01 / 05
The Poverty of Slavery | Podcast Highlights

Blog Post | Rights & Freedoms

The Poverty of Slavery | Podcast Highlights

Chelsea Follett interviews economic historian Robert E. Wright about the history of slavery and the damage it does to society.

Listen to the full podcast episode here.
Below is an abridged transcript featuring some highlights from the interview.

Tell me why you wrote this book and about the book in general.

I decided to write the book because progressive historians have revived a pro-slavery argument from the past: that America would not be rich without slavery. They are trying to set up a case for reparations by saying, “Hey, look, we are wealthy today, but it’s because we had slavery in the past, and now it’s time that we repay that debt.” It is completely wrong. My bookThe Poverty of Slavery, looks not just at the United States but at all systems of enslavement from the prehistoric period up to the present, and I don’t ever find an instance where slavery leads to anything more than profits for slaveholders. It never helps overall economies.

Tell me about slavery in the distant past, and then we’ll move forward in time.

The big point is that slavery is ubiquitous over time and space. Most societies had some type of person that would score very low on the freedom scale. And even chattel slavery with outright ownership was common throughout history.

Determining exactly when and where slavery occurred, especially in the prehistoric period, is difficult because you must interpret the physical record, things like prehistoric chains or collections of bones. There was a massacre, for example, on what’s now called the Missouri River that happened in pre-Columbian times. Archeologists found many bones from males and very old females but hardly any from females of reproductive age. This means the massacre was likely part of a slave raid and the raiders abducted the reproductive-age females.

We do know that, as soon as we get written records, slaves are ubiquitous, and nobody is saying, “Hey, there’s this new thing.” It’s always in the context of, “This is common, and everyone knows what this is.” It’s widespread across Europe, Asia, Africa, and even the pre-Colombian Americas. So, slavery is not just what Western Europeans did to Africans. It’s what humans have been doing to humans over millennia.

Can you tell me about the rise of the transatlantic slave trade and the anti-slavery movement?

Europeans didn’t bring the slave trade to Africa. Muslims were already coming down from the north and seizing sub-Saharan Africans or purchasing them from local enslavers. And there was also a system in the East where sub-Saharan and south African slaves were shipped to India and Southeast Asia. Europeans entered this system, outbid the existing slave traders, and sold the slaves to plantations in the Americas.

In terms of the anti-slavery movement, there were some groups and individuals who opposed slavery historically, but they never really gained traction until the 18th and early 19th centuries in the Anglo world.

The transition away from slave labor was eased by the fact that there was another source of labor available: Indian and Chinese coolies. They were indentured laborers, not chattel slaves, but still very low on the freedom scale. So, the places in the British Empire, for example, that relied on African slaves simply switched to these indentured laborers. People convinced themselves that these folks weren’t slaves because they signed contracts, but they were lied to about the conditions, they were illiterate, and they were signing up for 3, 5, or even 10 years of labor 2000 miles away from their homes. Making a mark on a piece of paper in a language they didn’t know hardly indicated their consent.

So, abolition is a nuanced story, but it was still progress.

One important thing is the change in how people thought about slavery. Throughout most of history, people mostly didn’t question slavery’s morality. They just accepted the way things were.

Yes, for most of recorded history, there was very little resistance to slavery. It was thought to be natural or even a good thing for the enslaved. If they were seized in a war or arrested for a crime, for example, they could have been executed, so enslavement was seen as the better option.

You said earlier that, economically speaking, slavery never resulted in “anything more than profits for slaveholders.” Can you elaborate on that?

As far as we can tell, the median profitability of slaveholding was greater than that of other endeavors at the same level of risk. However, that doesn’t mean it was good for the economy. Slavery creates all kinds of negative externalities or costs that are borne by society.

Basically, by resisting their enslavement, slaves create control costs, and enslavers often manage to put those costs on the rest of society. There used to be slave patrols in the U.S. and public armories just in case of a slave insurrection. You had fugitive slave laws where free states had to return runaway slaves to their owners. There’s a whole legal code with all its attendant costs and inefficiencies. Maroon societies would crop up, where escaped slaves would settle in wild places and then raid the slave communities. There were public whipping stations where people could take their slaves and say, “Please whip the slave on my behalf.”

