any comments?

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

here's a passage from the book I'm writing. Comments and criticisms
are welcome.

Custom.

This kind of organization is often termed tradition, convention,
mores, or social norms. These terms are not synonymous, but all refer
to ways of organizing the economy and society that center on precedent
as the guiding principle. Unlike with the U.S. legal system, precedent
need not be enshrined in official or formal institutions but can work
in a generally decentralized way.

Conventions typically refer to a narrow arena, such as that of driving
on the right-hand side of the road. Traditions and customs, on the
other hand, refer to a more complex array of interacting and often
mutually-reinforcing conventions.

In India, the caste system is an extremely persistent tradition. It
has limited and shaped the way that people choose their occupations,
spouses, social lives, and more. It rations jobs among people.
Indirectly it rations goods, too: those in the higher castes do better
in terms of their living standards. Since independence (1947), the
Indian government has struggled to undermine and abolish the system,
again with only limited effectiveness.

The United States has suffered from the similar durability of racist
institutions, especially against African-Americans. Traditions often
involve cultural, racial, linguistic, and gender differences and do
not distribute the benefits of coordination equally.

It would be a mistake to assume that systems relying on precedent are
exotic, ancient, or immoral. For example, consider the issue of how to
ration scarce public roads. Informal "rules of the road" (conventions)
have developed and persist. In Los Angeles, for example, when making a
left turn at a stop light, it is customary to pull into the
intersection when the light turns green – and then turn left only
after the on-coming traffic has passed.

Like markets, customs are typically decentralized and thus vary
between areas. In other cities, you see people turning left
immediately after the light turns green. But in my experience, people
who have lived in Los Angeles see their custom as the only way to deal
with the left turn issue.

We also see custom playing a role in corporations. This has been
labeled "corporate culture." Like other traditions, these cultures
vary between corporations. Another modern tradition is the general
respect for others' property rights and for contracts. There are also
a whole set of customs about politeness.

How and why do customs persist? It is not my purpose here to present a
final answer. But we can see some possibilities. The actual answer
likely depends on which tradition is being discussed.

There may be a built-in logic insuring the persistence of this system
even though it ostensibly conflicts with the "modern" market and
government. Consider the roles of information and motivation in the
traffic example. Individuals get signals from watching other drivers.
The motivation of most is to get to the destination safely and in a
reasonable time. But it is expectations that make tradition persist.
Because people expect each other to turn left only after the on-coming
traffic has gone, they act on those predictions. Because the tradition
works, people continue to expect such behavior. So custom involves a
self-fulfilling prophecy or a virtuous circle. Of course, if one is
the victim of a tradition, as with racism or the caste system, it's a
vicious circle.

In trying to understand the persistence of custom, economics Nobelist
George Akerlof  posits a society of total individualists. His
conclusion is that customs persist due to sanctions applied to those
who violate tradition.  This would be especially true if the tradition
is grossly inefficient or grossly unfair to some people.

This analysis suggests that the persistence of tradition arises
because of external forces, arising from other types of coordinating
institutions. The state can punish those who break traditions (as
especially before Indian independence or the end of Jim Crow).
Traditions can persist because of an informal democratic consensus on
their benefits, especially a consensus of those who benefit the most.

Such a system can also persist because it meshes with the distribution
of economic wealth and power: since they benefit most from the caste
system, the wealthy are often also those of the "high castes." This
might help explain the caste system's resistance to market forces and
government efforts. As noted in chapter 1, markets do not encourage
greater equality of wealth and in fact encourage greater inequality
over time. In most eras, the same rule applies to politics. When the
wealthy are over-represented in and by the government, the politicians
tend to perpetuate the caste and class systems.

Another response to Akerlof's argument is that people are not totally
individualistic – and that traditions are more complex than he
imagines them to be. Individuals often care deeply about what others
think of them. They can get pleasure or pain from their perceptions of
others' attitudes. This is especially true in most small towns and
old-fashioned agricultural areas. They also identify with others and
see shared interests in the community. Tradition cannot be totally
separated from democratic consent, discussed below. Further, the most
persistent traditions are intimately tied up with the entire system of
family and kinship, religion and education. They are not simply rules
that are imposed on an isolated bunch of individuals.

In this view, tradition gives purpose to people's lives. It allows
them to make sense of the universe, both natural and social. It can
give solace in hard times. If any part of the complex web of
traditions is broken, it threatens to undermine the entire system.
This would threaten people with anarchy and anomie, the feeling that
nothing makes sense.

In the end, the people see precedents as part of the natural order and
to obey them. This in turn perpetuates the customs.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.