Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

  The classical economics theories proceed on the assumption of rational agents. Rationality implies the economic agents undertake actions or exercise choices based on the cost-benefit analysis they undertake. The assumption further posits that there exists no information asymmetry and thus the agent is aware of all the costs and benefits associated with the choice he or she has exercised. The behavioral school contested the decision stating the decisions in practice are often irrational. Implied there is a continuous departure from rationality. Rationality in the views of the behavioral school is more an exception to the norm rather a rule. The past posts have discussed the limitations of this view by the behavioral school. Economics has often posited rationality in the context in which the choices are exercised rather than theoretical abstract view of rational action. Rational action in theory seems to be grounded in zero restraint situation yet in practice, there are numerous restra

Economics of Conflicting Dietary Preferences

 

The world is by and large consumers of meat and related products as part of their diet. Humans from time immemorial are omnivores. The notion of vegetarian food is something fairly recent in human history, perhaps with the advent of the settled life and agricultural civilization. Geography has determined food preferences and thus in large parts of the world agriculture was not possible till fairly recent centuries in history. This meant the option was animal food for survival. Wild fruits or nuts or even honey might have been discovered millennia ago and formed part of the human diet thus enabling it to accommodate to the omnivorous diet. This also perhaps helped in rapid adoption of vegetarianism as diet preferences in agrarian societies. Yet in history the notion of vegetarianism is about minorities rather than of the majority. Till date, most humans eat animal food as their choice rather than vegetarian. However, choice of animal based food is not exclusive of vegetarian choices. The exclusive vegetarian is more of a premium food or lifestyle dietary preference in the Western world.

 

It is in countries like India where vegetarian diet assumed greater importance. It might have been due to advent of agrarian life and consequent diffusion across the society. Despite this, India hosts large number of people who eat what Indians would term non-vegetarian. This term is something unique to India. While in the West, it is default non-vegetarian, in India it seems unique to the context. The notion of vegan is something associated with esoteric lifestyle and perhaps conceived as a Veblen good. In India, however, non-vegetarian seems to be the exception though majority might prefer it. It is common to have restaurants indicating the non-vegetarian food is served. It would be interesting to decode why such a thing exists. Among the non-vegetarian too, there is of course a debate between what is termed as halal cut and what has been called as jhatka cut. The former refers to preparing meat by killing. In the latter, the animals are dead much before they are cooked. Apparently, it is less cruel to engage in jhatka cut than a halal cut. The halal is usually associated with the Muslim community and thus acquires even sharper dimensions. While many restaurants and food retailers indicate to the possibility of halal cut, there are rarely any restaurants or food retailers who point towards the availability of the jhatka cut. In Europe, there is tendency to move away from halal. In India, it acquires a Hindu-Muslim conflict and the passions often run high. Thus halal is unlikely to be eliminated in India in the near future. Yet. It would be instructive to decode why restaurants indicate halal cut but not the other. Similarly, it must be probed why restaurants announce they are pure vegetarian or also serve non-vegetarian. The answer again is in economics and towards understanding how preferences develop.

 

It is an individual choice to opt for vegetarian or otherwise. The same applies to someone who has to choose between the halal cut of jhatka cut. It is important to note however whether they are mutually exclusive or not. Let us take for instance the vegetarianism or otherwise. In India, there are many who might prefer not to eat in restaurant that serves meat and other animal based products. It is different matter that milk for instance while being an animal product is an accepted part of the diet in India. The ones who prefer to consume only in those restaurants which are pure vegetarian would certainly like to have an information about the dietary nature of the restaurant in question. Therefore, when the restaurant indicates the serving of non-vegetarian food, this is a signal to vegetarians that they can choose to opt out in case of discomfort. Those who serve pure vegetarian, as per Indian definition, would want to reassure the customers there is no availability of non-vegetarian items at its place. This would send a strong signal for the vegetarians to prefer this place. Those who prefer non-vegetarian are not bothered about vegetarian or otherwise. Thus to them, it doesn’t make a difference.

 

The similar principle applies to halal or jhatka meat as well. Those who need halal are mutually exclusive of the jhatka food. They do not want the same and are vocal in expressing the needs. In this context, to attract these customers, there must be information that should be conveyed in no ambiguous terms. Therefore, the restaurants and the retailers alike will go miles to indicate the presence of halal cut in preparing the meet to cater to these customers. In the absence of this information, the probability of consuming non-halal meet would deter their patronage. Therefore, there exists a clear indication of presence of halal meet. Now in general those who are not averse to jhatka meat are also not averse to halal meet. To them, it doesn’t make a difference. Therefore they are comfortable with either and thus to them, it hardly makes a difference whether a signboard indicates the jhatka availability or otherwise. If there emerges an audience that is vocal about jhatka meat, then the retailers would be compelled to post such messages.

 

There are already such messages being posted in restaurants and retailers in many parts of the country. This is partly due to the emergence of the vocal section that is demanding jhatka meat. It might be because they are opposed to halal since it is deemed to be pro-Muslim, yet the fact that an audience exists for such products indicates the need for restaurants to inform their patrons on the nature of the meat available. It is often perceived that the political colours are behind this distinction or lack of it. It is often believed that the Muslim votebank and the vocal assertion of the same that makes firms bow down and indicate the possibility of halal meat. While there might be a grain of truth, this phenomenon can be explained by economics better. It is the conflicting dietary preferences and how the individual in question views the same would decide on these. If the jhatka preferred customers become vocal, one might very well see exclusive restaurants for the same too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decision Making as Output and Bounded Rationality

The Chicken-Egg Conundrum of Economics

A Note on Supply-Demand Dynamics