More Sex Please, We’re Economists: A Q&A With Steve Landsburg

Steven Landsburg is not known for having temperate opinions. An economics professor at the University of Rochester and a prolific writer, Landsburg regularly raises provocative theories in his Slate column: women choke under pressure, e.g., or miserliness is a form of generosity. He is the author of the books Armchair Economist and Fair Play, which are in some ways direct forebears of Freakonomics.

His latest project is a typically brash book called More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics. We asked him to respond to some questions about the book, and he has done so. In the interest of disclosure, let me mention here that Landsburg reviewed Freakonomics in the Wall Street Journal when it was published, and it was the sort of review that makes you blush with happiness. But that, of course, is not why we’re running this Q&A. (Smile.)

Q: Many of the stories in your book rest on the idea that people should alter their personal welfare for the greater good — for instance, STD-free men should become more sexually active to give healthy women disease-free partners. In our society, is it possible to put such ideas into practice?

A: Sure. We put such ideas into practice all the time. We think that the owners of polluting factories should give up some of their personal welfare (i.e. their profits) for the greater good, and we convince them to do that via tradable emissions permits (when we’re being smart) or via clumsy regulations (when we’re being dumb). We think that professional thieves should give up some aspects of their personal welfare (i.e. their thievery) for the greater good, and we convince them to do that with the prospect of prison terms.

Our personal welfare is almost always in conflict with the greater good. When something exciting happens at the ballpark, everyone stands up to see better, and therefore nobody succeeds. At parties, everyone speaks loudly to be heard over everyone else, and therefore everyone goes home with a sore throat. The one great exception is the interaction among buyers and sellers in a competitive marketplace, where — for fairly subtle reasons — the price system aligns private and public interests perfectly. That’s a miraculous exception, but it is an exception. In most other areas, there’s room to improve people’s incentives.

One theme of More Sex is Safer Sex is that some of those disconnects between private and public interests are surprising and counterintuitive. Casual sex is one of those examples. If you are a recklessly promiscuous person with a high probability of HIV infection, you pollute the partner pool every time you jump into it — and you should be discouraged, just as any polluter should be discouraged. But the flip side of that is that if you are a very cautious person with a low probability of infection — and a low propensity to pass on any infection that you do have –then you improve the quality of the partner pool every time you jump into it. That’s the opposite of pollution, and it should be encouraged for exactly the same reasons that pollution should be discouraged.

Q: Do you work especially hard to come up with counterintuitive examples so that people will pay attention?

A: I like to emphasize the counterintuitive because I am convinced that counterintuitive truths are both enlightening and fun. If you could always rely on your common sense, there’d be no point in ever thinking about anything. When a thought experiment runs counter to your common sense, that’s when you’ve learned something. And usually you’ve had some fun along the way.

Q: You argue that jurors should be charged a penalty if they convict a defendant who is later exonerated. By that logic, do you think defense attorneys should refund some of the fees they collect from a defendant who is convicted?

A: Defendants and their attorneys are perfectly capable of negotiating any fee arrangements they want to, including refunds in the case of a conviction. It’s interesting to ask why we don’t often see that kind of contract, but if it’s not arising naturally I don’t see any reason to mandate it.

Jurors, by contrast, are in a very different position. Their compensation isn’t negotiated, and all of society depends on their doing a good job. Yet, as I point out in the book, jury service is almost the only activity I can think of where rewards are 100% divorced from performance. That’s got to be a recipe for disaster.

In the book, I talk about various ways we might spot jurors who are doing a bad job and punish them for it. Along the way, we’ll make the mistake of punishing a lot of jurors who don’t deserve it. That’s unfair, but it’s also okay. Nothing is more unfair than to send an innocent person to jail, or to acquit a guilty murderer who goes out and kills again. If we can make a dent in that kind of unfairness by being occasionally unfair to jurors, that’s a trade-off I can live with.

