Podcast

Intro: “Actually, one of my main messages is really to say that we live in this world of meritocracy, at least in the western world. And we really need to think much harder about, like, how we conceptualize it as a society, and I think very often this is very problematic.” In today's episode of our podcast, AskDifferent, we will have round about 30 minutes to learn as much as possible about research on fairness, about fairness in football, and about the effect of fishing on our mental health. My guest today is Bertil Tungodden, professor at the department of economics at NHH Norwegian School of Economics, and he is an Einstein visiting fellow at Berlin's Humboldt University. Hello, mister Tungodden.

Bertil Tungodden: Hello. Nice to meet you.

Nancy Fischer: And to be honest, in the very first moment, I thought of 30 minutes in English on economic sciences. The interview is gonna be really tough. Okay. The more I read, the more interesting it got to me as a scientific director of the Center of FAIR, your research on fairness, on inequality and rationality, and all that is more than relevant in daily life and in world politics at the moment. So let's not lose too much time. Let's just start. Welcome to this episode of Ask Different to the Norwegian professor of Economics, Bertil Tungsten. And mister Tungsten, do you remember the last very unfair situation you were part of?

Bertil Tungodden: That's a great question. So I think that must have been an application I sent to the municipality which was, turned down and I felt that I was unfairly treated. So that made me a little bit upset. 

Nancy Fischer: Was it only you that felt so or was it really unfair?

Bertil Tungodden: Well, what it was really unfair, it was my family. We were applying as a family. We wanted to build a cabin as all Norwegians. And it was too close to the sea. So in some sense, I mean, they have a good justification. We didn't, agree with it, to put it like that. So I don't think I was unfairly treated maybe, but maybe I was a bit biased - is an important aspect of this. And, yeah. But that was I think that was the last time. Quite recent, actually.

Nancy Fischer: Okay. And if you look a little bit longer ago, how did you experience fairness as a child? Do you remember that? 

Bertil Tungodden: I remember this because it's also where it all started for me. I think there are, like, two main motivations from childhood and relationship to fairness that made me really passionate about investigating this. One was when I really learned about Save the Children, that organization. When I was very young, I learned about the distant poverty in poor countries. And, and for some reason, I really became obsessed with that challenge and organized a lot of, like, fundraising as a kid. Sold waffles to get money to send and this kind of stuff. So it and it really bothered me a lot as a child. I mean, thinking about this enormous global inequality. So that was one. The other part was that my mother was a teacher for kids who have cognitive disabilities. So I also from that learned that the world is not fair, in the sense that we don't all have the same starting point. I also learned all the pleasures of, like, becoming friends with these kids. And that was another aspect of, like, that the world is not a fair place, and and it means a lot to us. Yeah. So so that's that's I think the two main memories from childhood.

Nancy Fischer: That obviously also affected you and your choice of the job you're doing today?

Bertil Tungodden: Absolutely. So I mean, it affected me throughout my life, yeah. And my job and my passion for it. I, instead of military service, I was actually working in the end for the Save the Children. I mean, and then I became an economist because I thought, well, economics is a pretty important topic, but I really always wanted to to investigate that from the angle of distributive justice and fairness and these kind of things. I wanted to make a difference in in that respect.

Nancy Fischer: So let's dive a little bit inside your research. I found one experiment, for example. You often work with kids, so you ask them to imagine a situation where they worked - one kid as much as the other one. One is lucky and earns money for the work and the other one not. And then you ask the the kid that earned money to share the money. What does that say about kids' understanding of fairness? What do you find out then?

Bertil Tungodden: So in our world, we very often talk about meritocracy that some people deserve more because they perform better. We see whether that's like a football player who is like fantastic on the field or whether it's like someone at work to say, yeah, but he deserves it. He has really done well. Right? And we really wanted to understand more about, like, when this kind of idea starts conceptualizing in people. And one way of looking at that is to look at this from the perspective of the child. Right? So typically, people have thought about, like, children as being very egalitarian. Thinking about fairness, I mean, I want exactly the same as the other guy. And we wanted to see when we potentially see a shift in terms of, like, acknowledging - well, maybe this guy deserves a bit more because he did better. Or maybe people are not paying attention to that. Right? So we wanted to understand that more. So that was, like, in some sense, the key question. We could have done this by just asking the kids. But, as an economist, I really like to look at a true behavior. Right? So then we put them in a real situation - very often with real consequences and and we see how the kids how the kids are performing.

