, and eager to educate non-tribal members about their culture.” • 136*8 For the Yokuts “The components of character were values, truthfullness, modesty..., and, above all, generosity.” • 140*9 Gros Ventre “The incorporation of the horse into Gros Ventre lifestyle undermined their principles of generosity and communal sharing.” “The Gros Ventre and Crow emphasized personal rivalry more than other tribes ... this wealth was channeled into demonstrations of competitive generosity.” “At the time of reservation settlement the

1Records from the coders’ notes for the 600+ variables from the CCCCC projectwere stored in University ofPittsburgh archives a few miles from the Oakland campus in Pittsburgh. The original SCCS coded data areavailableathttp://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/courses/SCCCodes.htm

6

Gros Ventres were wealthy in horses, and men strived to be ‘prominent’ by generously distributing horses, cattle, and other property.” • 141*8 “While the Mandan(-Hidatsa) were farmers, raising corn, beans, and squash, they also sent out hunting parties to harvest buffalo on the Great Plains. The Okipa was a four-day Mandan ceremony to ensure that the buffalo would remain plentiful and that catastrophes could be averted; it reinforced the relationship between the supernatural and the people. The ceremony reenacted the creation of the earth and the history of the Mandan people. In this ceremony the Mandan recognized their responsibilities to maintain the covenant of generosity at the sacred center of creation. “ “It was believed that a lavish display of goods expressed the generosity and solidarity of the clan. The sick person was happy in the belief that in the spirit world he could boast of the goods that had been given away when he died. The clan had no other role when death of a member occurred. Individuals of the father’s clan were in charge of the last rites.”

These internet queries support the hypothesis that the SCCS coderswere reportingethnographic statementsaboutgenerosity ineconomicbehavior rather than fromgenerousparenting. From this perspective the kind of retroactive validation of the meaning of thisparticularcodesupportedethnographicstatementsthatcodersreadinthecontextofcodingvariablesof“generosity.”5.ReviewingEndogeneityfromaTutorialforCross-CulturalModeling

Particularly important in this new context of cross-cultural research, and as acomplementofcasestudies,istheRsoftwareDEfWyofMalcolmDowandeconomistAnthonEffinthecontextoftheevolutionarycomplexitiesthatareevidentincross-culturalresearchbutnotnecessarilyinotherkindsofresearch.DEfallowsculturalandevolutionaryvariablesintotheanalysis.andtheWyelementaddressestheeffectsofdeepevolutionarybackgroundvariables. Pagel (2011), for example, an evolutionary biologist, shows that evolutionaryvariables are not individualistic; and cultural variables are present that are comprised ofsocially shared concepts. The emergence or ecological context of generosity as anevolutionary element of culture can be readily identified. Consequently, DEf Wy enablesinvestigators to deal with variables that are either denied or problematic within theframeworkofmethodologicalindividualism.

Eff (2016) provides a tutorial that enables anthropologists, sociologists andeconomists to utilize a common framework of analysis within the evolutionary sciences,addressingkeyproblemsofendogeneity(i.e.,where inregression, forexample,error termsare correlated with independent variables, thereby invaliding the predictions of theseindependentvariables.)EffandDow,intheirDEfWyRsoftware,showhowendogeneitiescanbebrokendownintocomponentswhichallowvariouskindsofcausality,includingissuesofexogeneity/endogeneity of independent variables: (Eff 2016:11) “in a regression model,causationmustbeunidirectional; independentvariablesmustcausethedependentvariableinvolved in a feedback relationship with the dependent variable – whereas in some caseschangesinthedependentvariablewillcausechangesintheendogenousvariable.”Thesearetechnicalquestions,but“insuchacase,theestimatedcoefficientoftheendogenousvariableand itsstandarderrorwillbebiased(Kennedy2003:180-204;Green2012:219-256).”Yet,“From a materialist perspective, [our] model of religion would not be suspected ofendogeneity,becausethedependentvariableisafeatureofideology,i.e.,religiousbeliefs,andthe independent variables are features of technology and the environment” (Eff 2016:12).Sucharethecomplexitiesofdatasetsthatcannotbeextricatedfromevolutionarycontexts.

