Genocide vs. Economics

*The following is adapted from a recent paper I wrote for International Law of War & Crime.*

Genocide, as a form of human action, constitutes a rational act, in so far as its perpetrators have reasons for engaging in it, and thus is susceptible to economic analysis. Economics, as a science of the means applicable to all human action, asks not only whether genocide is the most cost-effective method of eliminating the targeted group, but also whether eliminating the targeted group is the most appropriate means for the attainment of the actor’s ultimate end, increased happiness and well-being. At a more fundamental level, all action can be seen as an attempt to overcome the limitations on human happiness imposed by natural scarcity. Genocide, therefore, can be considered a response to the effects of scarcity.

Consider the attempts that have been made to classify the various definite motivations for genocidal acts into broad categories. The sociologist Helen Fein, for example, has proposed the following four categories: developmental, where the object of the genocidal actor is to destroy obstacles to the exploitation of resources; despotic, where the object of the genocidal actor is to eliminate real or potential political opposition; retributive, where the object of the genocidal actor is to destroy a long-term enemy; and ideological, where the object of the genocidal actor is to eliminate those who it considers to be evil persons. 

One of Fein’s categories, developmental, is explicitly related to the scarcity of resources. But a closer examination of the other categories reveals their intermediate nature. Why is it important to have political power, if it does not ensure one greater access to other desired resources? Why harbor a long-standing enmity against another group unless one believes that they were harmed by that group in the past, perhaps in a struggle for power or resources? Why classify certain persons as evil unless one believes that they pose a threat to one’s well-being? 

People fight over the control of scarce resources. This is what one gains from an economic view of human action, wherein it is recognized that man seeks the maximization of psychic profit through the acquisition and utilization of economic goods. At some level, it all comes down to scarcity. People want more, and they resent the people who get in their way. Indeed, the regressions that have been run on the available data indicate that one of the major causes of genocide is inequality, either economic (inequality of resources) or political (inequality of power). In other words, situations where one group is markedly better off than the other group, such that the disadvantaged group can see clearly what it imagines it is being denied by the advantaged group. Such situations can lead to either envy or dehumanization, creating conditions where genocide may seem like a viable possibility. Ultimately, however, this environment is created by the fundamental struggle over scarce resources. 

While the idea that the costs of genocide could be artificially increased so as to make it a less attractive course of action is certainly a compelling one, it is important to note that, in light of fundamental economic theory, genocide is already quite costly. Drastically so, for genocide threatens the very foundations of civilization in ways beyond the obvious. First of all, violence is clearly not conducive to cooperation and without cooperation society will begin to fall apart: the division of labor becomes increasingly limited, and this reduces productivity and living standards, potentially leading to mass starvation and death. 

In the same way, it is not economically wise to eliminate people, not only because of the direct productivity loss, but because it makes less specialization possible. This is especially true if a specific type of person is eliminated, as is the aim of genocidal acts, because it is one’s unique traits that makes one more valuable in a complex economy. It is the differences between people that really make the division of labor so powerful and thus create the conditions for increased productivity and economic growth through peaceful cooperation. Whether the targeted group is natives in what became Latin America, teachers in Cambodia, or property-owners in South Africa, eliminating groups with different ideas, knowledge, practices, functions, and skills makes all of society poorer, including the genocidal actor. This impoverishment is, of course, contrary to the genocidal actor’s more fundamental intent to become better off.

A similar confusion existed in the arguments of the Social Darwinists of the early twentieth century. These individuals argued that the theory of evolution demonstrated that in nature there is only struggle between living beings, and that the annihilation of the weak is the natural order of things, leading to a species more suitable for dominating its environment. In making such arguments, these individuals demonstrated their own ignorance of social theory. The teachings of Darwin indicate only that living things actively struggle against forces detrimental to their life and well-being. This struggle, in order to be successful, “must be appropriate to the environmental conditions in which the being concerned has to hold its own.” For human beings, the most appropriate method of surviving and prospering is through peaceful cooperation and the division of labor. There is some value, therefore, in every member of the human species, even if one seems weaker in every sense, because it allows for further specialization and increased productivity. 

Genocide, therefore, appears to be a misguided means of achieving the genocidal actor’s ultimate end of increasing its state of well-being. It is undeniable that, given the constraints one faces in particular situations, genocide sometimes appears to be a viable solution to an apparent problem. A proper understanding of economics, however, reveals that this short-term solution is ultimately self-defeating. This suggests that one way of reducing the frequency of severity of genocide may be to simply educate people about fundamental economic principles. As Mises sums up these lessons: “He who wants to preserve life and health as well and as long as possible, must realize that respect for other people’s lives and health better serves his aim than the opposite mode of conduct.”