OPPORTUNITY COSTS OR RIOTING

university of Nairobi students

 Opportunity costs of rioting

After witnessing multiple riots in campuses, some of the incidences (whose genesis or relevance is hard to recall). Albeit it seems everyone has an explanation for why they happened. Often, these reasons gainsay each other. But one reason really vexed my interest a colleague contended that this all boiled down to opportunity costs. It turns out he’s not alone; there’s a whole body of literature that has looked at the opportunity costs of rioting and its conclusions are mesmerizing, strangely instinctual and entirely germane today.

Let’s get down to the rudimentary and brass tacks, a bantam Economics 101. What is an opportunity cost? “The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action.” Applied to rioting, this sounds something like this: the expected returns of rioting versus staying at home. I should specify that the “returns on rioting” include not just the value of electronics or cakes looted from your local store or confection but also, however gross this sounds, the satisfaction derived from rioting. Walking the five or so kilometers’ to your destination while causing bedlam provides an epic experience. calls of arms and ‘comrades power’ ensures none of the student  wants to be left behind lest you be labeled a ‘quisling’ or worse a ‘stool pigeon’, though there are those who pledge to the "Cowards Never Die" school of thought, and prefer to stay at home.

In the short-term, there are two variables that are key to understanding why students choose “rioting” over staying at home. First, there’s the issue of expected punishment and victimization from the university administration .research suggests that if you expect rapid and severe punishment, you are less likely to riot.

Second, and linked to this, there’s the issue of chaos: when students see the lawlessness that reigns in during the riots, many think “why not?” university administration calls these people “carpetbaggers” simply meaning opportunists, economists call them “free riders”.

Applied to the riots in universities, what this basically tells us is that whereas in normal circumstances, the equilibrium in society is “not rioting”, in past incidences, the equilibrium in some institutions shifted to “rioting”. As a result, the costs of rioting virtually disappeared: people saw chaos, didn’t think disorder on this scale would be punished and so jumped in. In terms of policy, this suggests that the senate and disciplinary proceedings around the universities really are important: it will have an impact on student’s perception of the expected costs of rioting.

As for the long-term reasons for rioting, existing research is more ambiguous. Several pundits have suggested that it is the economy’s slump, high cost of living and poverty that create the conditions for this unrest. They’re only partially right. Studies suggest that economic growth decreases the likelihood of rioting but poverty, and even income inequality, has no clear impact. Instead, and this may well be where Keynesian’s rules and policies fit in, the likelihood of crime and riots increases if people have low expectations about their future income. Under successive Educational policies, social mobility has collapsed. And under this government, there is certainly the perception that university education will become prohibitively expensive for many. So while we are moving to a more stratified economic model under this plutocratic regime, where low income people no longer expect to rise to the next income bracket, we are also sowing the seeds of cacophony for further crime and future social unrest in our institutions of higher learning.

It all boils down to the “why not riot?” question. In the short-term, potential rioters need to have the impression that the police can control the streets and that rioting will be punished. This should take care of the “carpetbaggers”. But it will not solve the problem altogether. In the long-term, economic growth and social mobility (or at least the perception of it) really matters. If this isn’t taken care of, there will always be a core of people for whom the expected returns of rioting are greater than the returns of staying at home.