Could Boris Johnson to Prime Minister?

“LOL Boris for PM!!!1!” tweeted one articulate person during the London Mayor's speech after the Olympic Games. The famously mop-headed Tory politician had declared a parade in honor of Team GB's medalists, and closed this event with a speech which many believe was setting him up for a bid for the Conservative Party leadership and ultimately Number 10. Pundits claim that he took credit for the games and that the success of the London 2012 Olympics reflects well on Boris Johnson. His visibility during the games and his savvy courting of the international media has propelled him to a new level of recognition which can only work in his favor should he decided to make a play for power. The idea of Boris as Prime Minister might not be a joke for too much longer - not the least because he out-danced Cameron's awkward shuffle during the game's closing ceremony.

Boris Johnson, or B-Jo to some, has always managed to use his status as Britain's most high profile joke to forward his career. His popularity lies in his appeal to people who are either not interested in politics or who believe all politicians to be gray suits, only marginally more interesting than accountants. He clearly believes himself to be the second most powerful person in the country, with eyes to take his unique brand of self-publicity to greater heights. The above quoted tweet is indicative of the fact that he appeals to people outside the main political debate.

I am yet to meet anyone who admits to voting for Boris for any position of power simply because he is funny, but the nagging suspicion that such a person is out there somewhere will not go away. Boris is the classic Cameron model of Tory, clearly a Conservative of the left of the party, a self-styled progressive and not a darling of the right-wing. His appeal to those who could make him leader is his ability to attract support from those who are unlikely to vote for traditional Tory candidates, primarily young people who the Conservatives have had little success in wooing. Rising youth unemployment under the Cameron government makes it unlikely that they will have much success among the under 25s in the 2015 election, but Boris Johnson as leader might make that more likely.

Let me lay out the case for Boris as party leader: the current economic stagnation is doing the Conservatives no favors electorally, and Cameron has a growing problem with the right of his party. He is seen as appeasing the Lib Dems too much and flip-flopping on key issues of immigration, welfare reform and – crucially – EU membership. All this could be brushed off, but Cameron cannot escape the growing feeling amongst Conservatives that the government is not right-wing enough and that this could cause the traditional Troy vote to stay home in 2015 or switch to a new party, such as UKIP. Tory strategists are concerned about the current leadership's effectiveness to mount a successful campaign for the next election, and Boris could make all the difference. He is internationally-known, watchable on TV and an effective user of modern political tools such as social-media. He appeals to the young, the politically central and the so-called “chattering classes”, what I will call the LOL B-Jo crowd. His connection with the Olympics brings positive thoughts to people's mind when musing on Boris Johnson. By contrast, David Cameron reminds everyone of government cut-backs and our own squeezed wallets. Boris also has experience of high office, and being Mayor of a city as diverse as London requires a special type of politician who appeals to different sections of society and fosters consensus. He is also of good Tory stock, Eton and Oxbridge educated, clearly a friend to wealthy and privileged, whose support the Tory party depends upon. Even his frequent gaffes come across as lovable buffoonery: Boris has turned his biggest weakness into his greatest strength.

However, there are reasons against making Boris party leader. He is clearly no more right-wing than Cameron, and thus unlikely to attract back the euro-sceptic support lost since Cameron became party leader. British politics are also very different from American politics and, although Boris considers himself to be Governor of the London (in more ways than one), being Mayor is an unlikely stepping stone to party leadership. Cameron's successor is more likely to come from a cabinet colleague, probably Osborne who occupies the traditional king-in-waiting role of Chancellor and is firmly to Cameron's right. However, the main reason against Boris becoming party leader is actually his clownish appearance. Britain longs to be taken seriously as a world power and everything about the London 2012 Games is a testament to this, but choosing a tousle-haired dandy as our leader does not project seriousness. The thought of a leader who might drop his trousers at a meeting of NATO has little appeal outside the LOL B-Jo crowd. Memories of how all of Italy was mocked for Silvio Berlusconi's gaffes are still fresh in people's mind.