Q: In your argument for an overhaul of the criminal justice system, you suggest that juries should be made aware of all prior convictions on a defendant’s record,. But criminal law restricts admissibility of prior convictions since a past conviction may unfairly bias a jury. Who’s right?

A: I am, of course. Don’t forget that the criminal law is a product of evolution, and evolution is clumsy. Surely an intelligent designer could do a much better job. (Though equally surely, a slightly less intelligent designer could do a disastrously worse job.) Take, for example, the size of the jury. Why twelve? To what optimization problem is that the solution? And for goodness’s sake, why doesn’t it adjust to changes in economic conditions? Surely we should have larger juries in times of high unemployment!

There is no good theoretical reason to believe that the legal system should evolve into anything sensible, and therefore there’s no good reason why we shouldn’t try to envision a better one.

Q: Your book contains several counterarguments and responses from readers to your Slate columns. What have you heard from any of these readers since the book came out?

A: The response has really been very gratifying. I’ve had scads of email from delighted readers, including several with suggestions for future books and columns. So far nobody has poked any major holes in anything, probably because most of the book was vetted in advance by the dozens of world-class hole-pokers I count as friends.

Q: We’ve blogged on this site quite a bit about the issue of organ donation. You are strongly in favor of a free-market solution for kidneys. What is the likelihood that this will actually happen in the U.S. anytime soon? Do you think the public is more inclined to do so than medical and government officials?

A: I’m not sure I’m terribly good at intuiting the inclinations of the public. For just one example, there seems to be something like a widespread consensus that there’s something discomforting about reproductive cloning, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why people feel that way. Nor can I figure out why anyone would balk at a market solution to the organ shortage. Thousands of people die each year for lack of a healthy kidney, while hundreds of millions walk around with spare kidneys they’re unlikely to need. That’s nuts. I agree with you guys that most people can probably see that it’s nuts. For some reason, most of those people seem reluctant to embrace the one mechanism — the market — that can actually solve this kind of problem.

Q: You argue that miserliness is equitable to charitable contributions in the net use of resources, while giving more to one single charity is better than giving less to different charities. What is your personal approach to charitable contributions ( i.e., how much do you give, and to whom)?

A: Miserliness is equivalent to charity in the sense that both the miser and the philanthropist forego consumption, which makes more goods available to others. If you give your money away, someone else gets to eat better. If, instead, you squirrel your money under your mattress, it’s still true that someone else gets to eat better, because whatever you’re not eating is available to someone else. There’s a complicated chain of events in between — you hoard money, which drives down the price level, which lowers the price of food, which allows someone somewhere to buy more food — but you don’t have to follow that whole chain to know that if you eat less, there’s more for someone else.

So if you want to be charitable, all you have to do is hoard your money, or for that matter burn it. But that’s not the best way to be charitable, because you can’t control who gets the benefits. Miserliness is like a random act of kindness; effective philanthropy is about directed acts of kindness. And I argue in the book that a philanthropist who really cares about helping others will usually pick a single charity and target his giving to that one charity. If 100 children are dying of rickets and another 100 are dying of scurvy and you have enough funds to save two children, there’s no particular reason to save one of each; you might as well give your entire contribution to either the Rickets Foundation or the Scurvy Foundation. Either way, you’ve saved two children. And if you have even the slightest inkling that one of those charities might be more effective than the other, then that’s where both your dollars should go.

It took me a long time to fully understand that argument, so I’m sympathetic to the fact that readers often find it hard to swallow. In the book, I’ve tried to answer all the objections that I myself raised when I first started thinking about this.

I think I’ll decline to comment on the details of my own giving, for the same reason that I’d decline to comment if you asked me about what I had for breakfast this morning: I have nothing interesting to say about my particular preferences. It’s general principles, not individual eccentricities, that are really important.


"Defendants and their attorneys are perfectly capable of negotiating any fee arrangements they want to, including refunds in the case of a conviction."

This isn't really true. Lawyers are barred by their professional code of ethics from entering into contingent fee arrangements for representation of criminal defendants.