There was also the fact that slaveholders often depleted the quality of their lands and then simply moved West and brought their slaves along with them. They wouldn’t invest in local businesses and infrastructure because they expected to leave in 20 years. Literacy rates in the South were also abysmal because slaveholders didn’t want non-slaveholders to become educated and question the system that the slaveholders had created.

So, slaveholders imposed many costs on society, making slavery extra profitable while hurting the overall economy.

What about modern slavery? How big of a problem is slavery today?

The good news is that we’re at a point in history where the smallest percentage of the human population is enslaved. There are 8 billion people alive today, and roughly 50 million are slaves. That’s a very tiny percentage of the global population. However, that’s also the largest number of individuals who have ever been enslaved at a single point in history, simply because population levels were much lower in the past. That’s a lot of suffering. About half of them are sex slaves, about a quarter are domestic slaves in people’s homes, and another quarter are being worked in agribusiness.

So, there are lots of people to help, but the negative externalities created by slavery today are not as immense as they were in the antebellum United States. But they’re not insignificant either. Since slavery is already a crime, enslavers often engage in other criminal activities like degrading the natural environment or trafficking in drugs and weapons.

I think technology might be able to help. Technology in the past helped us get through that long transition from chattel slaves to indentured servants to wage and free labor. We don’t need humans to pick cotton anymore since machines do it. Likewise, machines could help reduce the demand for sex slavery and domestic labor.

Blog Post | Trade

How Open Economies Lead to Open Minds

Trade undermines bigotry and rewards toleration.

Summary: Trade tends to reduce prejudice by fostering cooperation, competition, and repeated interaction across groups. Economic theory and empirical research show that economic freedom and globalization are consistently associated with lower levels of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and discrimination. By enabling mutually beneficial exchange and expanding social contact, markets help cultivate tolerance and weaken “us versus them” thinking.


In earlier essays, I argued that trade makes us richer, more trusting, more honest, and more fair. Yet over the past decade or so, we have witnessed a growing populist backlash against globalization and international trade. Many critics portray international trade as an example of “foreign intrusions on national sovereignty.” At first glance, the backlash might seem to suggest that trade with outsiders breeds resentment, cultural tension, and ultimately prejudice. In this essay, however, I argue that trade mitigates discrimination and prejudice, paving the way for greater tolerance.

In Capitalism and Freedom, the late Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman dedicated a chapter to the market’s relation to discrimination. Drawing on Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker’s groundbreaking work, Friedman wrote, “The preserves of discrimination in any society are the areas that are most monopolistic in character, whereas discrimination against groups of particular color or religion is least in those areas where there is the greatest freedom of competition.” He continued:

The man who objects to buying from or working alongside a Negro, for example, thereby limits his range of choice. He will generally have to pay a higher price for what he buys or receive a lower return for his work. Or, put the other way, those of us who regard color of skin or religion as irrelevant can buy some things more cheaply as a result.

Survey data can shed light on the relationship between trade and attitudes toward others. A study of international survey data published by the Brookings Institution found that feelings of national superiority and chauvinism were positively associated with opposition to global trade across multiple countries. On the flip side, pro-trade attitudes and greater exposure to global markets are negatively associated with nationalism, ethnocentrism, and prejudice.

For example, negative attitudes among Americans toward outsourcing appear to be associated with an “us versus them” mentality. According to a study by political scientists Edward Mansfield and Diana Mutz, switching from the most isolationist to the least isolationist outlooks predicted a fivefold increase in support for outsourcing. Shifting from the least ethnocentric to the most ethnocentric attitudes predicted a 50 percent decrease in support for outsourcing. And changing from the least nationalistic to the most nationalistic views predicted a 25 percent decrease in support for outsourcing (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Support for Outsourcing by Level of Nationalism

Source: Edward D. Mansfield and Diana C. Mutz, “US Versus Them: Mass Attitudes Toward Offshore Outsourcing,” World Politics 65, no. 4 (2013): 601. Perceived national superiority reduces support for outsourcing when the economic practice is explicitly labeled as “outsourcing.” This is the “Mentioned outsourcing” line. When the same economic practice is described without using that specific term, the same pattern does not occur. This is the “No mention of outsourcing” line.