The LOL B-Jo crowd may have their day: remember that in the early 1970s, the idea of Margret Thatcher as Prime Minister was laughable (remember Life on Mars?). However, Boris Johnson is clearly setting the agenda right now, with his appearance on David Letterman's The Late Show in America prompting Cameron to be a guest on the same late-night talk show. Recently, Douglas Alexander has written in the New Statesman that Labourshould take the idea of Boris as party leader seriously. B-Jo maybe the nation's favorite joke for now, but he is no fool. Boris Johnson's political foes (both inside and outside his party) would do well to take seriously the way he uses his public image to promote himself, and his appeal to people alienated by politics. No other politician better sums up the way Twitter has changed politics. It would not come as a shock to me if I were to read a tweet saying “LOL just voted for B-Jo for PM” in 2015.

Chinese democracy: is it an oxymoron?

More than a year after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia, its reverberations can still be felt around the world.  Civil war rages in Syria, Libya is attempting to rebuild itself, and Egypt is trying to shake off the shackles of a military dictatorship. However, one big question that remains unanswered is – will the Arab Spring turn into a Chinese summer?

The Chinese Communist regime is among the most unusual and interesting in the world. It maintains an ideological connection to Marxism and Maoism, but also presides over a labour market more deregulated than in most western countries, as well as owning some of the world’s largest private firms. It is somewhere between a socialist’s and objectivist’s dreams or their worst nightmares. Despite the government’s at times overbearing nature, it remains consistently popular with the one point three billion people it rules over, mainly due to the government’s ability to lift people out of poverty.

Chinese industrialization has been swift and effective, building high-tech industries where once there was subsistence farming. A country which once closed its doors to western technologies and goods now has a maglev network and is building 26 new airports. There are people in China today who run software firms whose parents farmed rice fields; one generation has gone from Milton’s green and pleasant fields to Silicon Valley. Many Chinese people do not want to change their government, because in their opinion they have the best government in the world: no other government has ever done so much to so drastically improve the wealth and living conditions of so many people. Poverty still remains a problem in China, especially for the millions of migrant labourers with no legal status or protection, but the wealth of the world is flowing into a country which throughout history has thought of itself as purely self-sufficient. Imagine if our parents and grandparents had been serfs on lands owned by feudal Barons, how much would we look up to the political party that brought us consumer goods.

The Chinese government has also recently relaxed its laws against political dissidence, and it is now acceptable to criticise openly state bureaucrats and regional officials if it is felt they are corrupt or ineffectual. What is firmly off the agenda is any suggestion that Communism should end or that the Chinese government should be elected democratically. For now this delicate balance works well, the government provides vast (but unevenly distributed) wealth for its people and they enjoy more social freedoms than their parents; in turn the party, politbureau and old guard remain firmly in charge and enjoy the universal support of their subjects.

Much like Enron, the entire system is kept afloat by rising stock prices and a healthy dose of aspiration, or the case of China rising absolute living standards and the slim chance of becoming a Communist billionaire. Should a recession strike China and living standards fall, then questions will be asked. The overbearing Communist regime will not be so popular when the trickle of wealth seeping down from the top dries up and suddenly over a billion people will want a say in their government. This will be especially true of the above-mentioned migrant works who currently have the least to gain under Communism.

No regime that has been in power as long as the Chinese Communist Party will quietly step aside, and it will be difficult for western powers to criticise any Chinese crack-down on pro-democracy movements whilst our business interests are so closely linked to the Communist Party. Pro-democracy rumblings in China, such as we have seen in the Middle East, will have disastrous effects on the global community. China owns most of the west’s sovereign debt (especially America’s) and a civil war in China (like the one we see in Syria) could involve more people than World War II. With what will soon be the world’s largest economy up for grabs, the stakes would be very high in a free and open Chinese election.  Multiply this by the problems Russia has had in transferring from Communism to democracy, and you have the potential for a very unstable situation with the very real possibility of grave consequences.

China is opposed to intervention in Syria, as they can hardly call for change in non-democratic regimes, especially as eventually the pro-democracy uprising will find its way to China. When living standards fall, when the impoverished people industrialization is built on the back of organise, when the distribution of colossal amounts of wealth becomes too uneven, calls for regime change will be inescapable.