I don't blame Landsburg for not revealing his exact charitable details. But since this is anonymous commenting, I contribute between 4 and 5% of my gross income (which is in the very low 100s). I have read Landsburg very effective argument for single charity giving, but I spread it across a small number of charities. This is in part because there is considerable peer pressure to make donations to organizations that one is involved in. For instance, one may serve on a charitable board to provide expertise to a local charity, even if it is not your number one passion. But then there is the expectation that you donate to that charity because you are a board member. Or, one may belong to a religious club, such as a church or synagogue. But such memberships again all but require donations, even if it is not your number one passion. I guess that just because the tax code calls those charitable donations, they should be thought of as membership fees in the Landsburg case, and only donations disentangled from memberships ought to follow his single charity rule.



This guy has so many just plain DANGEROUS ideas, I'm really not sure that he's thought through all of them.

1. The very thing that makes a person low-risk for STD infection or passing it on to others is that they are less active on average. His proposal (that these people "jump into the pool" more) would immediately put those people at even greater risk should an STD enter the environment. One mistake is DISASTER. Sure, his idea makes sense assuming you can ever get to a point where you can ensure that the population is perfectly clean, but even AIDS had to start somewhere. What you've basically done is created a situation where it's unlikely that an STD will enter the population, but if it does, it hits EVERYONE. That's not a situation I'd want to be in.

The only safe sex is none at all, followed closely by general safe sex practices and monogamy, because the only sex that is truly safe is when you have it with someone you trust completely.

2. 12 jurors exist because you want to make sure you have a diverse enough group of peers to fairly judge the defendant, but not so many that deliberation becomes impossible. Too few jurors and you can make more mistakes, to many and you can't reach a decision.

As for jurors and rewards, the problem is that jurors already feel like they're being penalized by losing work to be there to begin with. Fix that, and you'll probably get better quality jurors. As for penalizing them for making the wrong decision ... how would he propose we do that? Most of these issues don't come up until YEARS later, so what would the statute of limitations be on those jurors. What would be appropriate recourse? Like a hangman, jurors are supposed to be largely anonymous ... start adding penalties to the mix and you'll end up with juries that will never make a decision because it's now in their personal best interest not to ... not to mention that it'll be harder than ever to get people to show up at all.

If these opinions of his are indicative of the quality of the rest of the book, I think I'll take a pass.



"Don't forget that the criminal law is a product of evolution..."

But it's not. Criminal law is the product of thousands of intentional decisions and compromises, not random change, and constitutions and penal codes ARE the products of intelligent designers.

Further, choosing between different nonprofits isn't about choosing how many children will live or die of which disease. One charity might research to cure disease, but another might fund symphonic concerts, while another might work to prevent alcoholism. I help donors choose which charities to donate to, and the very question should always be "What do I care about?" Chances are, the donors cares about a lot of different things, which they would do themselves if they had the time, money, and expertise. But they don't, so they contribute to nonprofits that are working toward those ends. The Gates Foundation isn't stupid because it gives to both educate American children and save the lives of African children - those are two separate objectives.



Seriously, how much sex has this guy had to propose something so ridiculous? Sure, there are probably a number of STD free men or women out there that nobody WANTS to have sex with. Also, I'm going out on a limb here, but the same qualities that men and women use to judge sexual partners are very likely to be highly correlated with a marriagable partner. So sure, I'm a STD free male that could 'improve' the public health, but I don't think my wife would approve!?! Also, along the same lines, the research I've heard of suggest married people have more sex than singles, so not surprisingly there is also a huge information assymtry for those who 'need' a sexual partner.


yeah I'm with SuperRob- these tidbits here represent a lot of breadth, but not alot of depth- I think what's ironically missing from the arguments on what one should do is a sense of ethics or morality- that's what binds us together and gives our lives meaning, not 'market forces'- if we want to have fulfilling sex, justice, medicine, or charity, we need to foster these moral ties between us, not foster economic decision matrices


Great post, thanks Mr. Dubner.

