The global economic financial crisis has reignited public interest in something that's actually one of the oldest questions in economics, dating back to at least before Adam Smith. And that is, why is it that countries with seemingly similar economies and institutions can display radically different savings behavior?
Ekonomia krisi globalak publikoaren interesa berpiztu du ekonomi zientzian zaharrenetarikoa den mintzagai batengan, gutxienez Adam Smithen aurretikoa dena. Zergatik dituzte, itxuraz antzeko ekonomia eta erakundeak dituzten herrialdeek aurrezteko portaera hain desberdinak?
Now, many brilliant economists have spent their entire lives working on this question, and as a field we've made a tremendous amount of headway and we understand a lot about this. What I'm here to talk with you about today is an intriguing new hypothesis and some surprisingly powerful new findings that I've been working on about the link between the structure of the language you speak and how you find yourself with the propensity to save. Let me tell you a little bit about savings rates, a little bit about language, and then I'll draw that connection.
Ekonomista bikain askok bizi osoa eman dute honi erantzun nahian, eta guztien artean asko aurreratzea lortu dugu eta asko ulertzera iritsi gara. Gaur azaldu nahi dudana hipotesi berri zirraragarri bat da baita zenbait aurkikuntza harrigarri eta garrantzitsu ere, esaterako hitz egiten dugun hizkuntzaren egiturak zer nolako lotura duen bakoitzak aurrezteko duen jokabidearekin. Laburrean aurrezte-tasei buruz eta hizkuntzari buruz hitz egin, eta ondoren, lotura azalduko dizuet.
Let's start by thinking about the member countries of the OECD, or the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD countries, by and large, you should think about these as the richest, most industrialized countries in the world. And by joining the OECD, they were affirming a common commitment to democracy, open markets and free trade. Despite all of these similarities, we see huge differences in savings behavior.
Has gaitezen ELGA-ko kide diren herrialdeekin, Ekonomia Lankidetza eta Garapenerako Antolakundea. ELGA-ko herrialdeak, orokorrean, munduko aberatsenak eta industrializatuenak dira. Eta ELGAra batzean, konpromezua hartzen dute demokraziaren, merkatu irekien eta merkataritza askearen alde. Antzekotasun horiek izan arren, aurrezteko portaeretan alde handiak daude.
So all the way over on the left of this graph, what you see is many OECD countries saving over a quarter of their GDP every year, and some OECD countries saving over a third of their GDP per year. Holding down the right flank of the OECD, all the way on the other side, is Greece. And what you can see is that over the last 25 years, Greece has barely managed to save more than 10 percent of their GDP. It should be noted, of course, that the United States and the U.K. are the next in line.
Hala, grafiko honen ezkerreko aldean, urtean BPG-aren laurdena baino gehiago aurrezten duten ELGA herrialdeak daude, eta urtean BPG-aren herena baino gehiago aurrezten duten zenbait. ELGAren eskuin muturrean berriz, grafikoaren beste aldean, Grezia dago. Agerian geratzen da azken 25 urteetan Greziak ia ez duela lortu bere BPG-aren ehuneko 10 baino gehiago aurreztea. Nabarmendu behar dugu, bestalde, AEB eta EB ondoan dituela.
Now that we see these huge differences in savings rates, how is it possible that language might have something to do with these differences? Let me tell you a little bit about how languages fundamentally differ. Linguists and cognitive scientists have been exploring this question for many years now. And then I'll draw the connection between these two behaviors.
Aurrezte-tasetan halako alde handiak ikusi ondoren, nola izan daiteke hizkuntzak alde horiengan eraginik izatea? Utzidazue azaltzen hizkuntzek zer desberdintasun dituzten. Linguistek eta kognizio zientzilariek urte askotan ikertu dute gai hau. Gero, bi portaera horien arteko lotura azalduko dizuet.
Many of you have probably already noticed that I'm Chinese. I grew up in the Midwest of the United States. And something I realized quite early on was that the Chinese language forced me to speak about and -- in fact, more fundamentally than that -- ever so slightly forced me to think about family in very different ways.
Zuetako asko ohartuko zineten txinatarra naizela. AEBen erdi-mendebaldean hazi nintzen. Eta nahiko goiz ohartu nintzen txinatar hizkuntzak oso modu desberdinean hitz egitera -- eta hori baino garrantzitsuago -- familiari buruz modu desberdinean pentsatzera behartu ninduela.