Democracy will inevitably come to China, but just like the tide of pro-democratic uprisings across the Middle East, this will not necessarily result in the best outcome for the west. Democracy and the Chinese government might seem like strange bed fellows, much like the free market capitalism and state socialism of the current government’s economic policy. The Arab Spring is sill changing the political landscape of the Middle East, but it will be a mixed blessing if becomes a Chinese summer.

The benefit of space exploration

Last year on July the 21^st NASA’s Space Shuttle programme officially came to end when Atlantis returned to Earth after completing its final voyage. Since then the US government has withdrawn from manned space flights, relying on the Russians and Chinese to ferry American astronauts to and from the international space station. Western governments are slowly abandoning space exploration and turning their attention towards more Earth-bound problems. In the age of austerity and economic stagnation, space exploration seems like a past excess we can no longer afford (along with public sector pensions and healthcare it appears). The space shuttles stand as a towering monument to the optimism of a by-gone age, when we thought the white heat of technology and Keynesian demand management could have saved us from ourselves. Many hold the same opinions of space exploration as they do of the welfare state, that it was a costly mistake fuelled by optimism and good intentions but ultimately lacking a grounding in the reality. With the space shuttles sent to museums and with no government plan in place to replace them, private companies such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic are vying to be the dominant powers in our upper atmosphere. Some see this as an indication of the way the western world is heading with more and more of what we thought could only be handled by the government being taken over by private companies.

While America is already being nostalgic about the days of space exploration, on the other side of the world government space programs are very much alive and well. China and India are currently engaged in a space race of their own with the former launching their Tiangong-1 space laboratory in September last year and the later aiming to be the first nation to return the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972. In these countries their space programs are a source of enormous national pride, especially as they take over the arena previously dominated by the globe’s fading powers. As the age of US, Britain and Russia ends and their space programs are discontinued and new generation of super powers are aiming not only to conquer the world but also the space above it. Even North Korea maintains its sights on the stars with an attempt earlier this year to put a satellite into lower Earth orbit. This attempt was unsuccessful but it was unprecedented in the level of access foreign media was given to the launch, indicating how confident the famously isolationist state is in their rocket scientists. In these countries space exploration is not considered to be an extravagance of an overly confident super-power but part of the global coming of age process and vital arm of both industry and government.

However, space exploration is not just for rival super powers or a way for newly emerging economies to show off. In Nigeria firms are partnering with western experts to develop a national space industry with satellites already successful launched. These industries (supported by the government) are seen as a way of training workers in important 21^st century skills of computer programming, engineering and micro-electronics. The space industry also has a positive economic effect in fostering a high tech support industry that offers well-paying jobs and boosts national income. Creating a space industry is seen as a wage to develop the national infrastructure with the aim of growing the economy and lifting people out of poverty.

Western economies showing sluggish growth could learn from these countries who are investing in an advanced technological industries and enjoying strong growth. Investing in space technology for Nigeria and China is having a positive effect on people on the ground by developing industries and training workers. It would be reprehensible to let the west’s flaunted competitive advantage in high tech industries slide to other countries because we were unwilling to spend the money needed to support it. Space exploration creates growth in in all manner of industries from software design to metal casting. Through government investment in large scale projects like space travel, money will pass to the industries needed to support space exploration and from them to the industries which provide the basic components and raw materials for these high tech firms causing the economy as whole grow. Something western governments are crying out for.

In order for the industry to progress, technical innovation is necessary. The old vertical take-off model used by the space shuttle and Apollo program might have to be replaced by the more efficient horizontal take off model favoured by Virgin Galactic and other private space ventures. Also for the industry to reach its full potential corporation is needed to spread the costs and ensure that the economic benefits reach all the denizens of Earth.

The strongest argument for global co-operation in space exploration is that the space industry is unlike any other industry in the world in its unique ability to inspire people and capture their imagination. The draw of the stars is irresistible to many and space exploration has given us the world’s most frequently used image (the Earth from orbit) as well as the iconic moon landing footage. There is no greater symbol in thawing of the cold war than a Russian Cosmonaut and an American Astronaut shaking hands in orbit in 1975. Great deeds inspire people on the ground to reach further and accomplish more, it is a symbol of how far we have come as a civilisation since we first discovered fire and a reminder of how far we still have to go to reach the heavens.

