Does freedom lead to wealth or does wealth lead to freedom?
Many modern economic theories (Florida Reference Florida2002a; Glaeser Reference Glaeser2011) reverse the causal direction proposed in the target article. According to these theories, history often shows that populations attain wealth as a result of the freedom afforded the population, which enables the free flow of cooperation and ideas, allowing human beings to create wealth through the efficient mixing of capital, talent, and comparative advantage. Thus, freedom may create wealth, rather than wealth creating freedom. Richard Florida (Reference Florida2007), citing the economic boom in open-minded cities such as San Francisco and Austin, writes that “Freedom … means the ability to be yourself and to follow your dreams. Open culture is a spur to innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic development” (p. 72).
Climato-economic theory proposes that climate challenges will “emphasize free choices inherent in stimulating opportunities and autonomous adventures” (sect. 2.4.2., para. 2) among the wealthy, but all of the supporting evidence for this claim is correlational (e.g. Van de Vliert Reference Van de Vliert2007), such that it is entirely possible that wealth is a result of freedom rather than a cause. Given the longitudinal nature of the historical analysis of theories that posit that freedom leads to wealth (e.g., Florida Reference Florida2012), more empirical evidence appears to suggest that freedom is a precursor to wealth in challenging climates, rather than a consequence. There do appear to be several rich countries in temperate climates that are repressive (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Libya, and Iran), yet Middle Eastern countries, where wealth is a result of oil rather than having advanced economies, appear to be clear outliers. The data presented suggest that the presence of oil predicts oppression in wealthier nations far better than climate, providing a better fit to the data for countries such as Russia (see Crespo-Cuaresma et al. Reference Crespo-Cuaresma, Oberhofer and Raschky2011 for more on the oil-dictatorship connection).
As such, more evidence for a causal link in rich countries is essential. Van de Vliert is on firmer ground with respect to the interpretation that threat appraisals lead to less freedom in demanding climates, as there is a large body of experimental research concerning the causal effect of threat appraisals on constrained thinking (Pyszczynski et al. Reference Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Goldenberg, Leary and Tangney2003; Vail et al. Reference Vail, Arndt, Motyl and Pyszczynski2012). We would be interested in similar experimental research showing that the ability to adapt to cold weather causes individuals to exhibit greater openness and free thinking.
Can all types of freedom be grouped together?
Is there really broad consensus about what important freedoms are? Our research on American libertarians (Iyer et al. Reference Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto and Haidt2012) suggests that there is a wide gap between the positive conception of liberty espoused by liberals and the negative conception of liberty espoused by libertarians (see Berlin Reference Berlin1969 for a broader discussion of positive and negative liberty). Often, these freedoms are at odds with each other as the positive liberty to be free from want, facilitated by social welfare programs, often requires violation of others' negative liberty to be free from economic interference in the form of taxation. The case of Singapore, which seemingly illustrates that temperate climates can be home to rich though repressive governments, is a clear example of the complexity of grouping these freedoms together: while Singapore is repressive socially, it scores quite high in ratings of economic freedom (Gwartney et al. Reference Gwartney, Lawson and Norton2008).
Van de Vliert groups these freedoms together in part because he supposes that most people seek to fulfill all needs simultaneously, regardless of economic circumstance, in contrast to researchers who have documented a progression toward the satisfaction of postmaterial needs as societies become wealthier (e.g., Inglehart Reference Inglehart1997). In this case, we believe that the more parsimonious account, whereby lower-level needs must be satisfied first, provides a more theoretically accurate account as well. Maslow (Reference Maslow1943) theorized that individuals must first satisfy survival needs before moving on the social needs, and Van de Vliert's article shows that the poorer sections of China (the North) and the United States (the South) are more discriminatory than the richer sections. This rich/poor divide also maps onto the climate-based differences predicted by the target article. However, given that longitudinal evidence (Inglehart Reference Inglehart1997) exists supporting the rich versus poor distinction and that, in the studies presented, monetary resources consistently accounted for more variance than climate and the climate–wealth interaction combined, in terms of predicting freedom, more direct evidence is needed to support the importance of nonmonetary factors. In particular, climato-economic theory would benefit from longitudinal evidence showing that individuals in temperate climates do not seek to attain freedom of expression as much as individuals in demanding climates, even as these countries develop and wealth allows individuals to move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
In conclusion, climato-economic theory is a fascinating way of looking at how our macro-level environment shapes our collective behavior. As with any good theory, it provided an opportunity for us to think about the forces that shape our world. Yet, in considering those forces, existing theories of postmaterialism and the importance of creativity in producing wealth appear to have more explanatory power. We encourage behavioral scientists to examine longitudinal historical patterns and potentially conduct micro-level experiments that shed light on the processes involved and the directionality of the hypothesized effects, to further push climato-economic theory forward.
