Abstract
In WTF?!: An Economic Tour of the Weird, author Peter T. Leeson escorts the reader and a fictitious group of visitors on a narrated museum tour of historical peculiarities in human behavior. As our guide, Leeson deftly applies rational choice theory to each “museum exhibit” to assure all in attendance that, even under the most bizarre circumstances, rationality prevails. The supremacy of rational thought is the overarching theme of the book. As we look back at the seemingly strange practices of our forbearers, a close examination reveals crafty minds at work in the ongoing attempt to optimize under less than ideal conditions.
For anyone who loves gawking at civilization’s side shows, Leeson’s book provides multiple opportunities for cultural rubber-necking. At each stop on Leeson’s tour, WTF?! asks the participants of his tour to consider a different episode in human behavior where our ancestors seem to have left all sensibility behind. What allows WTF?! to stand apart from other catalogs of oddities is Leeson’s meticulous explanation of each exhibit. Given the information and constraints the actors faced, their behavior is revealed to be surprisingly logical.
The first exhibit examines the practice of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages of subjecting suspected transgressors to various trials by ordeal. An ordeal might involve a task, such as carrying red hot iron, or enduring icy water. The prevailing belief at the time was that God would spare a truly innocent person from serious or permanent injury. This is one of three stops on the tour that demonstrates how people determine facts in disputes when reliable witnesses were unavailable. A second example presents the ritual poisoning of chickens among the Azande of North Central Africa. The fate of the drugged chicken indicated whether or not a person had committed malicious witchcraft upon another member of the community. And, in the final chapter of the book, the tour introduces the Norman practice (imported to the conquered lands of England) of trial by combat where land disputes were solved by having competing claimants fight it out either in person or by proxy. In each of these situations, the faith of the participants in the ability of the trial to produce truth was critical—much like we place faith in our forensic scientists today. Without giving too much away, the games were rigged—rigged in the sense that the outcomes relied more heavily on the underlying incentives of the contest than on divine intervention.
A second theme of the book is the many ways the Catholic Church tried to maintain its hold on its property and authority. Tour participants get an introduction to the fine art of priestly maledictions. One of the only tools the pre–Enlightenment Church had over land-hungry royals was its claim to the ear of God and the Saints. Without any recourse to courts, monks could threaten eternal damnation or more mundane afflictions to those who coveted their Earthly wealth. Leeson reveals the conditions in which such threats could be effective. Fast forward a few hundred years, and Leeson presents a Church that no longer holds a spiritual monopoly in Europe. One way to demonstrate legitimate holy authority is to hold sway over the vermin that besiege countless villages. Monks and priests convened trials in which the defendants were the locusts and rats that ravaged crops and infested towns. The ingenious aspect of the approach requires careful observation of how long it takes for an infestation to run its course and thoughtful manipulation of the length of the trial.
Two tour exhibits remain that demonstrate people’s ingenuity in overcoming incomplete institutional arrangements. First, during the Industrial Revolution, divorce court had yet to catch on. Frankly, women were considered property. Needless to say, not all marriages were happy ones. So, a resale market arose for “used” wives. While barbaric sounding, it served as a way for a couple to amicably dissolve a union particularly when another suitor was available. The key to the success of the market was the cooperation of the unhappy wife. Without her consent, there would be no hope that any new marriage would work. And, finally, we meet the Gypsies who migrated to America. Culturally, they are distrustful of the U.S. legal system. Oddly enough, it was their belief in the impurity of the nether regions of the human body that allowed them to maintain order without relying on outside authority. The threat of being declared impure was a strong enough impediment for many American Gypsies to maintain cultural identity much longer than one might have assumed.
The stories are captivating perhaps because the economics stays primarily in the background. But even from the background, an important economic motif resonates. The examples all serve to buttress the assumption of rational behavior within economic models. If rationality can be found in Leeson’s exhibits, it can be found anywhere. Even though the featured economic principles are not standard fare for a principles level economics class, they are important nonetheless. Frequently, the Coase Theorem helps explain the observed behavior. In Leeson’s stories, property rights often take center stage in demonstrating the lengths to which people will go to take advantage of the gains available through trade. The cool-headed approach of the second-hand market for wives makes sense in the context of exchange once one examines the initial allocation of rights and obligations. Judicial combat with paid combatants also makes sense within this context as well. Game theory pops up in a couple of places—mostly in the form of Nash games. For example, poisoned chickens help the Azande avoid undesirable Nash equilibriums and keep the peace. For those interested in the formal economic framework of his explanations, Leeson offers an appendix for mathematical notation.
But, before one decides to crack the spine of WTF?!, one should be aware of two stylistic facets of the book. First, the writing is purposefully vulgar. As the title implies, Leeson intends to shock the reader. He chooses to do so with crass language rather than trusting in the bizarre nature of his tales. This is unfortunate. For one, it makes it somewhat difficult to cull quotes from the book. But, more importantly, it belies the idea that the customs presented in the book are sufficiently weird to stand on their own. The material would be better served by a more dispassionate guide—a guide who views the oddities as normal and the awe of the gawking visitors as the true sideshow.
Second, as the tour guide and narrator, Leeson, treats his fictitious guests rather shabbily. This is in keeping with the “in your face” language used in the book. While the participants of the tour are encouraged to ask questions throughout—a rhetorical trick that allows Leeson to either digress when a line of reasoning is played out or emphasize a point that bears repeating—Leeson continuously insults and stereotypes them. Leeson forces the reader to make a choice between being complicit in the insults or sympathizing with the visitors. It is as if Leeson does not recognize that insulting the patrons of his tour risks insulting potential readers. For example, Leeson nicknames the “economist” in the fictitious group (and presumably the bulk of Leeson’s potential market) “Dr. Spock” and ridicules him for desiring more rigorous evidence of each assertion. He dubs the hippie in the group “Janeane” (as in Garofalo) who spouts leftist slogans throughout. He also has an inarticulate, tobacco chewing rube (“Captain America”) and a highly sensitive Priest (“Padre”) along for the ride. It is one thing to use the artifice of having patrons ask questions. But, to have the questions seem to come from biased or ignorant sources rather than from honest curiosity is a wasted opportunity. One wonders why any of the guests paid to take the tour in the first place. Leeson seems to be aware of this flaw as one of the “Comment Cards” at the end of the book calls the guide out for his condescending behavior. But, having recognized the problem, perhaps Leeson could have addressed it head-on by taking a different approach.
Stylistic issues aside, the stories stand on their own. The insight into how powerful the force of reason can be in overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles is worth the price of admission.