Nancy Fischer: And in that way, how much are kids sharing already in that young age?

Bertil Tungodden: What we typically find, I mean, like many other economists, at the very young age, they are what we call very strict egalitarians. They don't differentiate based on contribution and things like that. But what we then saw we did a big study in Norway. What we then saw - and this maps, I should say, you mentioned football in the introduction. I'm also passionate about football. This also maps in Norway a lot like how we think about kids. In Norway, it's like more or less this rule that below 12 years old, there should be no true competition in some sense among kids and no elite thinking and this kind of stuff. So when you play football in Norway and the kids are small, if and one team is better the other team, then the team that is about to lose can add players to even out. Right? So it's very much like this kind of equalizing thought. And this is what we see in our in our studies - that this is really going on. But then we see a major shift and maybe that's the most exciting thing. When they move into adolescence - where even kids in Norway become very, very meritocratic in their thinking. So very much appreciating this difference in contribution. Very much accepting that, yeah, those who have contributed the most just in some sense deserve the most. And I should stress now for the listener that this is not something that I personally like approve of. That's not the point of the research. It's purely to see what is driving people's behavior - what kind of ideas of fairness are driving people's behavior. Actually, one of my main messages is really to say that we live in this world of meritocracy, at least in the Western world. And we really need to think much harder about, like, how we conceptualize it as a society, and I think very often this is very problematic.

Nancy Fischer: You are working on a fairness map. So how people around the world interpret fairness. Why do, for example, Norwegians or - and we now spoke a lot about Norway, but maybe also US Americans find different things unfair than Indians. Or I don't know whom is on your map, who you have in mind.

Bertil Tungodden: So, the basic idea of the study is that we actually recruited a lot of people to do some work for us. And then we have a separate people, people we call the spectators, the 3rd parties. And they decided how these workers should be paid. So we had people around the world in 60 countries making real decisions about how to pay workers. And the setup was again a little bit like you already presented. That these workers had done the same job in one case. And one had been randomly now given a high earnings and the other nothing. And if you are part of my study you will be told these two workers are there. One got let's say $6. The other get nothing. You are now to decide whether it should be like this or whether you want to redistribute. And you know it's a real decision. So you really have to think hard. Right? I mean, should I take from the guy who has actually earned everything, give to the other, or should I leave it like it is, and so on. Right? So and what we do in that study is that we actually now vary key parts of the situation. So the situation I presented for you was very simple. One has six, the other has nothing. What should I do about that? I mean, in some sense the government. I can do the redistribution if I like. But in this case, I presented was the inequality was due to luck or bad luck for one and good luck for the other. Now we present some of the participants with a different situation, whereinequality is due to one guy has performed better at the task and the other has performed worse at the task. And now we can see across the world to what extent people are sensitive to whether the source of inequality is bad luck or that worse performance. Right? And then we have a turn manipulation where we also introduce a cost of redistribution. So I think that this is the biggest study we have done. I think in some sense it's the biggest experimental study that has been done in the social sciences. Wow. And what we see is really - and I hinted at it early on - we really see that this idea of distinguishing between, whether someone is behind because of bad luck or whether they are behind because there was just not, maybe, enough effort put in - or whatever. This has an enormous impact on the inequality acceptance of people in the Western world. But actually, when we look at other countries - in many of the poor countries, you don't see that they make the same distinction. You see, like, in terms of the division that in some of these countries, you see that they tolerate both inequalities due to luck and inequalities due to performance. So they they don't make a distinction. Both are okay. We see that in China. We see that in India. And then in other countries, we see that they just don't like any of these inequalities. So many of the African countries, you will see very egalitarian behavior where they always redistribute. Right? So so we see very different patterns and the big message of that study is really that the Western World is quite different from the rest, in terms of being very concerned about what is the reason for someone falling behind.