If Nigeria and China can find the economic argument for space exploration than surely it remains relevant in the west as well. In an age of tempered ambitions and cut backs we need the symbol of stirring accomplishment to inspire us. Not to mention the economic and scientific benefits that space exploration can bring. The space shuttle was an ambitious programme, much like the New Deal’s program of public works which lifted America out of the great depression. It seems our leaders are keen to remind us that we live in a time where we can no longer afford ambition and we should fix our sights lower on what we can accomplish. No wonder disillusionment has replaced the white heat of optimism. I believe there is still an argument for space exploration just as there is still an argument for ambitious government projects whether they come in the form of the space shuttle or the welfare state.

Feminism and class consciousness

The world needs feminism. In the western world one in four women will be affected by sexual violence in their lifetime and in developing economies women are more likely than men to have a lower standard of living. Any efforts to improve the living conditions of the world's poorest people will only benefit 50% of these societies if greater work is not undertaken to improve gender equality. The work of feminists is essential to our continuing social progress, not just bringing genders in line with each other but also working to combat racism, homophobia and transphobia.

There is broad support for the goals of feminism but there is also a good deal of debate as to the methods through which these goals should be accomplished. Due to the low social status of women around the world there are many factors which prevent them from uniting into a powerful political movement, as generally the politically less powerful do not engage with the political establishment as they feel the have less to gain from dong so. What I have set out below is my thesis on one way in which we can move towards accomplishing the goals of the women’s movement.

People who broadly identify as feminist come from a wide variety of backgrounds and bring their own experience to the debate, not just as women but also members of other minority groups. Feminism is in itself a Universalist ideology about readdressing the balance of power between minority and majority groups. As an inclusive movement it has many crossovers with similar struggles and causes, however here in lies a challenge that faces feminists, namely in building female class consciousness. Women (and indeed feminists) typically primarily identify as belonging to a more specific socioeconomic group, rather than simply identifying as being 'a woman'. More prevalent class signifiers incorporate a combination of class, race, sexuality and sub-culture as these have a large impact on someone's identity as well as gender.

Traditionally class consciousness is viewed as the Marxist idea of the proletariat becoming aware of how they are exploited by the bourgeoisie and banding together against their oppressors. In the 21^st century where the struggle against oppression has taken on many different forms I feel the concept is still valid but needs to be expanded. We need to stop thinking of class in a rigid way of factory owners and laborers and apply this model to the various different power relationships in society that can be exploitative. In this case the privilege men have over women. This is not to say a means of pitting women against men but a way to spread understanding of how women are opposed by the patriarchy.

Earlier this year, noted feminist blogger Helen Lewis wrote about the challenges facing feminism as a movement in 2012. The piece, which focused on the need to keep the feminist debate current, can be found here. Central to the article is where she asks "What is the biggest, most important single issue for feminists in 2012? What should we get angry about?" I agree with the conclusions Helen Lewis reaches and want to now add my own answer to the question which that it is important to create the idea of women as an oppressed class and to show that the same patriarchal systems which oppress poor black women in developing countries also affect rich white women in the OECD. However there can be problems in creating united class identity as there are a lot of differences between poor black women and rich white women, for example access to affordable childcare. Instances of rape and domestic violence are an example of an issue which affects women as an entire class and poor support for victims is an example of how women as an entire class are oppressed by the patriarchy.

In America, African Americans have been very successful in building a class consciousness that transcends economic background. This is partly through the emergence of an African American culture uniting the class, a culture which places emphasis on exploring how the current system oppresses African Americans and on overturning the barriers society places against members of ethnic minorities. For more details on this see, the documentary The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975.

If this example of how African American culture transcends the gender and economic divides within African Americans then it can be used by feminists to develop a women's class identity. There is already a women's culture which is as diverse as women themselves but feminists need to use this culture to openly explore how women are oppressed and what unites them together in their oppression, much in the same way African Americans have used their culture to advance their liberation. Many feminists are already doing this, so in answer to the question posed by Helen Lewis above, I would say an important challenge and opportunity is supporting the work of these feminists in creating a women's culture to unite diverse women together in a single political movement. In other words developing a united female class consciousness.