Now, how might that be? Let me give you an example. Suppose I were talking with you and I was introducing you to my uncle. You understood exactly what I just said in English. If we were speaking Mandarin Chinese with each other, though, I wouldn't have that luxury. I wouldn't have been able to convey so little information. What my language would have forced me to do, instead of just telling you, "This is my uncle," is to tell you a tremendous amount of additional information. My language would force me to tell you whether or not this was an uncle on my mother's side or my father's side, whether this was an uncle by marriage or by birth, and if this man was my father's brother, whether he was older than or younger than my father. All of this information is obligatory. Chinese doesn't let me ignore it. And in fact, if I want to speak correctly, Chinese forces me to constantly think about it.
Nola izan daiteke hori? Hona adibide bat. Demagun zuekin hitz egiten ari naizela, eta nire osaba aurkeztu nahi dizuedala. Ingelesez esan dudana ongi ulertu duzue. Txinatar Mandarina hitz egiten ariko bagina, ordea, ez litzateke hain erraza izango. Ezin izango nuke hain informazio gutxi eman. Nire hizkuntzak behartu egingo ninduen "Hau nire osaba da" esan ordez beste informazio gehigarri andana ematera. Nire hizkuntzak behartuko ninduen nire amaren aldeko edo aitaren aldeko osaba den, ezkontzazko edo jaiotzezko osaba den, eta nire aitaren anaia bada, nire aita baino zaharragoa edo gazteagoa den esatera. Informazio guzti hori beharrezkoa da. Txinatar hizkuntzan ezin da ez esan. Eta, hain zuzen, ongi hitz egin nahiko banu, Txinatar hizkuntzak etengabe hori kontuan hartzera behartzen nau.
Now, that fascinated me endlessly as a child, but what fascinates me even more today as an economist is that some of these same differences carry through to how languages speak about time. So for example, if I'm speaking in English, I have to speak grammatically differently if I'm talking about past rain, "It rained yesterday," current rain, "It is raining now," or future rain, "It will rain tomorrow." Notice that English requires a lot more information with respect to the timing of events. Why? Because I have to consider that and I have to modify what I'm saying to say, "It will rain," or "It's going to rain." It's simply not permissible in English to say, "It rain tomorrow."
Hori liluragarria iruditzen zitzaidan haurtzaroan baina orain ekonomista gisa are eta gehiago liluratzen nauena desberdintasunetako batzuk denborari buruz hitz egitean ere ematen direla da. Adibidez, ingelesez ari banaiz, gramatika desberdina erabili behar dut iraganeko euriari buruz, "Atzo euria egin zuen," egungo euriari buruz, "orain euria ari du," edo etorkizunari buruz, "Bihar euria egingo du" jarduteko. Ingelesak informazio asko behar du denborari buruzko informazioa emateko. Zergatik? Denbora kontuan izan behar dudalako eta esaten dudana aldatu behar dudalako, "euria egingo du," edo "euria ari du." Ezinezkoa da ingelesez, besterik gabe, "Bihar euria ari" esatea.
In contrast to that, that's almost exactly what you would say in Chinese. A Chinese speaker can basically say something that sounds very strange to an English speaker's ears. They can say, "Yesterday it rain," "Now it rain," "Tomorrow it rain." In some deep sense, Chinese doesn't divide up the time spectrum in the same way that English forces us to constantly do in order to speak correctly.
Bestalde, ia horixe egiten dugu txinatarrez. Txinatarrez hitz egiten duen batek esan dezake ingelesez egiten duenarentzat oso arraroa litzatekeena. Esan dezake "Atzo euria ari," "Gaur euria ari," "Bihar euria ari." Funtsean, txinatarrak ez du denbora zatitzen ingelesez zuzen hitz egin nahi badugu eten gabe egiten dugun modu berean.
Is this difference in languages only between very, very distantly related languages, like English and Chinese? Actually, no. So many of you know, in this room, that English is a Germanic language. What you may not have realized is that English is actually an outlier. It is the only Germanic language that requires this. For example, most other Germanic language speakers feel completely comfortable talking about rain tomorrow by saying, "Morgen regnet es," quite literally to an English ear, "It rain tomorrow."
Hizkuntzen arteko alde hori oso urrun dauen hizkuntzen artean soilik ematen al da? Ez. Zuetako hainbatek jakingo duzue ingelesa hizkuntza germanikoa dela. Baina agian ez dakizue ingelesea salbuespen bat dela. Hori egitera behartzen gaituen hizkuntza germaniko bakarra da. Adibidez, hizkuntza germanikoen hiztun gehienak eroso sentitzen dira biharko euriari buruz hitz egiteko "Morgen regnet es," esanda. Ingeles batentzat, literalki, "Atzo euria ari."
This led me, as a behavioral economist, to an intriguing hypothesis. Could how you speak about time, could how your language forces you to think about time, affect your propensity to behave across time? You speak English, a futured language. And what that means is that every time you discuss the future, or any kind of a future event, grammatically you're forced to cleave that from the present and treat it as if it's something viscerally different. Now suppose that that visceral difference makes you subtly dissociate the future from the present every time you speak. If that's true and it makes the future feel like something more distant and more different from the present, that's going to make it harder to save. If, on the other hand, you speak a futureless language, the present and the future, you speak about them identically. If that subtly nudges you to feel about them identically, that's going to make it easier to save.
Honek portaeraren ekonomia ikerlari legez, hipotesi harrigarri batera eraman ninduen. Denborari buruz hitz egiteko eta pentsatzeko dugun moduak izan ote dezake eraginik denboran zehar dugun portaeran? Zuek ingelesez hitz egiten duzue, etorkizuna duen hizkuntza. Horrek esan nahi du, etorkizunari buruz ari zaretenean, edo etorkizuneko gauzak aipatzean, gramatikoki orainetik bereiztera behartuta zaudetela, guztiz bestelako zerbait balitz bezala tratatzera. Demagun funtsezko desberdintasun horrek hitz egiten duzun bakoitzean etorkizuna orainetik bereiztera behartzen zaituela. Hori egia bada, eta, etorkizuna orainetik hurrun dagoela eta desberdina dela sentiarazten badizu, zailagoa izango da zuretzat aurreztea. Etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntzan hitz egiten baduzu, berdin hitz egingo duzu orainaz eta etorkizunaz. Eta horrek biak berdin bezala sentzitzera eramaten bazaitu, errazagoa izango da zuretzat aurreztea.
Now this is a fanciful theory. I'm a professor, I get paid to have fanciful theories. But how would you actually go about testing such a theory? Well, what I did with that was to access the linguistics literature. And interestingly enough, there are pockets of futureless language speakers situated all over the world. This is a pocket of futureless language speakers in Northern Europe. Interestingly enough, when you start to crank the data, these pockets of futureless language speakers all around the world turn out to be, by and large, some of the world's best savers.
Hau alegiazko teoria bat da. Irakaslea naiz, alegiazko teoriak izateko ordaintzen naute. Baina nola frogatu genezake halako teoria bat? Horretarako, linguistikako liburuetara jo nuen. Eta interesgarria da badirela etorkizunik gabeko zenbait hizkuntza, munduan zehar sakabanatuak. Hau Europa iparraldeko etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntza multzo bat da. Interesgarria da, datuak jorratzen hastean, munduan zehar sakabanatuta dauden etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntza horiek munduko aurrezle onenak direla.
Just to give you a hint of that, let's look back at that OECD graph that we were talking about. What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages. What is the average difference here? Five percentage points of your GDP saved per year. Over 25 years that has huge long-run effects on the wealth of your nation.
Horren adibidetxo bat emateko, ikus dezagun berriro ELGA herrialdeen grafikoa. Ikus dezakezue barra hauek altuagoak direla eta ezkerrera mugituak daudela, ELGAko etorkizuna duten hizkuntzak dituzten herrialdeen barrekin alderatuta. Zein da batez besteko aldea? BPG-aren ehuneko bost puntuko aurrezpena urtean. 25 urtean, horrek sekulako eragina du herrialdeen aberastasunean.
Now while these findings are suggestive, countries can be different in so many different ways that it's very, very difficult sometimes to account for all of these possible differences. What I'm going to show you, though, is something that I've been engaging in for a year, which is trying to gather all of the largest datasets that we have access to as economists, and I'm going to try and strip away all of those possible differences, hoping to get this relationship to break. And just in summary, no matter how far I push this, I can't get it to break. Let me show you how far you can do that.
Aurkikuntza hauek adierazgarriak diren arren, herrialdeek desberdintzen dituzten ezaugarri asko izan ditzakete zaila dela batzuetan desberdintasun horiek guztiak kontuan hartzea. Dena den, erakutsiko dizuedana, azken urtean landu dudan zerbait da. Ekonomistok eskura ditugun datu multzo handienak bildu eta desberdintasun posible guztiak garbitzen saiatuko naiz erlazio hau hausteko asmoz. Eta, laburbilduz, gogor saiatu arren ez dut haustea lortu. Ikus dezagun noraino eraman daitekeen.
One way to imagine that is I gather large datasets from around the world. So for example, there is the Survey of Health, [Aging] and Retirement in Europe. From this dataset you actually learn that retired European families are extremely patient with survey takers. (Laughter) So imagine that you're a retired household in Belgium and someone comes to your front door. "Excuse me, would you mind if I peruse your stock portfolio? Do you happen to know how much your house is worth? Do you mind telling me? Would you happen to have a hallway that's more than 10 meters long? If you do, would you mind if I timed how long it took you to walk down that hallway? Would you mind squeezing as hard as you can, in your dominant hand, this device so I can measure your grip strength? How about blowing into this tube so I can measure your lung capacity?" The survey takes over a day. (Laughter) Combine that with a Demographic and Health Survey collected by USAID in developing countries in Africa, for example, which that survey actually can go so far as to directly measure the HIV status of families living in, for example, rural Nigeria. Combine that with a world value survey, which measures the political opinions and, fortunately for me, the savings behaviors of millions of families in hundreds of countries around the world.
Irudikatzeko modu bat hau da: Munduko datu multzoak bildu ditut. Adibidez, Osasunaren, [Zahartzaroari] eta Erretiroaren Europako galdeketa. Datu multzo horretatik ikus dezakegu Europako familia erretiratuak aparteko pazientzia dutela galdeketa egiten dietenekin. (Barreak) Demagun Belgikar erretirodun bat zarela, eta norbait zure etxeko atera datorrela. "Barkatu, utziko al zenidake zure akzioen zerrenda ikusten? Ba al dakizu zenbat balio duen zure etxeak? Esango al zenidake? Zure etxeko korridoreak 10 metro baino gehiagoko luzera al du? Hala bada, neur dezaket zenbat denbora behar duzun korridorea zeharkatzen? Estutuko zenuke gailu hau, ahalik eta indar gehienez, zure esku nagusiarekin zure indarra neur dezadan? Eta egingo zenuke putz tutu honetan zure birika gaitasuna neurtzeko?" Galdeketak egun bat baino gehiago irauten du. (Barreak) Hori USAIDek Afrikako garapen bidean diren herrialdeetan egindako Demografia eta Osasun inkesta batekin elkartu, adibidez, besteak beste, HIVren egoera neurtzen duena Nigeriako landa eremuetako familien artean. Hori, elkartu munduko baloreen inkestari, iritzi politikoa, eta nire zorionerako, aurrezteko portaera neurtzen dituena, mundu osoko ehundaka herrialdetako milioika familiri egina.
Take all of that data, combine it, and this map is what you get. What you find is nine countries around the world that have significant native populations which speak both futureless and futured languages. And what I'm going to do is form statistical matched pairs between families that are nearly identical on every dimension that I can measure, and then I'm going to explore whether or not the link between language and savings holds even after controlling for all of these levels.
Hartu datu horiek guztiak, eta mapa hau lortzen dugu. Aurkitu duguna munduko bederatzi herrialde dira jatorrizko populazio nabarmena dutenak eta etorkizunik gabeko eta etorkizundun hizkuntzak hitz egiten dituztenak. Eta honekin, estatistikoki bat datozen bikoteak osatuko ditut neur ditzakedan dimentsio guztietan ia-ia berdinak direnak. Ea hizkuntzaren eta aurrezteko gaitasunaren arteko lotura mantentzen den maila guzti horiek kontrolatu ondoren ere.
What are the characteristics we can control for? Well I'm going to match families on country of birth and residence, the demographics -- what sex, their age -- their income level within their own country, their educational achievement, a lot about their family structure. It turns out there are six different ways to be married in Europe. And most granularly, I break them down by religion where there are 72 categories of religions in the world -- so an extreme level of granularity. There are 1.4 billion different ways that a family can find itself.
Zer ezaugarri kontrola ditzakegu? Herrialde berean jaio eta bizi diren familiak hartuko ditut. Demografia -- sexua, adina --, herrialde horretan duten irabazi maila, hezkuntza lorpenak, familia egiturari buruzko gauza asko. Ikusi dut sei modu desberdinetan egon zaitezkeela ezkonduta Europan. Eta xehetasun gehiagorako, erlijioka zatitu ditut. 72 erlijio-kategoria daude munduan; Beraz, xehetasun maila oso altua. 1.4 bilioi modu desberdinetan eratu daiteke familia bat.
