Markets in everything: using Coasean bargains to resolve culture conflicts

by Samrudha Surana and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah.

Introduction

In pluralistic societies with multiple, and often conflicting, cultural, religious, or ethical beliefs, disputes between groups with conflicting norms are highly likely. Take the case of a diverse society such as India. Hindus often complain about the Muslim cleric's call to prayer on loudspeakers, non-Hindus complain about the noise levels during celebratory festivals, Jains complain about the eating habits of other communities, and so on. Often, such conflicts get escalated to courts in the form of disputes, to the government in the form of lobbying for bans, or worse, as law and order problems. Pluralistic societies almost always face the following question: how can differences between conflicting norms be reconciled without resorting to State coercion or violence? In this article, we argue that voluntary commercial transactions between parties with conflicting norms are a powerful mechanism to resolve such conflicts.

Drawing from Ronald Coase's work on externalities and property rights, we argue that the principles underlying Coasean bargaining are not limited to economic contexts, but are also broadly applicable to social and cultural disputes. By internalizing the costs associated with conflicting norms, Coasean bargains enable parties to reach mutually beneficial agreements through voluntary exchanges. We illustrate this through a recent real-world example from India, where voluntary market transactions helped members of two religious communities reconcile their conflicting religious norms. A key policy implication of our argument is that it is imperative for policymakers to minimize the transaction costs for such voluntary transactions.

Coasean bargains in theory

Conflicts arise when one person's actions impose costs on another, creating competing interests that must be balanced. The economist, Ronald Coase, illustrated this through an example of cattle owners and farmers (Coase, 1960). Straying cattle may destroy a neighbouring farmer's crops, benefiting the cattle owner but harming the farmer. Preventing the cattle from straying, however, would impose a cost on the cattle owner. The problem is clear: allowing the cattle to stray increases cattle supply at the expense of crops, while restricting their movement favours crops at the expense of cattle. This is a problem of a reciprocal nature. Resolving such conflicts requires determining the value of what is gained versus what is sacrificed. In such cases, using a stream of case law from the US courts, Coase argued that instead of the State determining the hierarchy of who should prevail, one of the parties could internalize the costs arising to the other, from the exercise by the former of her property right. A Coasean bargain offers a way for individuals to resolve such conflicts through voluntary agreements that align their interests and minimize the costs of the conflict. For instance, a farmer might pay a cattle owner to install fencing, or the cattle owner might compensate the farmer for crop damage. When multiple actors are involved-such as several cattle owners and farmers-the feasibility of Coasean bargains depends on the transaction costs. While high transaction costs may prevent agreements in some cases, parties able to negotiate successfully can still improve their situations by reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

While Coase advocated this framework for the allocation of conflicting property rights, in the next few paragraphs, we demonstrate that the framework has implications for enforcing conflicting values as well.

A Coasean bargain in action

Last year, on the occasion of Eid Al Adha (Bakri-Eid) a festival widely celebrated in India and several countries with a significant Muslim population, a group of people were reported to have raised some money and purchased some goats from an Old Delhi market to rescue them from ritualistic slaughter. This incident was seen as an act of religious intolerance on the part of the rescuers. The undertone of these arguments was that the animal rescue on Eid Al Adha was driven by the rescuers' religious intolerance for Muslims and not genuine compassion towards animals. The rescuers profess Jainism, a religion founded on the value of ahimsa (non-violence towards all life forms). The Jain community is perceived to be populated by rich Jain merchants, who generally vote for the BJP. In a society so deeply divided on religion as India is today, this context creates suspicion for the rescuers' motivations behind this act.

The act of rescuing animals through voluntary transactions between the rescuers and the animal vendors is an example of a Coasean bargain that enabled the Jain and Muslim communities to resolve conflicting values without impinging on the rights of the other community. In this incident, the Jain purchasers perceived a harm from the sale of goats for slaughter . But, to stop the sale of goats would have harmed the seller. If the seller refused to sell to the Jains, the cost of slaughtering goats would have been internalized by the seller in the form of forgone payments from the Jains. In this case, the Jains internalized the costs that would have arisen from the slaughter of the goats purchased by them. Both the buyers and the sellers benefitted from the transaction. The sellers of the animals got value for their goats. The buyers got 'value' for their money in the sense that they managed to use the money to honour a value that they hold. As a Muslim man interviewed by the news reporter said in response to this incident, "It's their religion, and if saving animals (like goats) is part of it, we don't mind. Let everyone practise what brings them peace."

