We, Too, Are Violent Animals. By Jane Goodall, Richard Wrangham, and Dale Peterson
Those who doubt that human aggression is an evolved trait should spend more time with chimpanzees and wolvesThe Wall Street Journal,January 5, 2013, on page C3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578220002834225378.html
Where does human savagery come from? The animal behaviorist Marc Bekoff, writing in Psychology Today after last month's awful events in Newtown, Conn., echoed a common view: It can't possibly come from nature or evolution. Harsh aggression, he wrote, is "extremely rare" in nonhuman animals, while violence is merely an odd feature of our own species, produced by a few wicked people. If only we could "rewild our hearts," he concluded, we might harness our "inborn goodness and optimism" and thereby return to our "nice, kind, compassionate, empathic" original selves.
If only if it were that simple. Calm and cooperative behavior indeed predominates in most species, but the idea that human aggression is qualitatively different from that of every other species is wrong.
The latest report from the research site that one of us (Jane Goodall) directs in Tanzania gives a quick sense of what a scientist who studies chimpanzees actually sees: "Ferdinand [the alpha male] is rather a brutal ruler, in that he tends to use his teeth rather a lot…a number of the males now have scars on their backs from being nicked or gashed by his canines…The politics in Mitumba [a second chimpanzee community] have also been bad. If we recall that: they all killed alpha-male Vincent when he reappeared injured; then Rudi as his successor probably killed up-and-coming young Ebony to stop him helping his older brother Edgar in challenging him…but to no avail, as Edgar eventually toppled him anyway."
A 2006 paper reviewed evidence from five separate chimpanzee populations in Africa, groups that have all been scientifically monitored for many years. The average "conservatively estimated risk of violent death" was 271 per 100,000 individuals per year. If that seems like a low rate, consider that a chimpanzee's social circle is limited to about 50 friends and close acquaintances. This means that chimpanzees can expect a member of their circle to be murdered once every seven years. Such a rate of violence would be intolerable in human society.
The violence among chimpanzees is impressively humanlike in several ways. Consider primitive human warfare, which has been well documented around the world. Groups of hunter-gatherers who come into contact with militarily superior groups of farmers rapidly abandon war, but where power is more equal, the hostility between societies that speak different languages is almost endless. Under those conditions, hunter-gatherers are remarkably similar to chimpanzees: Killings are mostly carried out by males, the killers tend to act in small gangs attacking vulnerable individuals, and every adult male in the society readily participates. Moreover, with hunter-gatherers as with chimpanzees, the ordinary response to encountering strangers who are vulnerable is to attack them.
Most animals do not exhibit this striking constellation of behaviors, but chimpanzees and humans are not the only species that form coalitions for killing. Other animals that use this strategy to kill their own species include group-living carnivores such as lions, spotted hyenas and wolves. The resulting mortality rate can be high: Among wolves, up to 40% of adults die from attacks by other packs.
Killing among these carnivores shows that ape-sized brains and grasping hands do not account for this unusual violent behavior. Two other features appear to be critical: variable group size and group-held territory. Variable group size means that lone individuals sometimes encounter small, vulnerable parties of neighbors. Having group territory means that by killing neighbors, the group can expand its territory to find extra resources that promote better breeding. In these circumstances, killing makes evolutionary sense—in humans as in chimpanzees and some carnivores.
What makes humans special is not our occasional propensity to kill strangers when we think we can do so safely. Our unique capacity is our skill at engineering peace. Within societies of hunter-gatherers (though only rarely between them), neighboring groups use peacemaking ceremonies to ensure that most of their interactions are friendly. In state-level societies, the state works to maintain a monopoly on violence. Though easily misused in the service of those who govern, the effect is benign when used to quell violence among the governed.
Under everyday conditions, humans are a delightfully peaceful and friendly species. But when tensions mount between groups of ordinary people or in the mind of an unstable individual, emotion can lead to deadly events. There but for the grace of fortune, circumstance and effective social institutions go you and I. Instead of constructing a feel-good fantasy about the innate goodness of most people and all animals, we should strive to better understand ourselves, the good parts along with the bad.
—Ms. Goodall has directed the scientific study of chimpanzee behavior at Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania since 1960. Mr. Wrangham is the Ruth Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University. Mr. Peterson is the author of "Jane Goodall: The Woman Who Redefined Man."
Favorable growth prospects and higher asset
returns in emerging market economies have been led to a sharp increase
in flows of foreign finance in recent years. Massive inflows to the
domestic economy may fuel activity in financial markets and — if not
properly managed — booms in credit and asset prices may arise (Reinhart
and Reinhart, 2009; Mendoza and Terrones, 2008, 2012). In turn, the
expansion of credit and overvalued asset prices have been good
predictors not only of the current financial crises but also past ones
(Schularick and Taylor, 2012; Gourinchas and Obstfeld, 2012).
In a recent paper, Megumi Kubota and I synthesized both strands of
the empirical literature and examine whether gross private inflows can
predict the incidence of credit booms — and, especially, those financial
booms that end up in a systemic banking crises.1
More specifically, our paper finds that surges gross private capital
inflows can help explain the incidence of subsequent credit booms — and,
especially those financial booms that are followed by systemic banking
crises. When looking at the predictive power of capital flows, we argue
that not all types of flows behave alike. We find that gross private
other investment (OI) inflows robustly predict the incidence of credit
booms — while portfolio investment (PI) has no systematic link and FDI
surges will at best mitigate the probability of credit booms. Consequently, gross private OI inflows are a good predictor of credit
booms.