You have
Access
Many of the most influential findings in behavioral science concern the power of situations to affect human behavior. Van de Vliert adds a novel and impactful dimension to these findings, showing how macro-level situational facets–climate and economic wealth–may combine to affect macro-level behavior, specifically the amount of freedom afforded by societies. The target article presents a provocative and interesting theory of how these basic ever-present situational factors shape our collective behavior, and there is insight gained by pushing a theory to its limits. It is convincing that the basic needs individuals seek to fulfill are partially a function of their environments. However, we question the causal order proposed by climato–economic theory and the precision of the theory's conception of freedom.
Does freedom lead to wealth or does wealth lead to freedom?
Many modern economic theories (Florida Reference Florida2002a; Glaeser Reference Glaeser2011) reverse the causal direction proposed in the target article. According to these theories, history often shows that populations attain wealth as a result of the freedom afforded the population, which enables the free flow of cooperation and ideas, allowing human beings to create wealth through the efficient mixing of capital, talent, and comparative advantage. Thus, freedom may create wealth, rather than wealth creating freedom. Richard Florida (Reference Florida2007), citing the economic boom in open-minded cities such as San Francisco and Austin, writes that “Freedom … means the ability to be yourself and to follow your dreams. Open culture is a spur to innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic development” (p. 72).
Climato-economic theory proposes that climate challenges will “emphasize free choices inherent in stimulating opportunities and autonomous adventures” (sect. 2.4.2., para. 2) among the wealthy, but all of the supporting evidence for this claim is correlational (e.g. Van de Vliert Reference Van de Vliert2007), such that it is entirely possible that wealth is a result of freedom rather than a cause. Given the longitudinal nature of the historical analysis of theories that posit that freedom leads to wealth (e.g., Florida Reference Florida2012), more empirical evidence appears to suggest that freedom is a precursor to wealth in challenging climates, rather than a consequence. There do appear to be several rich countries in temperate climates that are repressive (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Libya, and Iran), yet Middle Eastern countries, where wealth is a result of oil rather than having advanced economies, appear to be clear outliers. The data presented suggest that the presence of oil predicts oppression in wealthier nations far better than climate, providing a better fit to the data for countries such as Russia (see Crespo-Cuaresma et al. Reference Crespo-Cuaresma, Oberhofer and Raschky2011 for more on the oil-dictatorship connection).
As such, more evidence for a causal link in rich countries is essential. Van de Vliert is on firmer ground with respect to the interpretation that threat appraisals lead to less freedom in demanding climates, as there is a large body of experimental research concerning the causal effect of threat appraisals on constrained thinking (Pyszczynski et al. Reference Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Goldenberg, Leary and Tangney2003; Vail et al. Reference Vail, Arndt, Motyl and Pyszczynski2012). We would be interested in similar experimental research showing that the ability to adapt to cold weather causes individuals to exhibit greater openness and free thinking.
Can all types of freedom be grouped together?
Is there really broad consensus about what important freedoms are? Our research on American libertarians (Iyer et al. Reference Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto and Haidt2012) suggests that there is a wide gap between the positive conception of liberty espoused by liberals and the negative conception of liberty espoused by libertarians (see Berlin Reference Berlin1969 for a broader discussion of positive and negative liberty). Often, these freedoms are at odds with each other as the positive liberty to be free from want, facilitated by social welfare programs, often requires violation of others' negative liberty to be free from economic interference in the form of taxation. The case of Singapore, which seemingly illustrates that temperate climates can be home to rich though repressive governments, is a clear example of the complexity of grouping these freedoms together: while Singapore is repressive socially, it scores quite high in ratings of economic freedom (Gwartney et al. Reference Gwartney, Lawson and Norton2008).
Van de Vliert groups these freedoms together in part because he supposes that most people seek to fulfill all needs simultaneously, regardless of economic circumstance, in contrast to researchers who have documented a progression toward the satisfaction of postmaterial needs as societies become wealthier (e.g., Inglehart Reference Inglehart1997). In this case, we believe that the more parsimonious account, whereby lower-level needs must be satisfied first, provides a more theoretically accurate account as well. Maslow (Reference Maslow1943) theorized that individuals must first satisfy survival needs before moving on the social needs, and Van de Vliert's article shows that the poorer sections of China (the North) and the United States (the South) are more discriminatory than the richer sections. This rich/poor divide also maps onto the climate-based differences predicted by the target article. However, given that longitudinal evidence (Inglehart Reference Inglehart1997) exists supporting the rich versus poor distinction and that, in the studies presented, monetary resources consistently accounted for more variance than climate and the climate–wealth interaction combined, in terms of predicting freedom, more direct evidence is needed to support the importance of nonmonetary factors. In particular, climato-economic theory would benefit from longitudinal evidence showing that individuals in temperate climates do not seek to attain freedom of expression as much as individuals in demanding climates, even as these countries develop and wealth allows individuals to move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
In conclusion, climato-economic theory is a fascinating way of looking at how our macro-level environment shapes our collective behavior. As with any good theory, it provided an opportunity for us to think about the forces that shape our world. Yet, in considering those forces, existing theories of postmaterialism and the importance of creativity in producing wealth appear to have more explanatory power. We encourage behavioral scientists to examine longitudinal historical patterns and potentially conduct micro-level experiments that shed light on the processes involved and the directionality of the hypothesized effects, to further push climato-economic theory forward.