Coasean bargains work where the property rights of the people are more or less clearly defined. For example, consider a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario in a diverse urban neighbourhood where a temple's ceremonies or a mosque's call to prayer disturbs the residents of that neighbourhood. Under a Coasean bargaining framework, a standard example similar to this scenario is that of a firm installing a noise-creating windmill affecting the adjoining property owners' enjoyment of their property. In a world where the law confers property rights on people, a negotiation can start. The firm would offer the people some money in exchange for putting up with the noise, and people sensitive to the noise will perhaps use that money to install noise proof windows. These bargains are possible because nuisance has been defined as a tort under common law. That is, the law entitles people to enjoy their property without disturbance. Similarly, in our hypothetical scenario, in a diverse neighbourhood, the group affected by the noise levels might offer to fund the temple's or mosque's acquisition of a quieter sound system to reduce the noise impact. Alternatively, the temple or mosque may make a similar offer to the neighbourhood residents allowing them to enjoy their property without interruption. In the absence of such clarity on property rights, the scope for arriving at Coasean bargains is extremely limited. Similarly, in instances where the property rights are contested, such as whether the land on which a mosque stands belongs to the trust which runs the mosque, Coasean bargains may not offer a solution. In such cases, it would generally fall upon the courts to define the property right.

Coasean bargains versus coercion

A key benefit of Coasean bargains is that they help build a culture of religious tolerance, as compared to the use of State institutions to address religious conflicts. Even in countries whose constitutions allow their citizens the freedom to practice and propagate a religion of their choice, the State machinery is often used to perpetuate religious leanings. For example, in India, almost every year, like clockwork, several petitions are filed at one court or another in or around the festival of Eid-Al-Adha to restrict ritualistic animal slaughter.

Asking the State and courts to resolve these conflicts is problematic as it empowers them to impose a hierarchy of values on the society at large. For example, in the case illustrated above, a court order restricting the rights of Muslims to slaughter animals would have impliedly placed a higher value on the ritualistic notion of slaughter than the Jains' religious notion of non-violence towards animals. Since courts are designed to enforce rights and interpret laws, they are ill-suited to resolve conflicting values or norms that do not contradict the law. For example, consider the following conflicting values:

1. animal welfare activists rescuing goats from ritualistic slaughter
2. climate activists purchasing ceramic Ganesha idols from the vendors of such idols and disposing them to pre-empt them from being submerged in the ocean
3. climate activists purchasing firecrackers during Diwali and disposing of them to pre-empt noise and air pollution

It is hard for any central institution to explain why one of these values should take precedence over the other, and then impose such preference ordering over the rest of society. In a voluntary transaction, on the other hand, the question of addressing the hierarchy of values is immaterial, since the transaction is based on the subjective value that each party places on their beliefs. A Coasean bargain allows the people practising these conflicting values to order their preferences without forcing them to do so. Further, empowering the State creates opportunities for rent seeking. In electoral democracies, this risks allowing a majoritarian bias to be played out in such conflict resolution, and exacerbates the mistrust of people in the State and the courts.

Voluntary transactions that allow the transacting parties to uphold norms that are important to them are similarly preferable to the common counterfactual of violence, aggression and the exclusion of practices that don't meet one's religious or philosophical leanings.

Conclusion

The Coasean framework underscores the power of voluntary agreements to internalize costs and balance competing economic interests between persons. We extend this intuition to the resolution of conflicting religious and cultural norms, which are likely to exist in any pluralistic society. The incident of Jain members purchasing goats during Eid Al Adha demonstrates how Coasean bargaining through market mechanisms can resolve religious conflicts without state intervention. This case demonstrates that voluntary market transactions, motivated by individual preferences, can yield broader societal benefits by reducing friction between conflicting norms. In a country like India that is ridden with cow protection laws, state sponsored beef bans and religious violence, the volition of this transaction has tremendous significance.

While rooted in a specific cultural context, the insights derived from this example resonate beyond India. The Coasean approach underscores how the market enables each party to achieve their goals while respecting others' freedoms, creating positive societal benefits as an unintended consequence. Many seemingly intractable conflicts between religious communities might find resolution not through legal battles or state intervention, but through Coasean bargaining, where mutual respect and cooperation emerge naturally from the market process, even when religious tolerance itself is not the participants' primary goal.

Finally, as Coase emphasized, the feasibility of these transactions is dependent on the transaction costs. In environments with high transaction costs, such transactions will be fewer, if at all. The goal of the policymaker, therefore, should be to lower the transaction costs to make Coasean bargains between extremely unlikely transacting parties work.

Reference

Coase, Ronald (1960), "The Problem of Social Cost", Journal of Law and Economics, 3 (Oct., 1960).

The authors thank Ajay Shah and three anonymous referees for their inputs.