Many social science scholars who made their reputation studying the operations of natural sciences have recently been turning their attention to the work of economics and finance. In the introduction to the volume Market Devices, the authors sketch out a framework for examining ‘economically rational actors’ sui generis. A key component is the notion of ‘agencements’. Put simply, these are the material things that enable market transaction to occur and economies to function (though they paint a more complex metaphysical picture). Agencements
… [render] things, behaviours and processes economic. Emphasis is put here on the ‘rendering’, not on any substantive definition of what should ‘economic’ mean. The meaning of what it is to be ‘economic’ is precisely the outcome of a process of ‘economization’, a process that is historical, contingent and disputable. It seems undeniable that, in so-called advanced liberal societies, ‘economic’ often refers to the establishing of valuation networks, that is, to pricing and to the construction of circuits of commerce that render things economically commensurable and exchangeable; but ‘economic’ can also be said of a particular configuration that aims at ‘economizing’ in the sense of saving or rationing. The fact that an institution, an action, an actor or an object can be considered as being economic is precisely the result of this process of economization… ‘Being economic’ is a path-dependent feature, which implies that the economy is always an issue whose formulation partly depends on (but is not fully determined by) previous events and trajectories.
Enter Peter Martin on a particular kind of ’saving’ being contemplated in Canberra:
The Competition and Consumer Commission is likely to recommend a compulsory national system of “unit pricing” as a result of its grocery inquiry. Family First has introduced a bill for such a scheme into the Senate, and Coles has told the inquiry that even without legislation it’ll go ahead on its own such scheme within the twelve months. Aldi already has it.
Our parochial European readers would probably find it strange that we don’t have widespread per unit pricing here. As Martin notes, Family First found plenty of anomalies of grocery pricing from toilet paper to milk to fruit salad. Now to Joshua Gans for an interpretation:
Even if you can calculate per unit volumes not having to do so would be a time saver. (Interestingly, Woolworth’s online offering does give you unit pricing). So why don’t the supermarkets offer them? … When you try to think of reasonable explanations — integer constraints, packing costs or what have you — it only increases the rationale for some transparency so that consumers feel the firm’s cost pain and accommodate it. Thus, we are left with the strategic: put simply, it looks like an innumeracy tax. Those who can’t or can’t be bothered calculating may end up paying more than those who can. But even that doesn’t get us the whole way there as an explanation: those very same people who can’t also have to be the people who are relatively price insensitive. Now, the notion that the rich can’t be bothered is attractive but given how widespread this practice is, I suspect those who can’t, can’t also easily check between supermarkets as to whether they are paying more for their whole basket of groceries.
Crucially, this problem appears to have been ‘discovered’, rather than ‘worsened’, which is to say that we don’t have an established set of metrics to chart which social groups are doin’ it wrong. However the question of ‘rich people not being bothered’ is an intriguing one. Would low income earners ‘performing’ a sense of (national?) wealth and accomplishment by buying larger quantities of the commodities they had to ration in their younger days qualify as ‘rich’? Class based metrics, in other words, may only get us so far with this quandary.
Off the top of my head, I can imagine sociological explanations for this aberration encompassing the material configurations of our supermarkets and transport networks; a tendency towards less frequent, larger shopping expeditions; and perhaps the performance of what economists call ‘cyclical factors’ on the economy like a feeling of ‘things going well’ with low unemployment, high growth.
Either way, the jostling around the seemingly simple addition of a ‘divide’ function to the computation of a price tag will be an interesting addition to the post-Fuel Watch political landscape.
Thanks, dk.au, very interesting post!
Off the top of my head, I can imagine sociological explanations for this aberration encompassing the material configurations of our supermarkets and transport networks;
Using our family as one little data point, dk.au: A Coles supermarket opened up a short walk from our house a couple of years ago. Recently, my husband started working on saturdays. We have one car, and our budget wouldn’t stretch to a second. So, I bought one of those sturdy two-basket trolley things, and now I do the weekly shop on foot (with a side trip in route to other places at other times in the week if I need things like heavy bags of spuds or dog food, or fruit and veg or stuff Coles doesn’t sell.)