Class consciousness makes a diverse movement a more effective political force. The high level of African American class consciousness creates social pressure to tackle issues which affect African Americans such as poor funding for intercity schools and gang outreach programs. The status of Africans Americans within American society is still low but the government programs to tackle racial issues receive more funding than those designed to reduce gender equality. Programs supported by feminists such as women’s shelters or outreach programs to victims of domestic violence less finical support. Most of the hard work in these areas is performed by charities with little support from the government.

Developing the idea of 'woman' as class consciousness will help  bring political pressure on governments to address social and economic issues which affect women. However there is a problem with class  consciousness which is the homogenising effect it has on the class. In other words it creates pressure for the entire class to conform to the opinions and values of the prevalent subgroups within the class. A good example of this is seen again in African American culture where there is a lot of pressure within the class to identify as heterosexual. Class consciousness has created a hegemony of people identifying as heterosexual African Americans which makes it difficult for the oppressed class to connect with other oppressed classes in America to effect social change. For example homosexual Americans. An indication of this effect was the passing of Proposition 8 in California during the 2008 election, California being a state which also voted for Obama. Millions of African Americans went to the polls to support someone from their class but also support a law against another oppressed class because people identifying as African American also prominently identify as heterosexual.

One of the great strengths of feminism is it is a movement that can incorporate people from a variety of different oppressed classes. There are many crossovers in ideology between feminism and movements to liberate ethnic minorities, LGBT people, the poor and the disabled from the constraints that society places on them. This broad background is a great strength to the movement but also a handicap as it inhibits the emergence of a single united female movement as a class consciousness.

The development of woman as a class consciousness will create political pressure to improve the status of women the world over. This is no easy task but a good way of developing class consciousness is through the development of a feminist culture which would use the strength of the movement (its inclusiveness) to explore the problems being faced by women of different backgrounds and create a desire for political change. Hard work is already being done in this area and it is important that this work is encouraged and supported to protect the future of the movement. The world needs feminism, without it we cannot progress socially as half of society will be born into a world which restricts their freedoms.

Austerity or growth: a politician's dilemma

With Karolos Papoulias emerging as the new Prime Minister of Greece, the nations of the Eurozone hold their collective breaths to see what approach to the crisis the new government will take. In some ways, Merkel and friends must be breathing a deep sigh of relief at having dodged the bullet of a coalition involving the ΚΚΕ (the Communist Party of Greece) who wish to renounce austerity and and leave the Euro. After the election dust has settled, a coalition has emerged between the parliament's largest party, New Democracy, Pasok (the Socialist party) and the Democratic Left. All three parties are broadly in favor of remaining in the Euro and desiring a less radical renegotiation of the bailout. However, the new government does seek some changes to the demands placed on Greece, and this must worry Merkel and co.

Across Europe, austerity is looking less attractive to politicians, as voters turn towards parties which favor growth. In France, François Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy on a platform of taxing and spending. This is a sign of how much things have changed in the two years since the last UK general election, where austerity was taken as common sense. Since then, European economies have seen little growth, and the prosperity that has been created has not helped where it is needed most. As government budget cuts force roll-backs across the services which are available, most people feel worse off under austerity. Now the Tory-led government talks about efficiency and promoting growth, realising that if the situation does not improve then re-election looks unlikely. As well as watching Greece, keen eyes are also focused on France to see if Hollande's policies of tax-spend will boost the economy faster than Merkel's austerity.

In the UK, boosting growth has support on both side of the political divide not the least because GDP must rise if tax revenue is to increase enough to meet the government's deficit reduction targets. Further stagnation in the economy will hinder growth in the long term and cause lasting structural damage. Aside from the much talked about 'lost generation' of young people locked out of jobs and the housing market through increased scarcity, social problems are becoming exacerbated through a lack of prosperity – see last summer's London riots for evidence of this. Faced with the prospect of the economy tanking, the government's austerity programme now looks a lot less like common sense and a lot more like an ideological commitment to privatization and rolling back the state. I have blogged before about the roots of the government's philosophical commitment to austerity.