I disagree that an STD-free person helps the casual sex pool by jumping into it. An abstainer's risk has a higher opportunity cost, i.e. by copulating with some who is already engaged, the abstainer may contract an STD, even as the abstainer lowers the pool's overall STD probability. This does not appear to be a Pareto-improvement.

I also disagree that denying or suppressing personal demand lowers the prices for everyone else--this assumes everything is zero-sum (a very bad assumption that market bears make all the time and a lot of bears get killed by a stampeding bull market that is not zero-sum, especially over the last few centuries).


I thought the analysis under the "Why women choke" article was spot on. Mr. Landsburg doesn't seem to think very hard about how he uses statistics, nor does he consider real-world limitations an conditions, at least in these two examples. People are are low risk as a result of lack of participation in the pool. If they increase their participation, they will, fairly linearly, increase their risk. This will decrease the advantage of their participation.


"hundreds of millions walk around with spare kidneys they're unlikely to need"

I am not a huge expert in medicine but this statement doesn't sound very serious to me. How come I don't need my kidneys?

I am asking seriously. I know that people can live without one kidney but I don't know what their quality of life would be.


"Nothing is more unfair than to send an innocent person to jail, or to acquit a guilty murderer who goes out and kills again. If we can make a dent in that kind of unfairness by being occasionally unfair to jurors, that's a trade-off I can live with."

Does anyone know how did Landsburg reach the above conclusion. In a total utilitarian argument, I don't see why sending an innocent to jail or acquitting a guilty person is more "unfair" than letting a bad juror go unpunished or good juror being punished?

(I haven't read his book and he might be right, but if anyone knows whether he reached this conclusion by looking at some cost-benefit analysis or statistical-significance could you please let me know. Thanks.)


Re Comment#9: This article on how kidney donors fared after their donation suggests that the overall quality of life of donors decreased.


I feel that people are mixing up public good and personal welfare. I hope everyone can agree that taking an HIV positive person out of the "casual sex pool" would be good for the public. But, its actually not good for the HIV positive person at all. He can no longer have sex (and that decreases his personal welfare). It helps the public good because the percentage of possible sex partners in the pool who do not have STDs increases.

This is the same outcome that occurs if STD-free individuals jump into the pool. Of course the healthy person's personal welfare is hurt, but it helps out the population as a whole. This is the main idea in his book: "the idea that people should alter their personal welfare for the greater good."


- kidney donors are carefully screened, and long term cohort studies of donors suggest that survival and qol are not different, otherwise current living donation arrangements (which are not market driven) would not be ethically acceptable.
- i feel frankenduf is spot on in encouraging consideration of the moral aspect of organ markets. (i think i am trying to say that exploitation of people may have big costs in the long run) also, a NYT sunday magazine article on sale of organs from several years back painted a pretty bleak picture of the results for both recipients and donors. it seemed to conclude that the best organized/run and most successful such program took place in and was sanctioned by the Iraqi regime of the late Sadaam Hussein. not exactly a ringing endorsement.
-as a nephrologist, i have watched many dialysis patients languish and die, and agree that increasing incentives to alleviate the donor shortage is laudable, but strict market/financial solutions are very problematic.



I just read Landsburg's article "Women Choke Under Pressure." This is one of the most silly title he could have chosen for this article. My hunch is that it was an attempt just to garner attention. In anycase, that takes points away from his academic worthiness because it displays a severe lack of caution and an attempt of misleading readers.

Here is a study of wealthy women in Britain by the Economist, which is claiming that by 2020 more than half of britains millionares might be female:

This is conflicting with his article in the sense that if women are chokers in high pressure situations how are they becoming more likely to become rich and increasing their education levels at a faster rate than men?? (True women have traditionally got most of their wealth via inheritance, divorcing or marrying rich, but that trend doesn't completely explain the current rise in wealth, which I argue is more accurately measured by a increase in rate of education level relative to men.)

