|
on Evolutionary Economics |
| By: | Sebastian Galiani; Raul A. Sosa |
| Abstract: | Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in most countries, fueling predictions of demographic collapse and even human extinction. These forecasts overlook a crucial fact: societies are not homogeneous. Using the Bisin–Verdier model of cultural transmission with endogenous fertility and direct socialization, calibrated to U.S. and global religion data, we identify an evolutionary counterforce. Subpopulations with persistently high fertility survive, expand their share, and push the total fertility rate (TFR) upward over time. Even if every country’s TFR reaches a below-replacement level, the persistence of above-replacement groups makes extinction unlikely. Our simulations point to a future of growth with pronounced compositional change—driven above all by high-fertility religious communities—rather than collapse. In particular, in our baseline ten-generation world calibration, Muslims become the largest tradition by share. |
| JEL: | J10 |
| Date: | 2025–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34157 |
| By: | Rusch, Hannes (RS: GSBE UM-BIC, Microeconomics & Public Economics, RS: GSBE other - not theme-related research) |
| Abstract: | Humans are a group-living species. Our evolutionary past could thus have shaped the ways in which we think and behave in group contexts. One such candidate feature of human social cognition and behavior is ingroup favoritism. Indeed, recent work revealed that at least some people are ingroup favoring and ‘strongly groupy’. Such individuals readily discriminate negatively against outgroup members across all group contexts they are put into, even these contexts are minimal and even if discriminating does not entail any benefits. However, so far, it has not been tested whether ingroup favoring behavior in general or ’groupy’ social preferences in particular are stable within persons over longer periods of time. Here, we present the results of a longitudinal lab-in-the-field study of ingroup favoritism and ’groupiness’ over one year. We find that neither ingroup favoritism nor ‘groupiness’ are particularly time-stable. Thus, our findings are hard to reconcile with notions of ingroup favoritism or ‘groupiness’ as individual traits. Instead, our observations underscore that group-based discrimination is malleable—for better or for worse. Our results reemphasize the need to understand which situational factors trigger ‘groupy’ behavior and how these interact with individual characteristics. |
| JEL: | C90 D01 D80 D90 J15 |
| Date: | 2025–09–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:unm:umagsb:2025006 |