Even if every single item was a few cents dearer, I’d probably wear it (your sociological/transport reasons), because the alternative is walking to the next furthest supermarket, or buying a second car, which would make those Aldi bargains VERY expensive when you take that into consideration.
One other option is doing grocery shopping over the internet instead. Once you take into account petrol, parking and especially time then the delivery fees are not that bad (we only grocery shop about once a month). I do have a suspicion (though no evidence) that the internet prices are slightly higher than store prices.
From an environment perspective too I often wondered if its an improvement as rather than driving back and forth to the shops they deliver to a whole bunch of people at the same time using a truck.
Good idea Chris - except it would have a negative impact on the dogs quality of life. They spend enough time sitting and rolling their eyes at me as I waste yet another hour on the computer!
Seeing I do most of the food shopping I’ve pretty much got my mind to auto calculate unit pricing per kilo or litre. There are a lot of surprises. [track down the price of a small tin of tuna vs large tuna debate on the net -I forget where I started with it - possibly Marginal Revolution or was it Peter Martin].
But although I can often get the unit pricing right far too often the prices are so tiny in print or smudged or hidden behind a clip that it is impossible to see.
I like Aldi but only get to shop there if I’m passing by one or I find a non food special I want. [you can get an email alert a week in advance of their sales]
I mainly shop at the one supermarket that even though its in a solid middle class area for some reason it never seems to have all its shelves stocked. The reason I shop there is that its close and most importantly I know where stuff is. If I go to other super marts I spend what seems like hours but is only probably minutes faffing around looking for stuff. And often I can’t find what I want.
Its no fun [and symptomatic of whats wrong with this modern world etc] ducking in somewhere on the road and asking “Wheres the Split Peas” to be told peas are in the vegie section with a roll of eyes then to be asked with attitude “Well what are they?”.
One super mart I sometimes drop into has re-arranged - split peas are not now with the lentils, chick peas, barley etc but in the Canned Soup section, lentils are in the Indian section in another aisle, canned lentils [now the go as far as I’m concerned] are in the canned vegies section.
I want unit pricing like Aldi. I want font sizes larger than 10 point. I want shelves that actually have stock on them and I want convenience. If I’m spending $150 I want quicker service than the slackers in trackydacks buying two packs of chips and 3 milk.
I don’t want aisles crammed with feckin soft drink by the tank full, chips in packs large enough for an elephants party and chocolate in quantities large enough to sink a bloody container ship.
And while I’m at it I want better dress standards from shoppers. The amount of cracks, cleavage and casual costumes I have to gaze at in a average shopping trip makes it an exercise in exhaustion. The first super mart with dress codes - I’ll signup for the loyalty program. [”Good evening sir nice tie - why thank you - can you tell me where the split peas are young man - yes certainly sir right by the soup ingredients near the new line of soup stock - have a nice evening”]
I recommend you shop at New Farm Coles. Monday night is straight pick-up night.
Does one approach people based on the inclusion of upward pointing bananas or some such?
Also, for those considering walking to the supermarket to reduce their carbon footprint, you might want to consider this piece http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter eg:
Also, wtf is happening to the price of milk??? (is it this? http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/06/the-economics-1.html)
2 weeks ago a 2L Dairy Farmers was $3.80
last week it was $4.00
last night I paid $4.20
that’s a ~10% rise in 2 weeks, which is… 250% p.a. or something.
at this rate, it will be $23.75 by the time emissions trading commences!!
Definitely a benefit for the walker getting exercise though!
Re: carbon emissions of cooking - a friend calls a roast cooked in an electric oven “congealed electricity”. Even sillier is cooking a roast in summer and then airconditioning the house to cool it down.