7

6.DEfWyResultsforthe104SocietiesintheSCCScodedforGenerosityTheSCCS isanenormousrepositoryofdata, includingover2000variablesandover

10,000 specific factors among the sets of ordinal categories.Moderately strong displays ofgenerosityarewidelydistributedacrossdifferentcontinentsandwere found in86%of the104codedSCCSsocieties.Coders,asnoted,actuallyfoundlittleevidenceaboutgenerosityofparents, probably because such generosity would be expected by children as normal, notexceptional.A search forwarmthandaffectionof caretakers showed that thisvariablewasmarginallysignificantforfathers(v486butnotsignificantformothers)aspartialpredictorsof (economic) generosity (Table1). Barry et al (1976) failed to sustain thehypothesis thatethnographerswould code varying degrees of generosity of parents toward their children,differentiated by age and gender.2 However, other forms of (economic) generosity, asanticipatedbyHypothesisA,were foundtobemoresignificant inhunter-gatherersocietiesthaninagriculturalsocieties,asmanifestedby(v2137),adichotomousvariable(planting=1,otherwise = 0). Generosity was less salient in agricultural societies (v151, p=.05) and insocieties where there was less fixity of settlement (v150, p=.08), and approaching a nearuniversalfortechnologicallysimplesocieties.Theseresultsmayreflectthefactthatmenhavethepotentialofsharinggenerouslytheproductofhuntingandfishing.Thedataalsoindicatethattherearesignificantopportunitiesforthedisplayordenialofgenerositywhenvaluablefoodsourcesaresecuredfromexternaltrade(v1,FoodSourcefromIntercommunityTrade).

Consideringecology,coastalresidence–henceafocusonmarineresources(“meanalt”–nearsealevel–)isnegativelyassociatedwithgenerosity,butontheotherhandacompoundvariable of Trust*Mean High Altitude (v486*v335) is significant and positively related,suggestingthathuntingofbiggamerequirescooperationandtrustamongagroupofhuntersof large game, leading to occasions for expression of generosity. Generosity was weaklycorrelated (p=.02) in Table 1 with warmth and affection of fathers (v486), but the samevariablewasnotsignificant formothers.Theautomateddatadredging forGenerosityusingTor searches showed that the telling of creation stores was weakly correlated (p=.06) forfathersbutnotsignificantformothers.Thesevariablespossessnoapriorisocialsignificance,butmaybeusefulinposingnewhypotheses.

Table 1 displays the range of results of a cross-cultural model of correlates of(economic)generosityasadependentvariablebasedonDow-EffWyanalysis(EffandDow2009).Many of these contexts aremale-oriented, wheremale contributions are posited at“generous,”whilethoseofwomenarenot,asexpectedforreasonsgiveninHypothesisB.

2RohnerandRohner’s(1982)studyof“badparenting”foundonlyfourcasesof“ungenerous”parentaldyadsintheSCCS186societysample.

8

Table1:CorrelatesofGenerosity(v334)intheSCCS

7.MapsoftheGenerosityDependentVariableandIndependentVariablesforSealevel(Fishing andMarineMammals), Lowland Agriculture (a proxy for Hunting), Fathers’WarmthandAffection,andMaleOrientedCreationStories(toldbymen) Themaps showhoweach variable inTable 1 occurs in geographic clusters that arefrequentlyreplicatedbyeachoftheindependentvariables.Thelargerednodesineachmapare agricultural, with low generosity, while high generosities are found in societies moreorientedtohuntingandfishing.Whatissurprisingisthatwhilethreeofthescoresofcodersvary–0-10forGenerosity(Map1Av2137),0-1HuntingversusAgriculture(Map1Bv334),and2-8forFather’sAffection(MapCv486)–thesevariablesarehighlycorrelatedwitheachother. Map 1B and 1C scores are also highly correlated. Each of these correlations issignificantatp<0.01.Othercorrelationsbetweenindependentvariablesarenotsignificant.

Map 1A: Codes for Generosity (v334) Map 1B: Codes for Agriculture (v2137)Moderate-Strong Weak-0-Huntingproxyvs.1-Agriculture012345678910ScorebyCoders0 101464243122741Generosity 28 76000016711021NoAgriculture=Moregenerosity11463182411720Agriculture=Lessgenerosity

9

Map1C:GenderCreationStories(v676)1Fem.2Couple3Masc.ScorebyCoders

203656CreationStories2531Non-Agricultural 182135Agricultural

Themodelpredominantinthemaps1A,1Band1Cfollowageneralevolutionarytrend

toward more complex subsistence regimes. The distribution of Generosity is far morepersistent than might be expected from such a trend with the development of complexsocieties at the level of kingdoms and states. The father’s warmth variable is also morepersistentinthisrespect.Contrastively,theregionsofChristianityandIslamattheWesternedgeofMap1DareregionsofsparsedisplaysofGenerosity.Isthereatendencyforgenerosityasmorecommonelementsofeconomicsinareasofnon-Abrahamicreligions?