The evidence compounds. Employing data from the General Social Surveys conducted from 1977 to 2010, Northwestern University’s James Lindgren found that racism, intolerance toward out-groups (e.g., homosexuals, atheists, and others), anti-capitalism, and pro-redistribution go hand-in-hand. Even after controlling for gender, logged income, education, age, and year of the survey, Lindgren showed that racism and intolerance are still strong predictors of socialist pro-redistribution and anti-capitalist attitudes. Lindgren’s analysis led him to conclude, “Those who support capitalism and freer markets and oppose greater income redistribution tend to be . . . less traditionally racist” and “less intolerant of unpopular groups.”

That tracks with the work of the Mercatus Center’s Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choi, who compared respondents from market societies to those in nonmarket societies using the World Values Survey. When asked who they would not like to have as neighbors, those in market societies were less prejudiced against those of a different race, language, or religion, as well as foreign workers, homosexuals, and cohabitating couples (see Figure 2). Trade, it seems, is next to good neighborliness.

Several studies by economists Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson investigated the relationship between tolerance, economic freedom, and globalization. The evidence they gathered suggests a causal relationship between the level of economic globalization and the willingness of parents to teach their children tolerance. Another analysis found that economic freedom plays a seemingly causal role in parents teaching their children tolerance and fostering tolerance toward homosexuals and people of different races (see Figure 3). Focusing solely on the United States, Berggren and Nilsson found a similar causality: Economic freedom increases tolerance toward homosexuals, atheists, and communists. Another study found that economic freedom increases tolerance toward homosexuals, particularly in societies that are high in trust.

Figure 2. Market Societies Are Less Prejudiced

Source: Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choi, Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), p. 174.

Figure 3. Racial Tolerance and Economic Freedom

Source: Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson, “Economic Freedom as a Driver of Trust and Tolerance,” in Economic Freedom of the World: 2020 Annual Report, eds. James Gwartney et al. (Fraser Institute, 2020), p. 196.

And it’s not just parents teaching children tolerance. The media also plays a role in shaping our outlook. An interesting study by researchers at St. Olaf College, Stanford University, and George Mason University combed through a corpus of New York Times articles written over a 20-year period in search of moral language that Americans used in discussing other countries. They then measured the US market interaction with these countries by looking at bilateral trade flows and immigration statistics. Their results indicated that the more market interaction the United States had with a country through trade and immigration, the more news articles contained humanizing language toward that country. We tend to be cordial toward those we do business with.

Of course, it’s easy to say you’re tolerant in a survey or write nice things in an op-ed. It may even be socially desirable. We all want to look good. But does this translate into action? Several studies suggest that it does.

A clever set of experiments published in the European Economic Review showed that both local (monopsonist) and wholesale (competitive) buyers in the Bangladeshi rice market held prejudicial views of ethnic minorities. Prejudicial attitudes were the same across the board. Yet the wholesale buyers quoted the same price for both ethnic majority and minority farmers, whereas the local buyers did not. Why? The authors concluded, “This suggests that the taste-based discrimination that these buyers have against the ethnic minority group . . . can be eliminated if competition is strong enough.”

Those findings were supported by another set of experiments that demonstrated that market exchange decreases discrimination by increasing participants’ focus on their personal gains and reducing identification with their social in-group. Banking deregulation yielded similar results: As the financial sector was deregulated, competition intensified, leading to reduced discrimination against women and minorities.

Protectionist restrictions can exacerbate prejudicial attitudes. As the late economist Walter Williams explained, anti-competitive regulation “lowers the private cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred person.” But when there is money to be made, trading only with groups who look or think like you doesn’t seem so important. And the more you trade with different groups, the more you realize that maybe, just maybe, they aren’t as bad as you thought.

But let’s go a step further. Researchers at the University of British Columbia and Bates College have also shown how trade can break down prejudice in practice. The researchers examined areas along the Silk Roads, a network of trade routes throughout Eurasia that has been used for over millennia. It turns out that areas within 50 kilometers of the Silk Roads today have higher economic activity compared to those that are 50–100 kilometers away. No real surprise there. But more importantly for our purposes, the former areas also have higher rates of intergroup marriage. It’s hard to find a better example of tolerance than asking someone of another ethnic group to become family and spend the rest of their lives with you.