If austerity is ever going to work, it will have to deliver some growth soon. In the meantime, the people of Greece are facing a fifth consecutive year of recession and world greatly appreciate some growth. The austerity conditions imposed on Greece are very harsh and surely smothering the green shoots of recovery. However, the new government has little room to maneuver, as they are reliant on the support of the rest of the Eurozone to manage the country’s enormous debt. Papoulias needs growth and austerity, but it is becoming evident that the two are mutually exclusive. Greece will be watching both France and Germany to see which economy grows the fastest. The divisions across Europe are summed up last Friday's Euro 2012 match between Germany and Greece, a contest of the prosperous against the impoverished. Germany's victory does not silence the doubts about the merits of austerity.

The leaders of Europe are in need of some answers to the question of austerity verses a bold dash for growth, and are keen to see what happens in the countries which have most openly embraced either stance. The new Greek government will have to make some difficult economic choices and the continuing existence of the Euro maybe rest on these decisions. One thing that is certain – politicians will need to embrace either harsh austerity or a strong push for growth soon, as the current stagnation is unsustainable.

The end of the high street: not with a bang but a whimper

It's easy to live in a left-wing bubble: between organic toiletries, pubs with locally-sourced food and shopping on the internet, sometimes it is easy to forget there are High Streets where a large number of people do the majority of their consuming. A few days ago, my delicate shield of ethical consumption was smashed when I spent a few hours inside the Westfield Shopping Centre near Shepherd's Bush, west London.

The phrase 'fish out of water' does not cover the experience that I went through. I assumed that Westfield employed people specifically to keep dirty lefties like me out of their palace of consumption. Much to my surprise, I was welcomed in and dazzled with the bright lights and the range of shiny baubles available for me to purchase. I had some time to waste, and decided to find a music shop to pass the time in. I briefly considered unraveling a thread from my shirt and attaching it to the door so that I could find my way back later, but then I noticed the handy maps available from an information stand. Armed with a plan of the place, and mentally comparing myself to Livingstone, I set out to explore this strange and unfamiliar land of retail.

As I walked past the juice stands and Sky TV sign up booths, two things become almost immediately apparent to me: firstly, that there were no music, DVD, books or games shops anywhere to be seen, and secondly that the shops which did make up the Westfield were almost exclusively either clothing or jewelry shops. This confused me, for surely the main point behind a large-scale retail development is to get as much diversity of shops into as small a place as possible, thus allowing consumers to satisfy all their needs at once. Apparently not, as the Westfield caters to a very small section of consumption, mainly high-end up-market deeply personal. For those who shop in the Westfield, the particular boutique they frequent is a statement about their individuality made through mass consumption, the triumph of late-stage capitalism. In short, I discovered that the Westfield is the last bastion of the high-end High Street retailers against the advancing tide of internet shopping.

Later in a gastro-pub serving organic, locally-sourced pies, I was firmly back in my element and discussing my afternoon with a friend. I said that clothes and jewelry were one of the few areas where internet shopping and has had little impact. My friend informed me that he purchases T-shirts and shoes online, to which I agreed. The internet's particular brand of culture is very suited to the T-shirt business and allows the consumer to seek out designs which speak to them. Here the internet has had success in breaking the High Street's stranglehold on fashion. I asked my friend, however, if he would consider buying trousers online and we both agreed the idea seemed somewhat perverse.

The internet has taken over from the High Street in areas where it does best: bulk selling of goods, mainly entrainment goods, where the major factors are price and range. The last time I went into HMV to purchase a DVD, a friend told me not to bother and that it would be 'cheaper online'. He did not specify a website or have any data to justify his claim, which was built on a cultural understanding that this variety of shopping is simply better on the internet.

So where does this leave the High Street, other than with pound shops and clothing outlets? Some things have to be brought in the flesh, and the time delay involved in internet shopping means some goods will always be purchased in meat-space. However, with the rise in smart phones, tablets and app stores, immediate entertainment purchases online are a reality. All that is needed is a shift in social conventions, to make the giving of online content an acceptable present, and there will be no need at all for High Street entertainment retailers.

The High Street is certainly in a bad state, and a simple Google search for 'the end of the high street' returns thousands of blog posts and broadsheet articles bemoaning the end of face-to-face retail and making lazy observations comparing the closure of Game to the rise of Angry Birds. The truth is that this is hardly a recent phenomenon. It was nearly two decades ago that Amazon's diversification into VHS selling meant that Saturday afternoons were no longer spent wandering into the city centre to buy the latest Simpsons collection. One article I read claimed that 2012 was the year the High Street would end, as if most people had only just discovered the internet. In fact, most High Street retailers discovered the internet a long time ago and have also moved into online shopping.

