Not surprisingly, most of the graduate programmes available are in the US, with an additional programme in Nottingham, UK. But what surprised me was that there were next to no behavioural economics/finance research programmes here in Asia that was picked up by Google.
So this got me thinking, and I thought about what a great idea it will be for Singapore as a test-bed for behavioural economics: most of the research currently being done seems to focus primarily on test samples from the West, but nobody seems to yet have done a categorical study into the possible variations of key behavioural concepts (anchoring, frames, etc.) across different cultures. Given that Singapore is centrally located, and is a confluence point for both East-West, perhaps this is the best place for such inter-cultural behavioural studies to be done.
Also, instead of the Singapore government spending huge amounts of money on technological research programmes and fixed technological infrastructure that might or might not work (does anybody still remember the calls of Philip Yeo for Singaporeans to study engineering and biotech?), perhaps Singapore should increasingly focus on developing our "soft" research. "Soft" research areas in the social sciences are relatively cheaper: compare the amount of specialized equipment needed in a chemistry lab (mass spectrometers, lasers, NMRs, etc.) vs. a behavioural psychology lab (attractive female research assistants, hidden cameras, cookies, etc.).
As a consequence a large portion of investment in hard-science research facilities go into fixed costs (equipment), while investment in soft-research tends to go to variable costs (man-hours): the operational leverage of hard-science research is a lot higher.
Which logically means that perhaps the risks/rewards are higher if we put our research money into "soft" research than "hard" research. If Singapore puts more money and emphasis into "softer" research like psychology, economics, behavioural economics, sustainable development, etc., we might be able to boost our economy by creating niche industries and innovations that spinoff from such research.
We actually already have exported some behavioural economic innovations, albeit innovations that have come from our government. For example, congestion road pricing was first implemented in Singapore. Now, drivers in London curse and swear at their own road-pricing system, which was adopted by their Singa-phile ex-mayor Ken Livingstone. As another example, the Singapore Government's Central Provident Fund has been quoted in Akerlof and Shiller's latest book "Animal Spirits" to be a potential way to increase savings rates in the US.
Suppose that we invest in a research center focused on behavioural economics, and our research generates interesting findings of the different behaviours between, say, Chinese and American consumers. It's not unthinkable that our researchers will be able to setup consulting firms to advise foreign companies on the best ways to attract Chinese/Indonesian/Indian consumers.
Or if we setup a research institute on sustainable development, then Singapore could not unthinkably become a Southeast Asian hub for sustainable development research across different countries and regions.
This strategy of trying to improve one's academic standing by focusing on the "soft" sciences was adopted by New York University in 2003: New York University tried to revamp its reputation as a top liberal arts research institute by aggressively expanding its economics department , which seems to have been quite successful.
Having setup a Biopolis, perhaps it is time for us to look at a Behaviouropolis?
It might be harder to get financial returns from behavioral research. One can't patent social schemes like one can patent drugs. Singapore isn't interested so much in improving its academic standing as an ultimate goal; rather it wants to do so only if the increased standing comes with more money.
ReplyDeleteHi, sorry I just saw your comment. Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure if it is necessarily "harder" to get financial returns from behavioural research, as it is that it just hasn't been done so far: it might be easier to patent drugs than social innovations, but making money from the drugs is expensive, risky and complicated.
One can't patent social schemes, but it is possible to patent business plans. Also, behavioural innovations in the field of industrial design have led to patents in ergonomics and visible changes in the way everyday objects have been designed.
Your opinion of the Singapore government's interests are probably very valid, but arguably this is a very short-sighted and narrow way of viewing things: success in innovation and research breeds even more success and investments. Arguably Israel has a stronger reputation for excellence and innovation than Singapore, which has led to a very vibrant technology scene in Israel that is quite lacking in Singapore.