Nancy Fischer: Many impacts in so many ways, how we think about societies and the world.

Bertil Tungodden: Absolutely. And I think in some sense when I talk about this, generally, I always say this. I always start with this map - if listener can imagine a map of the world. And on this map of the world, I show by colors, by differentiating in terms of colors, how much inequality there is in each country. And this map is a very fascinating map because it shows what we all know, but it really puts it in front of you. That is an enormous variation in the level of inequality in different countries in the world. And then we have to ask the deep question. Why? Why have we organized ourselves so differently? So I live in Norway with this very low level of inequality. Maybe it's because we are rich. Maybe it's because we are like a small country. My daughter lived for a long time in South Africa, which is one of the countries with the highest level of inequality. And Thomas Piketty, this quite prominent economist, pushed in his recent book, I think something very important. He says that all societies have to justify their inequalities. People have to come up with some kind of justification. And sometimes economists have come up and said, well, we, you know, we need inequality because we need to give people incentives to work hard and stuff like that. That's one possibility. Another possibility could be more selfish stuff - yeah... It's just in the interest of the rich and the rich are in power and they just block any redistribution. But we point at the 3rd one. Right? That people's ideas of what inequalities are fair and what inequalities are unfair, they differ. And we show a lot of evidence of that in this global study.

Nancy Fischer: I realize this topic is we could speak one day about it, I think. I mean, the inequality in the world.

Bertil Tungodden: I would love to. I would love to.

Nancy Fischer: Me too, but, unfortunately, we don't have that much time. So we had a pandemic, and now, of course, the war in Ukraine - both made inequality very visible in the world, throughout the whole world, especially the lack of food. We are already discussing that in many African countries that people are already suffering from it. Is there, in general, is there any possibility to distribute a short resource in a just way?

Bertil Tungodden: There is a just solution, but the the challenge is always, not always but often, that there are efficiency considerations that are fighting against the just solution. Right? I mean, I think very clearly we see that justice should require us to redistribute more with the poorer countries. I come from a country where we have found oil and we have, I mean, made ourselves rich based on the oil. Which maybe we should feel really ashamed of these days. I mean, thinking about the climate issues. But the challenge is, of course, that the just solution is not necessarily within reach, because we are not totally or not only motivated by justice on a daily basis, each of us. Right? So that is the challenge with justice - that it very often conflicts with our self interest. That is not to say that we are only self interested. I'm a strong believer and a strong pusher for people being motivated both by self interest, but also by justice concerns. But that makes it very hard often to find a good solution for the kind of difficult problems that you pointed out. Right? It's a complicated relationship.

Nancy Fischer: Especially if you look at the next decades coming up with more people on the planet and rising inequalities. Right? Is that sometimes frustrating for you?

Bertil Tungodden: I think it's frustrating for everyone. I mean, and parts of it is scary as well in terms of the global instability, the climate change issues, the global inequality. I mean, frustrating and there's a sense of failure a little bit. I mean, for all of us. I remember when I was younger and I had this feeling that we'll manage and fix these kind of things. And now we are probably not in a much better state. But there are positive elements positive elements as well. Right? I mean, we have done - not we, but the world has has done good things in terms of global poverty. And that I think many countries are doing really, potentially, really well in terms of understanding the importance of broad and comprehensive redistributive systems, making sure that everyone in the population really gets the the education and support they need and so on. So, I mean, at the global scale, there are enormous challenges. But there is also evidence of things that are working and things that have been improved and, yeah, we just need to balance that, when we think about the future.

Nancy Fischer: So maybe we sum up again your field. It is behavioral and experimental economics, development economics, distributive justice, and social choice theory. It's not only the topic of fairness. And I read you once started a presentation saying: "I think behavioral economics can change the world." In which way?