Most likely the current process will simply continue. Places like the Westfield will hold their own in certain sectors for a while, but eventually changes in technology and social conventions will move our lives and consumption almost entirely online. If the High Street does end, it will be slowly over many decades, and not because everyone turned exclusively to online shopping over one Christmas period. If the High Street does end, it will not be with a bang but with a whimper, and one which is already well underway.

The Hunger Games and Game Theory

I do not usually write posts about popular culture topics, so this blog will open with a first which is a SPOILERS WARNING. This article may ruin the ending of The Hunger Games if you have not seen the film or read the book yet.

With that out of the way, I can move onto the main area of discussion. One might think that The Hunger Games, which opened at cinemas nationwide on the 23^rd of March, might not have much to teach the viewer about economics, but that would be a mistake. The film has some important insights into the nature of competition and game theory.

The film follows the story of Katniss Everdeen, a teenage girl who volunteers to combat 23 other juveniles in a battle to the death in order to avoid the same fate befalling her sister. She strikes up a friendship come romance come rivalry with one of her opponents who hails from the same district of the film's dystopian future as she does. Katniss has to rely on her own survival skills to make it back to her family but is also faced with difficult decisions along the way in regard to who she can trust. There can be only one winner of The Hunger Games and only one can return to their home, co-operation in this environment can only go so far.

This is very similar to game theory and I am sure that had John Forbes Nash been alive today he would have found the questions raised by this literary sensation fascinating. Nash's game theory is a study in human selfishness which attempts to find mathematical and logical optimal solutions to real world problems. His results are bleak and frequently point to the power of human greed as a means to achieve the optimal result from any situation. Nash won the Nobel Prize for economics for his efforts and his theories underpin a lot of the prevailing market ideology and government policy. I have blogged on Nash and his theories before.

In a typical game theory situation there is a trade off between cooperating with the other player(s) and behaving selfishly for personal gain. Frequently you do not know what the other player's moves are or how they affect yours until after you have made a key decision. Nash found that there is always an incentive to betray trust for personal gain as in any one moment the other player(s) is likely to be betray you if they are behaving logically according to game theory.

In The Hunger Games itself there is an incentive to cooperate with one or more opponents against further opponents. Katniss teams up with Rue during the game to great effect whereas Peeta Mellark (her rival/love interest) allies himself with the stronger and better trained players. However there is an incentive to betray trust at any point as there can only be one winner. During the course of the game Peeta switches sides to help Katniss defeat his former allies. Signs of personal weakness are rewarded with timely betrayal and several characters come to an abrupt end at the hands of their recent allies. At any moment there is an incentive to betray trust just as whoever you are allied with is likely to also be planning the moment they turn on you.

This all sounds very bleak and has led many to doubt the human virtues of cooperation and altruism but there is a positive side to game theory. More recent experiments have been based upon the idea of iterated game theory where games are not played in isolation but repeated over and over with the long term outcomes monitored. These studies have shown that there is a mathematical advantage to altruism in iterated game theory. If you cooperate in the long term, through repeated games then all parties can each gain greater results than they could have achieved through seeking personal glory.

The Hunger Games also has an argument for cooperation and altruism if you view not as a single game but a series of games Katniss repeatedly plays against a changing series of opponents. There is a clear incentive for her to cooperating with weaker plays against the players with advantages. Ultimately Katniss's victory in The Hunger Games is achieved because she works together with others and uses their competitive advantage against her opponents. She also exploits the selfish players willingness to turn on each other to thin the field. At the end of the film Katniss is able to save herself and Peeta not because of their ability to work together to achieve a common goal but because they are able to trust each other.

The Hunger Games shows that there is not only an incentive for cooperation but also for trusting others even in an single victor environment. It is a strong argument against Nash's dark view of human nature as motivated by selfishness and personal gain. In our personal lives as well in society as a whole we need to learn from Katniss example of helping the weak, harnessing the power of cooperation over selfishness and above all that we need to trust each other.