Our paper evaluates the linkages between surges in gross private
capital inflows and the incidence of booms in credit markets. In
contrast to previous research papers in this literature: (i) we use data
on gross inflows rather than net inflows; and, (ii) we use quarterly
data for 71 countries from 1975q1 and 2010q4 instead of annual
frequency. In this context, we argue that the dynamic behavior of
capital flows and credit markets along the business cycle is better
captured using quarterly data.2
As a result, we can evaluate more precisely the impact on credit booms
of (the overall amount and the different types of) financing flows
coming from abroad. On the other hand, we are more interested the impact
on credit markets of investment inflows coming from foreign investors.
Using information on net inflows — especially since the mid-1990s for
emerging markets — would not allow us to appropriately differentiate the
behavior of foreign investors from that of domestic ones and it may
provide misleading inference on the amount of capital supplied from
abroad (Forbes and Warnock, 2012).3
Credit booms are identified using two different methodologies: (a)
Mendoza and Terrones (2008), and (b) Gourinchas, Valdés and Landarretche
(2001) — also applied in Barajas, Dell’Ariccia, and Levchenko (2009).
Moreover, we look deeper into credit boom episodes and differentiate bad
booms from those that booms that may come along with a soft landing of
the economy. In general, the literature finds that credit booms are not
always followed by a systemic banking crisis — see Tornell and
Westermann (2002) and Barajas et al. (2009). For instance, Calderón and
Servén (2011) find that only 4.6 percent of lending booms may end up in a
full-blown banking crisis for advanced countries whereas its
probability is 8.3 and 4.6 percent for Latin America and the Caribbean
(LAC) and non-LAC emerging markets. Those credit booms that end up in an
episodes of systemic banking crisis are denoted as “bad” credit booms —
see Barajas et al. (2009).
Our panel Probit regression shows that gross private capital inflows
are a good predictor of the incidence of credit booms. This result is
robust with respect to any sample of countries, any criteria of credit
booms and any set of control variables. Next, the probability of credit
booms is higher when the surges in capital flows are driven by gross OI
inflows and, to a lesser extent, by increases in gross portfolio
investment (FPI) inflows. Surges of gross foreign direct investment
(FDI) inflows would, at best, reduce the likelihood of credit booms. The
main conduit is gross OI bank inflows10 when we unbundle the effect of
gross private OI inflows on credit booms. Third, we find that capital
flows do explain the incidence of bad credit booms and that the overall
impact is significantly positive and greater than the impact on overall
credit booms.
Finally, the likelihood of bad credit booms is greater when surges in
capital inflows are driven by increases in OI inflows. As a result, the
overall positive impact of gross OI inflows significantly predicts an
increase in credit booms although the evidence on the impact of gross
FDI and FPI inflows is somewhat mixed. So far, the literature has shown
that increasing leverage in the financial system and overvalued
currencies are the best predictors of financial crisis (Schularick and
Taylor, 2012; Gourinchas and Obstfeld, 2012). Moreover, our findings
suggest that surges in capital flows (especially, rising cross-border
banking flows) are also a good indicator of future financial turmoil.
References
Barajas, A., G. Dell’Ariccia, and A. Levchenko, 2009. “Credit Booms: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Washington, DC: IMF, manuscript
Calderón, C., and M. Kubota, 2012. “Gross Inflows Gone Wild: Gross
Capital inflows, Credit Booms and Crises.” The World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 6270, December.
Calderón, C., and M. Kubota, 2012. “Sudden stops: Are global and local investors alike?” Journal of International Economics 89(1), 122-142
Calderón, C., and L. Servén, 2011. “Macro-Prudential Policies over the Cycle in Latin America.” Washington, DC: The World Bank, manuscript
Forbes, K.J., and F.E. Warnock, 2012. “Capital Flow Waves: Surges, Stops, Flight, and Retrenchment.” Journal of International Economics 88(2), 235-251
Gourinchas, P.O., and M. Obstfeld, 2012. “Stories of the Twentieth Century for the Twenty-First.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 4(1), 226-265
Gourinchas, P.O., R. Valdes, and O. Landerretche, 2001. “Lending Booms: Latin America and the World.” Economia, Spring Issue, 47-99.
Mendoza, E.G., and M.E. Terrones, 2008. “An anatomy of credit booms:
Evidence from macro aggregates and micro data.” NBER Working Paper
14049, May
Mendoza, E.G. and M.E. Terrones, 2012. “An Anatomy of Credit Booms and their Demise,” NBER Working Paper 18379, September.
Reinhart, C.M., and V. Reinhart, 2009. “Capital Flow Bonanzas: An
Encompassing View of the Past and Present.” In: Frankel, J.A., and C.
Pissarides, Eds., NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2008.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press for NBER, pp. 9-62
Rothenberg, A., Warnock, F., 2011. “Sudden flight and true sudden stops.” Review of International Economics 19(3), 509-524.
Schularick, M., and A.M. Taylor, 2012. “Credit Booms Gone Bust:
Monetary Policy, Leverage Cycles, and Financial Crises, 1870–2008.” American Economic Review 102(2), 1029–1061
______________________
1 Read Working Paper.
2 Rothenberg and Warnock (2011), Forbes
and Warnock (2012) and Calderón and Kubota (2012) already provide a
more accurate analysis of extreme movement in (net and gross) capital
flows using quarterly data.
3 The “two-way capital flows” phenomena cannot be identified using net inflows.