Bertil Tungodden: It can change the world in many ways. Right? It can change the world by, making us able to implement better policies. Because if we understand that what people are reacting to is really, like, the unfairness and the morality and that there is this dimension in people's behavior, then we can cater into that with the policies that we have in mind. And this can also be super practical. So let me say I worked with the tax authorities in Norway, for example, really to see how we can reduce tax evasion. And one way we did that was to introduce this moral toolbox where we sent out letters and motivated people morally to think about the fact that others are paying their taxes, making their contribution to society, and that they therefore should do that. And we actually found quite significant effects on tax evasion. So that's that's like a very concrete example of how we can make the world a better place. For about the things that I'm most passionate about, namely inequality and fairness I think, behavioral economics, by showing that people have care about fairness, but also showing that people have different ideas about fairness, we can really change the big, public discourse about inequality. Because I think a lot of discourse is mistaken in the sense that it focuses on more or less inequality. Like more of it being a problem, less being good. But actually most people, almost everyone make some kind of distinction between fair and unfair inequality. Right? So it's not only about more and less. It's really about tackling the unfair inequalities. And if we can have a more focused effort on the unfair inequalities and also better understand how we think, when we think about inequality. I started out this discussion by saying that how do we when we often say, like: "He deserves it. He did a great job". Well, do we keep in mind that this guy actually probably was coming from a good family background, which was pure luck. Right? He was maybe born with a greater innate abilities and so on. Do we cater this into our understanding of this being a fair inequality in the sense that he gets more. Right? So so I think behavioral economics can change the world by changing our understanding of humans. And after all, I mean, choices are made by humans.

Nancy Fischer: Even though you are you are researching on that topic for many years, and you're very passionate about it, as far as I hear at least, was there a moment in your career and in your life when when you thought, like, this whole topic is - even though it's interesting, it's also a little frustrating because we'll never reach the complete fairness in the world? Was there one day when you were, like, almost resigning and start all over again doing something completely new?

Bertil Tungodden: The answer is no. But I have changed the course a bit over my years. So when I started out working for Save the Children and that organization, I had this very, strong feeling that just with enough effort, we would change the world by our direct actions. It has been very frustrating to in some sense, recognize that in itself maybe is not enough. That we need also higher level policies and institutions, and so on. In terms of my research, I started out actually as an economist, but then for a long time, I went really into the more normative side, the more philosophical part. Thinking about, like, what is really just. I mean, doing what the philosophers do. Right? I mean, thinking hard about the problem of justice and what exactly is the true solution to the problem of justice. In the end, I felt I had more to say there. I mean, I did some things that I think were interesting. So then I had this change. I said, okay. Now I really need to move closer to action. I really need to see how is this influencing people's lives. And I've been working on that for a long time. And I always discover new stuff. And I also see how much this means to others when I talk about it. I mean, I collaborate with governments. They care passionately about it. Donors working in the the poor countries care about it. The businesses care about this. I mean, it's a big issue in terms of how we treat our customers. Are we treating them fairly? Are we exploiting them? So I think everyone, when you talk to them, recognize that fairness is really important. And we need to think hard about it. And we need to reflect ourselves about how we think about it. And that makes me very motivated. But of course, I mean, there is this frustration that there is a quite some distance between what I find out and publish in the academic journals and the actual policy. Right? I think that has to be the case. Because that's why we have politicians and the people implementing. They have to take from the research what they really find interesting and novel and use that. But I had a feeling that as a researcher, I can inspire and inform both politicians, businesses, and so on. And that makes me both happy and still very eager to continue.

Nancy Fischer: Yeah. Eager to continue and also to change your focus from time to time. That's what I now learned about you. And you are an Einstein Visiting Fellow also here in Berlin from time to time at the Humboldt University. How important is it for you as an experienced scientist also to go to new places to work with new people?

Bertil Tungodden: I think it's just a fantastic opportunity. I'm so grateful to have this opportunity to be the visiting fellow, at Humboldt. And there's a fantastic group of behavioral people, but also many other social scientists in in Berlin that I can interact with. We have also started some, I think, really exciting projects on the topics that I'm passionate about, also with some of the young scholars there. So, yeah. It is, generally speaking, very important to interact broadly and internationally, both with people in my own field, but also people in other disciplines. I'm a very true believer in this cross disciplinary or multi disciplinary dialogue being very important. So I really like to work with philosophers, as I said, economist, political scientist, social anthropologist, psychologists, and so on.