The studies cited by him are interesting but the conclusion he ends up making are too far-fetched.

True women might be prone to making more errors in "certain" situations than men, like pressure points in tennis, but that doesn't translate into the fact that women choke under every kind of pressure.

And also it is quite obvious that individual utility and social utility is at odds many times, so there is nothing spectactular he is pointing out. Some of his thinking is quite novel, but he tends to go too far in reaching conclusions.

His psychology seems to be of the person who is trying to grab attention using anything outlandish because he couldn't make a career for himself by coming up with something original.

This is quite sloppy thinking by Landsburg!



Lots of good negative comments.

I'll bet Landsburg is a great guy at parties and fun to debate. And he probably takes intentionally nutty or overstated positions for the sake of keeping it fun. Because much of what's cited here is beyond counterintuitive.

jurors should be charged a penalty if they convict a defendant who is later exonerated

I'm sure there's more to this than just the bare quote, because that could only work in a world of perfect information, conveyed perfectly. And if we lived in such a world we wouldn't need juries.


I'll agree with Mack; Landsburg sounds like a fun guy for parties, but I certainly hope nobody takes his loony ideas seriously.
An interesting flip on his sex howler is: what do we do about treating victims of STD's? I think it was Barabasi who suggested that we treat promiscuous people more aggressively for STD's than those that don't get around much. While he was concerned that moralists would detest "rewarding" promiscuity, there was no question that there is not a normal distribution in the number of partners in any one person would have. The cool kids have way more sex than any 10 of their friends - put together. So if we treat the cool kid, we can stop STD's from spreading much more effectively.


Having read Landsburg book, I should say that the brief arguments he outlines above does little justice to the more complete lines of reasoning he espouses.
If you are intrigued by what he writes, read his book. But to call his ideas "loony" without having done so is weak.

In the book, I agreed with much of what he said. The charitable giving chapter was brilliant, and he speaks convincingly about free trade, preferences for male children, organ markets, and many other topics. I disagreed with his logic on jurors, how to make lines shorter, and other arguments. I remained uncertain about other ideas he proposes.

But whether I agreed or disagreed, I found Landsburg to be an highly intelligent person who is more than just "fun at parties". His suggestions, even if occassionally out of touch, and yes, sensationally headlined, ALWAYS got me thinking.

As you continue to debate the merits of what he argues in the interview, bear in mind that there is a bit more to it.



"Miserliness is equivalent to charity in the sense that both the miser and the philanthropist forego consumption, which makes more goods available to others. If you give your money away, someone else gets to eat better. If, instead, you squirrel your money under your mattress, it's still true that someone else gets to eat better, because whatever you're not eating is available to someone else."

Heck, miserliness is BETTER than charity. A miser these days won't put it in a mattress, but in investments.

You want job creation, a miser will be better at getting it for you.


I have an issue with his answer to the last question (and many others). I feel like his crazy, off the wall ideas are self centered and self serving. Yes, they are well thought out and I am sure he is able to defend them well. They also were very interesting for me to read and would make for better conversation than I usually have with my friends. But, if you are going to have an idea and publish a book, I think that you have to do two things.
1. Push as hard as possible to get these changes implemented because they are theoretically sound and presumably would make the world a better place. I can't really make a judgment on whether or not you do this.
2. Be transparent in all your answers to show exactly how your thoughts have impacted your actions. I can make a judgment on this point because in your answer to the last question you declined to answer how your thoughts on charitable contributions has impacted your gifting. as someone once said, " talk is meaningless without action"



I don't like the argument that posits a single charity being efficient. The problem is that benefactors are seldom rational. Put another way: if there are many worthwhile charities that address real and pressing needs in a community, why do the largest donations go to build museums, cultural centers, and schools?

Development officers competing for a limited pool of money often succeed by playing to the vanity of the benefactor. We may see a new lab building as a very worthwhile thing, but when we must negotiate a number of the homeless on our way from the parking garage to the lab, it looks suspicious.