Soul in the Game and Some (Not Too Much) Protectionism
The concept argues that people derive identity and fulfillment from doing work they care about, not just from financial gain. It challenges pure free trade by suggesting that protectionism can be rational if it preserves craftsmanship and personal connection to labor, even at the cost of economic efficiency.
THE IDEA
Soul in the Game and Some (Not Too Much) Protectionism
People’s connection to their work also matters in debates about protectionism and globalism. Seen that way, some protectionism may have a strong rationale—and an economic one.
I leave aside the argument that globalization leads to a Tower-of-Babel style cacophony, owing to the imbalance in the noise-signal ratio. The point here is that workers, people who do things, have each an artisan in them. For, contrary to what lobbyists paid by international large corporations are trying to make us believe, such protectionism does not even conflict with economic thinking, what is called neoclassical economics. It is not inconsistent with the mathematical axioms of economic decision making, on which economics lays its foundations, to behave in a way that does not maximize one’s narrowly defined dollar-denominated bottom line at the expense of other things. It is not irrational, according to economic theory, to leave money on the table because of your personal preference; the notion of incentives as limited to financial gain cannot otherwise explain the very existence of an economics academia that promotes the idea of self-interest.fn8
We may be better off in a narrowly defined accounting sense (in the aggregate) by exporting jobs. But that’s not what people may really want. I write because that’s what I am designed to do, just as a knife cuts because that’s what its mission is, Aristotle’s arête—and subcontracting my research and writing to China or Tunisia would (perhaps) increase my productivity, but deprive me of my identity.
So people might want to do things. Just to do things, because they feel it is part of their identity. A shoemaker in Westchester County wants to be a shoemaker, to enjoy the fruits of his labor and the pride of seeing his merchandise in the stores, even if his so-called “economic” condition might benefit from letting a Chinese factory make the shoes and converting to another profession. Even if such a new system allows him to buy flat-screen TV sets, more cotton shirts, and cheaper bicycles, something is missing. It may be cruel to cheat people of their profession. People want to have their soul in the game.
In that sense, decentralization and fragmentation, aside from stabilizing the system, improves people’s connection to their labor.
When to use it
A small business owner deciding to keep manufacturing local even though overseas production is cheaper, to preserve the brand's heritage and the pride of local artisans.
A software developer choosing not to outsource core coding tasks to low-cost contractors because they derive identity from hands-on building.
A country implementing selective tariffs on goods that are central to national cultural identity, such as artisanal cheese or handwoven textiles.
An individual turning down a high-paying but meaningless job to pursue a vocation that aligns with their personal sense of purpose.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Shoemaker of Westchester County
A shoemaker in Westchester County chooses to remain a shoemaker despite the fact that outsourcing production to China would allow him to buy more consumer goods. His identity and pride in his work outweigh the material gains from free trade.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
In what areas of your life do you prioritize identity and meaning over narrow financial efficiency?
How might the desire to protect local craftsmanship shape trade policies in your community?
Can you think of a time when you left money on the table to preserve a connection to your work or values?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Skin In The Game Hidden Asymmetries In Daily Life (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)