The dismal gods

By Razib Khan | June 25, 2010 12:51 am

marketplaceLarry Witham’s Marketplace of the Gods: How Economics Explains Religion is a manifestly ill-timed book. He states that “…around 2006 I began to notice a good deal of hoopla in the book market about economic explanations for just about everything-books that were best sellers.” Marketplace of the Gods was obviously written to capitalize on the prestige of economic explanations, but unfortunately it has come out after the bubble had burst on that market, so to speak. Within the past few years even many economists have come to admit that the power of their discipline’s logic can explain far less than they’d once thought. In fact, it seems a bit much for economics to explain everything when the core competency in financial domains are themselves being challenged. Even in 2008 in The Logic of Life Tim Harford was engaging in a rearguard attempt to prevent behavioral economists such as Dan Ariely from knocking the legs out from under the central thesis of his book. A more accurate subtitle for Marketplace of the Gods would have been “economic explanations of religion.” Not punchy or imperialistic, but true to the content of the text.

These explanations are rooted in a few assumptions derived from conventional economic methodology and applied to religion. Humans are rational, they settle upon strategies which can fulfill their preferences, and their world is characterized by scarcity and opportunity costs. Phenomena are best explained in a reductionist framework which takes a methodologically individualist stance. In other words, what’s in it for the individual, not society. Larry Witham documents the intellectual journeys of two giants in the field, Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone. I have read Iannaccone’s papers, as well as most of Stark’s academically oriented books. There’s a lot of clear and crisp thinking there. Marketplace of the Gods reviews the long history of woolly theorizing about religion which explained everything and so nothing, and served as the ideal seedbed for the invasion of the subject by those wielding sharper tools.

But the supply side model of individuals consuming goods and services from competing religious firms, to translate religious phenomena into economic language, can not explain everything. The author acknowledges this in the text, but falls into traps whereby the theory which he has encountered allows for superficial inferences which are plainly false if one was aware of a richer set of data. Consider this passage:

In traditions that invest more intensely in human religious capital the rentention rate is highest. For example, Hindu, Catholic, and Jewish groups lose the least number of adherents over their lifetimes. In America today, 90 percent of Hindus were reared in that tradition, and the same goes for 89 percent of today’s Catholics and 85 percent of today’s Jews….

This sounds plausible enough, but the explanation that Hindus and Catholics have high retention because they “invest more intensely in human religious capital” is probably wrong. Hindus and Catholics have huge immigrant communities, and come from societies where religious switching is rare or taboo. The majority of American Hindus are immigrants, so they are not integrated into the American marketplace of gods. The Religious Landscape Survey which Witham references makes it obvious that American Hindus are not even particularly religious. Witham assumes they invest more intensely in human religious capital probably because of the 90 percent figure, but theory is misleading him because of the incompleteness of his data base. Similarly, Catholics have been the biggest contributors in the past decade to the irreligious segment of Americans. The last finding is relatively recent, and so may not have been available when Marketplace of the Gods was being written, but it shows the lack of robusticity of the set of inferences which one can generate from these models. New data easily overturns novel inferences on a regular basis.

Obviously there’s some real insight that can come out of the intersection of economics and religion. And Marketplace of the Gods serves as a decent precis of the literature, and its bibliography is well worth perusing. But if you know anything about religion it will be rather clear that the current theoretical contributions of economics in explaining most of the variation in the phenomenon is limited. Religion is a big topic, and a true “explanation” necessarily has to encompass evolution, psychology, history, and, economics.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Anthroplogy, Economics, Religion

Comments (7)

  1. “New data easily overturns novel inferences on a regular basis.” Yeah, doesn’t that just bite! 😉 But seriously, nice overview of the book and its limitations.

  2. Regarding Catholics, the problems with Catholic retention were observed before this. Finke and Stark discussed this in some of their works. I don’t know have a citation for the exact date, but I’m pretty sure it was years before 2006. So the attempted defense about the newness of the claim doesn’t seem to hold.

  3. devadatta

    Have you read “Darwin’s Cathedral” by DS Wilson? He argues that Stark is on the right track in observing the “secular utility” of religion but on the wrong track in his economic (evolutionary by-product) theory. According to Wilson, the most important effect is the cultural group selection with high differences is reproductive rate between religious groups with a culture of exclusive commitment and other groups. What do you think about that?

  4. i read it. i think wilson has part of the answer. but again, i think overemphasis on functionalism, or rational actor models, etc., is only going to capture one particular aspect or dimension. a theory of religion needs to be like a theory of happiness; multifaceted.

  5. devadatta

    I agree that no single explanation will be all-encompassing. An important part (although probably not the biggest part) of religion is spiritual experiences, and for that you need Barrett’s HADD-hypothesis (a by-product theory). And although Wilson himself admits that other explanations have their place (other than cultural group selection) he downplays them in his theorizing.

  6. “many economists have come to admit that the power of their discipline’s logic can explain far less than they’d once thought”
    Does many = Greg Clark himself? Because his article suggested that academic economics hasn’t and won’t learn anything at all from recent events.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at


See More


RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar