“What’s in it for me?”

During my technical-difficulties hiatus I was unable to mention the Times Magazine cover story, “The Big Fix,” about the various plans to revive the economy and so on. There’s much in it that’s worth reading if you haven’t already. The one thing I wanted to highlight here is a bit toward the end.

Economists don’t talk much about cultural norms. They prefer to emphasize prices, taxes and other incentives.

[But] the norms of the last two decades or so — consume before invest; worry about the short term, not the long term — have been more than just a reflection of the economy. They have also affected the economy.

Most of the examples that follow are other-directed: greedy CEOs, corrupt technocrats, etc. “Consume before invest” has been a grass-roots cultural norm, too, no? Writer David Leonhardt addresses that side of the equation somewhat indirectly, with this finding:

Towns and cities with a large elderly population once devoted a higher-than-average share of their taxes to schools. Apparently, age made them see the benefits of education.

In recent decades, though, the relationship switched. Older towns spent less than average on schools. You can imagine voters in these places asking themselves, “What’s in it for me?”

One interesting cultural-norm question is whether  “What’s in it for me?” is changing or not. I think the evidence is mixed.