Nancy Fischer: Okay, so you you just named all the people you like to work with from politicians to scientists and also football players. Right? Because when I read about you, if you have the choice to swap your life for one day with somebody you named Jurgen Klopp and you would love to be the coach of Liverpool. And it surprised me of course. Many people are football fans, but this is often seen as such an unfair sport in so many ways. Not for you? Can you exclude that from my mind?

Bertil Tungodden: I cannot exclude that from my mind, and that's one of the big worries. I think, actually, Jurgen Klopp also has this worry. So this is a worry many people have. The way sport now is organized and the way sports is used and the unfairness in the sport itself. I can't completely overlook that, of course. But, I mean I'm passionate about the beauty of football! So I really love football, also I love Jurgen Klopp because of the way he's coaching a team. This kind of stuff really speaks to me. So maybe one day we'll have a chat about how to run organizations. And it's absolutely true that in some sense, maybe a little bit jokingly, but in some sense, I would have loved to the opportunity to test that out, but that will probably not happen. But I love sports itself. The maybe the funniest part about this is that it really runs in the family, but not on the father's side, but on the mother's side. So my mother is now 90 years old, and I think she's an even bigger Klopp fan than me. So it's really in the family.

Nancy Fischer: We're kind of finishing, our conversation soon, and I have one last question. Maybe that's also fitting to your work day. In the end of the day, if you're finishing everything, your research and everything you needed to do, you maybe sometimes go out to the countryside and you are going to fish. You're a fisherman, a passionate fisher. So maybe imagination, you're sitting there and outside of Bergen in the rain and quiet and wait for fish. Why does a famous economist scientist need such situations? What does that give to you?

Bertil Tungodden: You're absolutely right in describing this. So Tungsten is a small fishing village. It's not even a village almost. It's like 2 farms on an island at the gate at the opening of the Forty kilometers north of Bergen. You don't see anything else than the ocean. And that gives, I mean, many things. It gives perspectives. When I'm there and I look out, I don't see anything else than what has been forever. So it shows me that I shouldn't become obsessed with the moment. So often we are obsessed by the moment. There is a longer history in the world, and, yeah, I'm just a very small part of that. And in some sense that gives me comfort, and I feel sometimes it also gives me perspective. I also love to be there because the daily rhythm totally changes. My rhythm now is like a lot of interaction, the city, a lot of traveling. There is a much more slow rhyth

Nancy Fischer: And really making you appreciate all parts of the day, how the light changes throughout the day. As you say, the weather is rain or not rain. I mean, in Bergen, there's a lot of stuff in terms of weather, or at the coast here. And you really notice all parts of it. The day is filled with 24 hours is like a glimpse into all kinds of kinds of weather. You see when there's a little bit wind on the sea and so on. So I think it gives me perspective in my thinking and it gives my whole body and soul a different rhythm that I really love. And when I'm there the 1st week is fantastic, the 2nd week is even better, the 3rd week is close to perfect, and the 4th week I don't wanna go back home.

Outro: That's very nice. As a last word in the end we have a beautiful image of you in the countryside fishing. I hope you have this opportunity again this summer to go there to enjoy the nature, but also to keep on researching. Of course, we spoke about economics and fairness with Bertil Thungarden, professor at the department of economics at NHH, Norwegian School of Economics, and he is an Einstein visiting fellow at Berlin's Humboldt University. This was the podcast AskDifferent by the Einstein Foundation. You find this podcast on our website, the website of the Einstein Foundation, but also everywhere where you can listen to podcasts on Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts. My name is Nancy Fischer. Thanks for listening, and, of course, all the best to you, Mr Tungodden, to Norway. Thanks for speaking to us. 

AskDifferent, the podcast by the Einstein Foundation.