Now effectively everything I'm going to tell you from now on is only comparing these basically nearly identical families. It's getting as close as possible to the thought experiment of finding two families both of whom live in Brussels who are identical on every single one of these dimensions, but one of whom speaks Flemish and one of whom speaks French; or two families that live in a rural district in Nigeria, one of whom speaks Hausa and one of whom speaks Igbo.
Hemendik aurrera esango dizuedana ia-ia identikoak diren familia horiek alderatuta ateratakoa da. Asko gerturatzen da esperimentu teorikora, Bruselan bizi diren bi familia aurkitzearena, arlo guzti horietan berdinak direnak baina batak flandriera eta besteak frantsesa hitz egiten dutenak; Edo Nigeriako landa eremuan bizi diren bi familia, batak Hausa eta besteak Igbo hitz egiten dutenak.
Now even after all of this granular level of control, do futureless language speakers seem to save more? Yes, futureless language speakers, even after this level of control, are 30 percent more likely to report having saved in any given year. Does this have cumulative effects? Yes, by the time they retire, futureless language speakers, holding constant their income, are going to retire with 25 percent more in savings.
Kontrol maila hain altua erabili ondoren ere, etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntza dutenek gehiago aurrezten al dute? Bai. Etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntzadunek, kontrol honen ondoren ere, urte batean aurreztu izana aitortzeko ehuneko 30eko aukera handiagoa dute. Eragin gehigarria al du horrek? Bai. Erretiratzean, etorkizun gabeko hizkuntzakoek diru sarrera konstante mantenduz ehuneko 25 aurrezpen gehiago izango dituzte.
Can we push this data even further? Yes, because I just told you, we actually collect a lot of health data as economists. Now how can we think about health behaviors to think about savings? Well, think about smoking, for example. Smoking is in some deep sense negative savings. If savings is current pain in exchange for future pleasure, smoking is just the opposite. It's current pleasure in exchange for future pain. What we should expect then is the opposite effect. And that's exactly what we find. Futureless language speakers are 20 to 24 percent less likely to be smoking at any given point in time compared to identical families, and they're going to be 13 to 17 percent less likely to be obese by the time they retire, and they're going to report being 21 percent more likely to have used a condom in their last sexual encounter. I could go on and on with the list of differences that you can find. It's almost impossible not to find a savings behavior for which this strong effect isn't present.
Gehiago eska al diezaiekegu datu hauei? Bai. Esan bezala, ekonomistok osasunaren inguruko datu asko ditugu. Nola lotu ditzakegu osasun portaera eta aurrezpenak? Pentsa erretzea, adibidez. Erretzea, funtsean aurrezpen negatiboa da. Aurreztea egungo galera etorkizuneko plazerrarekin trukatzea bada, erretzea justu aurkakoa da. Egungo plazerra etorkizuneko galeraren truke. Beraz, alderantzizko efektua espero dezakegu. Eta horixe aurkitzen dugu. Etorkizunik gabeko hizkuntza dutenek ehuneko 20-24 gutxiago erretzen dute familia identikoekin alderatuta, eta ehuneko 13-17 aukera gutxiago dute erretiratzean obesoak izateko, eta ehuneko 21 gehiagok aitortuko dute kondoia erabili zutela azken sexu harremanean. Luze jarrai dezaket aurki ditzakegun aldeen zerrendarekin. Ia ezinezkoa da honek eragiten ez dion aurrezpenari lotutako portaera bat aurkitzea.
My linguistics and economics colleagues at Yale and I are just starting to do this work and really explore and understand the ways that these subtle nudges cause us to think more or less about the future every single time we speak. Ultimately, the goal, once we understand how these subtle effects can change our decision making, we want to be able to provide people tools so that they can consciously make themselves better savers and more conscious investors in their own future.
Lan honekin hasi berriak gara linguistika eta ekonomiako Yale-eko lankideak eta ni benetan aztertu eta ulertzeko asmoz, xehetasun txiki horiek nola, hitz egiten dugunero, etorkizunean gehiago edo gutxiago pentsarazten diguten. Azken finean, helburua, ezaugarri horiek gure erabakiengan nola eragiten duten ongi ulertzean, jendeari tresnak eskaintzea izango da berariaz aurreztaile hobeak eta etorkizunerako inbertitzaile hobeak izan daitezen.
Thank you very much.
Mila esker.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)