Six regions tend to occur inMaps 1A-1B-1C-1D, one each inWest and East Africa, andothers in Continental Southeast Asia, the neighborhood of New Guinea, West Coast NorthAmerica, and Central America-Adjacent South America (note that West African marketwomenmightalsobelikelytobeperceivedasGenerous).Theserepresentpartsofcommonlanguage and similar ecological autocorrelation shown in Table 1 although autocorrelation(Wy) overall is not significant. The Generosity variable in Map 1A and the independentvariablesinMaps1B-1C-1DshowtheworldwidebreadthofdistributionofGenerosityasanimportantprincipleineconomics. 8.Conclusion

Thegeneralconclusionhereisthateconomicgenerosityiscommoninthesocietiesofthe SCCS ethnographic dataset and is not characterized in amanner that would accord ingeneral with Arrow’s concept that economic analysis must be analyzed in terms ofmethodologicalindividualism.

Opportunities for the expression of (economic) Generosity are variable amongsocietiesbuttendtofollowthreepatterns.Intermsoftheethnographicdataofthisstudy,aninitial hypotheses of ethnographic data supports the greater prevalence of loci for theexpressionofgenerosityamonghuntersandfishersrelativetoagriculturalists.Generosityismost commonly attached to hunting, fishing or marine hunters, and trading societies.Generosity approaches a near universal for technologically simple societies. Second, theseGenerositiestendtopersistintimeintohigherpoliticalstructuressuchaschiefdoms,states,cities,andempires.Theseprototypesofgenerositytendtoprovideleverageforpower.WhilethedomestichouseholdmightbeauniversallocusforpotentialmanifestationsofGenerosity,

2Map1D: Fathers’Affection (v486), similartothedistributionofMap1B

245678ScorebyCoders88325537Codes

10

its appearance at other levels is variable among social structures. The generosity and self-sacrificebywomenindomesticresourceallocationisoftenunderappreciatedwhereassimilarbehavior by men is more likely to be noted ethnographically. It might seem that theeconomics of generosity is also present in contemporary developing economies and thatmethodologicalindividualismisnotthebestwayforcontemporaryeconomiststostudytheseeconomies.Stronggenderbiasesarealsoevidentinawidevarietyofsocialcontextsinvolvingeconomicgenerosity.Thisappliestostudies ineconomicdevelopmentandahostofrelatedissuesthatMIsimplyavoids.

Within the limited perspectives of methodological individualism, observations ofvariations of behavior as a function of social structure are excluded by definition. Indeed,methodological individualism abandons social structure in favor of the positing idealizedindependent, utility maximizers. In this study, however, unexpected social variables havecomeintoprominence,promptingtheneedforadditionalstudyofsocialorganization,socialprocess,andeconomicgenerositiesasprinciplesbeyondmethodologicalindividualism.9.Postscript

StudyofethnographicexamplesofGenerositywasnotontheoriginalapproachtakenheretounderstandingcontextsdiscussedinethnographiesconcerningGenerosity.Itbeganasasimpleexpedient for findingouthowourcodersweredealingwiththetopic.Aperusalofethnographiesshowedthatithadverylittletodowithparents’behaviorinrelationtotheirchildren.BarryconfirmedthathisSCCScoderstookadifferentapproach.Searchesfortopicsof Generosity in SCCS ethnographies showed they were not found in chapter headings orindexes. A novel approach was simply to extract using a non-commercial search engine asampleofsocietalnamesandthenoun“Generosity”where itoccurs intherelevantbodyoftext. This allowed pairing of co-occurring nouns so as to selectmultiple examples ofwhatethnographersstateaboutGenerosityintheSCCSsamplesocieties.Thisapproachcouldeasilybeexpandedintoafull fledgedcodingprojectforthemajorityofSCCSsocieties.Theresultscouldprovideawholenewdatabaseforareanalysisofideasinthischapterandotheraspectsthatwerenotexplored.310.Acknowledgements

Chapter to be submitted to the Wiley Companion to Cross-Cultural Research. ThisresearchresultsfromfouryearlyCausality/RobustnessWorkinggroupMeetings,from2010-2013 organized by DRW and at the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences,whichsponsoredafifthmeetinginLeipzigin2011,alsodirectedatcompletionofthepresentandother cross-culturalprojects.DRWgreatlyappreciatesSantaFe Institute supportasanSFIexternalfacultymember.MuchappreciatedarethebenefitsofinteractionswithscoresofSFI researchers, visitors, and staff as well as chapter authors of theWiley Companion forCross-Cultural Research. He thanks Michael McCullough for identifying the dependentvariable of the study, Anthon Eff for sharing his 2016Wiley draft of a tutorial-in-process.

