Unquestion #11: When PPF Responses Are Read as Behavioral Departures

Behavioral departures

We all depart from the rational actor assumed in economic models. We delay things, misjudge, follow defaults and habits, weigh loss more heavily than gain, and make decisions without the attention, information, time, or calculation the model allows. These behavioral departures belong to all of us. This we know.

Economists study these departures through behavioral economics. They look at them within the context in which we make decisions. This we know.

Poverty comes with hunger, illness, family need, uncertainty, and the fear of ending up worse than one already is. When getting out of poverty is not in view, so is the desire for ordinary things in life. All of these go into decisions, and each person still decides. Where the same choice is seen again and again, whether in use, non-use, purchase, or refusal, it must first be read in the context of poverty. It is not, by itself, a behavioral departure. This too we know.

The PPF response

On the Production Possibilities Frontier (PPF), non-use, low use, refusal, waiting, or holding back are part of the production response. A low-yield position on the PPF is also a result of that response. Farming for sustenance in poverty and low input use by any farmer are both responses to income expected ahead on the PPF. The producer who stays close to sustenance and the producer who uses high inputs are each responding to the income they see ahead. This we see.

The budget line sits somewhere else in this PPF response. Income at hand positions it, while the producer still makes the production decision on the PPF for what she expects to earn. Where the budget line holds at or near sustenance and income ahead remains out of sight, the producer has little reason to move on the PPF. This we Question.

Poverty as the lens

Low input use by a large farmer is seen as prudence. Income at hand and an expected return are considered to be behind that decision. But low input use by a poor farmer is seen as non-adoption, risk aversion, low aspiration, weak science uptake, or behavior to be changed. We read the same PPF response differently when poverty becomes the lens. This we Question.

Farming for sustenance is a production decision on the PPF, not an absence of agency or aspiration. Where the income ahead is low, unstable, or out of sight, a higher-income position is unsafe to aim for. Stability is also a production decision when a worse outcome must be avoided. This we see.

The behavior language

We in Development carry behavioral language into PPF responses. Non-adoption and disadoption are departures, while adoption is what we expect. We attribute unused advice, low input use, and credit avoidance to bias or low aspiration. They become the departures to be measured and changed. This we do.

We design interventions to change the producer’s responses. We run randomized controlled trials to find the designs that increase adoption. The PPF where income is not seen and the budget line is at sustenance stay outside the frame. Meanwhile, the language around all this piles up. Adoption. Non-adoption. Disadoption. Risk aversion. Present bias. Low aspiration. Scarcity mindset. Incentives. Nudges. Positive deviance. Human-centered design. Behavior design. This we do.

Income in sight

When income is in sight, producers move on their PPFs, but we do not usually treat that as a departure to be studied. The producer now seeks inputs, information, advice, and even credit, which now has a repayment path. She weighs her costs and risks against the income she expects. As her production moves on the PPF and she realizes more income, the budget line rises from where earlier income has held it. Thus, whether she tries or adopts what we offer depends on whether income is in sight or out of sight. This we Question.

Bangladesh maize

For decades, maize remains a minor crop and yield stays near the floor of science’s potential. What we in Development call non-adoption is there to see. Then a rare extended scarcity in feed maize makes income expected ahead visible, and farmers move on the PPF. Inputs flow, information is used, and area expands. Yield rises toward science’s potential where maize fits the place. This is in the record.

The same farmers, the same crop, and the same science remain in view, but the response changes when what farmers expect to earn changes. No behavior design is involved in this adoption, only a higher-income position that becomes visible on the PPF. This we see.

So here is the Unquestion:

The more we Unquestion, the more clarity we gain. The more we Unquestion now, the less future generations will have to.

We are not lost.
We simply avoid the turn.
Once we Unquestion, the direction is already clear.

Thank you for seeing.