HUMAN NATURE,THE ENVIRONMENT,AND BEHAVIOUR: EXPLAINING THE SCOPE AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE OF FINANCIAL DECISION‐MAKING

This article explores two inter‐related themes. One addresses fundamental questions of human nature, arguing that conventional theories of behaviour lack a credible appreciation of the interaction between cognition and context (or what is often termed as the ‘environment’). The second considers decision‐making under risk and uncertainty, focusing upon customary behaviour and the significance or otherwise of conscious deliberation. My argument is intended to be both critical and constructive, exploring the claims of the emerging school of behaviouralism associated with Kahneman and Tversky now sweeping the social sciences. Most importantly, it is argued that economic geography should take more seriously the nature and scope of behaviour recognizing its attributes including related social and cultural aspirations. These ideas are illustrated by a set of recent studies dealing with financial decision‐making and individuals' attitudes towards risk in personal and occupational pension plans. The importance of this project lies in the urgent need to understand the diversity of behaviour of men and women in, and through, the communities in which they live without being reduced to yet another version of environmental determinism. In the final section, implications are drawn for understanding the global financial crisis.     

ISOLATING CONNECTIONS – CONNECTING ISOLATIONS

The varied and distinct ways we connect can facilitate or impose isolation, our own or someone else's. Different forms of isolation are themselves interconnected and sometimes enrich our connecting. The relation between isolation and connection, we argue, is one of complementarity, like Calvino's ‘two inseparable and complementary functions of life …syntony, or participation in the world around us … [and] focalization or constructive concentration.’ Solitude sought can enhance connections. Imposed isolation weakens connections in ways both obvious and subtle. This contrast between sought and imposed underscores the influence of hierarchy and socially produced inequities, excesses of which fragment the social ties that could constrain or diminish these same inequities. Deep inequity degrades the quality of both connections and isolation, at significant costs to our health, ecology, economy, cultural diversity, and political vitality. From this vantage point, we cull ways to improve our syntony and our focalization, fulfilling by expressing those shared egalitarian moral sentiments that motivate connections of solidarity partly in the interest of being “left alone”.