You see this in 19th-century America as well. Railroad-driven market integration between 1850 and 1920 helped reshape American social horizons. A new study found that as counties gained better access to this intrastate trade, the likelihood of marrying someone outside the local community increased. That’s what’s called extra-community marriage. Other signs of tolerance and trust became apparent: Newspapers began to adopt language that reflected generalized trust. Parents began to give children nationally popular names rather than locally distinctive ones, implying a social circle that had extended beyond the local community. But one of the strongest findings was the increase in religious diversity: A 1 percent increase in market access raised religious diversity by 0.27 standard deviation, indicating a greater tolerance for religious identity and practice. Perhaps most striking, families who moved to these more market-integrated areas adapted quickly, especially those working in commerce-intensive industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and transportation.

The available evidence suggests that repeated exchange softens suspicion toward outsiders. Sustained commercial contact makes unfamiliar people feel less distant and, consequently, less threatening. Trade provides a mechanism through which tolerance is learned and reinforced. As the 18th-century English theologian and scientist Joseph Priestly noted over 200 years ago,

By commerce we enlarge our acquaintance with the terraqueous globe and its inhabitants, which tends to greatly expand the mind, and to cure us of many hurtful prejudices. . . . No person can taste the sweets of commerce, which absolutely depends upon a free and undisturbed intercourse of different and remote nations, but must grow fond of peace, in which alone the advantages he enjoys can be had.

Reason | Science & Education

Could Elite Colleges Embrace the SAT Again?

“After a yearslong trend of elite colleges dropping standardized test requirements from their applications, the tide seems to be turning for the SAT. Long derided as unfair, unnecessary, or even sexist and racist, college entrance exams are gaining new defenders who point out that, contrary to common conception, standardized tests help—not hinder—talented yet disadvantaged students.”

From Reason.

Blog Post | Human Development

1,000 Bits of Good News You May Have Missed in 2023

A necessary balance to the torrent of negativity.

Reading the news can leave you depressed and misinformed. It’s partisan, shallow, and, above all, hopelessly negative. As Steven Pinker from Harvard University quipped, “The news is a nonrandom sample of the worst events happening on the planet on a given day.”

So, why does Human Progress feature so many news items? And why did I compile them in this giant list? Here are a few reasons:

  • Negative headlines get more clicks. Promoting positive stories provides a necessary balance to the torrent of negativity.
  • Statistics are vital to a proper understanding of the world, but many find anecdotes more compelling.
  • Many people acknowledge humanity’s progress compared to the past but remain unreasonably pessimistic about the present—not to mention the future. Positive news can help improve their state of mind.
  • We have agency to make the world better. It is appropriate to recognize and be grateful for those who do.

Below is a nonrandom sample (n = ~1000) of positive news we collected this year, separated by topic area. Please scroll, skim, and click. Or—to be even more enlightened—read this blog post and then look through our collection of long-term trends and datasets.

Agriculture

Aquaculture

Farming robots and drones

Food abundance

Genetic modification

Indoor farming

Lab-grown produce

Pollination

Other innovations

Conservation and Biodiversity

Big cats

Birds

Turtles

Whales

Other comebacks

Forests

Reefs

Rivers and lakes

Surveillance and discovery

Rewilding and conservation

De-extinction

Culture and tolerance

Gender equality

General wellbeing

LGBT

Treatment of animals

Energy and natural Resources

Fission

Fusion

Fossil fuels

Other energy

Recycling and resource efficiency

Resource abundance

Environment and pollution

Climate change

Disaster resilience

Air pollution

Water pollution

Growth and development

Education

Economic growth

Housing and urbanization

Labor and employment

Health

Cancer

Disability and assistive technology

Dementia and Alzheimer’s

Diabetes

Heart disease and stroke

Other non-communicable diseases

HIV/AIDS

Malaria

Other communicable diseases

Maternal care

Fertility and birth control

Mental health and addiction

Weight and nutrition

Longevity and mortality 

Surgery and emergency medicine

Measurement and imaging

Health systems

Other innovations

Freedom

    Technology 

    Artificial intelligence

    Communications

    Computing

    Construction and manufacturing

    Drones

    Robotics and automation

    Autonomous vehicles

    Transportation

    Other innovations

    Science

    AI in science

    Biology

    Chemistry and materials

      Physics

      Space

      Violence

      Crime

      War