3In the context of studies in economic development, development anthropologists (e.g., illustrated by theInstitute for Development Anthropology, established 1976 but closed in 1977 by the IRS due to taxconsiderations)weredisplacedbygovernmentdevelopmentcontractstoeconomists.Onewayoutofthiskindofdilemmamay be to expand the construction of cross-cultural datasets to apply to contemporary developingsocietiestoprovideindependentmeansofhypothesistesting,somethingcurrentlybeingexploredbytheHRAF.

11

DuranBellsubstantiallycontributedanearlierdraft(2015)andatheoreticalperspectivethatcanbefoundinearlierwork(1995,2006).11.ReferencesBarry,HerbertIII,LiliJosephson,EdithLauer,andCatherineMarshall.1976.TraitsInculcated

inChildhood.Ethnology,15:83-114.ReprintedinCross-CulturalCodes,BarryandSchlegel1980,Editors,UniversityofPittsburgh.Chapter7.STDS13.DATVariables:293-336.

Bell, Duran. 1995. Beyond the range of methodological individualism: On the nature ofsharing,CurrentAnthropology,36(5):826-830.

Bell,Duran.2006.Bands,fertilityandthesocialorganizationofearlyhumans,JournalofSocialEvolutionandHistory5(2):3-23.

Bell,Duran.2015.TheLast73,400Years:SocialRelationsinPrehistory,OutskirtsPress.Binford, LewisR. 1980,Willow smoke and dogs’ tails:Hunter-Gatherer settlement systems

andarchaeologicalsiteformation,AmericanAntiquity,45(1).Binford, Lewis R. 2001. Constructing frames of reference: An analytical method for

archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Dow,MalcolmM.2007.Galton’sProblemasmultiplenetworkautocorrelationeffects.Cross-CulturalResearch,41:336-363.

Eff,E.Anthon.2004.DoesMr.GaltonStillHaveaProblem?Autocorrelation in theStandardCross-CulturalSample.WorldCultures15(2):153-170.

Eff,E.Anthon.2016.InPress.EstimatingCross-CulturalResearchModels:ATutorial.Eff, E. Anthon and Malcolm M. Dow. 2009. How to Deal with Missing Data and Galton’s

Problem in Cross-Cultural Survey Research: A Primer for R. Structure and Dynamics:eJournalofAnthropologicalandRelatedSciences3(3),Article1.

Eff, E. Anthon. (In process) 2016. Estimating Cross-Cultural Research Models: A Tutorial.WileyCompaniontoCross-CulturalResearch.

Jorgensen, JorgensenG. 1980.Western Indians: ComparativeEnvironments, Languages andCultures.UniversityofNebraskaPress.

Murdock,GeorgeP.1967,EthnographicAtlas.Pittsburgh:PittsburghUniversityPress.Murdock, George P., Douglas R. White. 1969. Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology

8(4):329-369.http://escholarship.org/uc/item/62c5c02nOn-lineedition2008.Pagel,Mark.2011.WiredforCulture:OriginsoftheHuman-SocialMind.NewYork.Norton&

Company.Roberts,Callum.2012.OceanofLife.AllenLane.Rohner, Ronald P., and Evelyn C. Rohner. 1982.Parental-Acceptance-Rejection and Control.

Ethnology.20:245-260.Spolaore,Enrico.2016.CultureandEconomicGrowth.Harvard,HarvardUniversityPress.Spolaore, Enrico, and Romain Wacziarg. 2013. How Deep are the Roots of Economic

Development?JournalofEconomicLiterature51(2):1-45.Tylor,EdwardB.1889.OnaMethodofInvestigatingtheDevelopmentofInstitutions;applied

toLawsofMarriageandDescent.JournalofRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute.Vol.18:245–272.

White,DouglasR.White.1988.RethinkingPolygyny:Co-Wives,Codes,andCulturalSystems.CurrentAnthropology29(4):529-558,568-572.

12

White,DouglasR.,andDuranBell.2015,MethodologicalIndividualismandGenerosity.WorldCultures20(1).