For full details, see:
Kalinowski, C.M., Lynne, G.D. and Johnson, B. “Recycling as a Reflection of Balanced Self-Interest: A Test of the Metaeconomics Approach.” Environment and Behavior 38,3 (May, 2006): 333-355.
As argued in Kalinowski, Lynne and Johnson (2006, p. 336), the standard economic rendition of such purchase decisions as buying a good having recycle content is strictly a matter of self-interest arising out of egoistic-hedonistic tendencies, i.e. minimize costs on the way to maximizing benefits, so choose some point A, generally with very little concern for the environment. Even making recycling easier, by lowering the cost, illustrated by the “pivot” in the budget line, only leads to moving out to point A’: We can easily see why massive public programs to make recycling easier, as well as “subsidizing” recycle content goods, will lead to little overall difference in recycling behavior.
This model cannot explain why some individuals will actually sacrifice their egoistic-hedonistic pursuits to “do-the-right-thing” in that one cannot maximize self-interest utility while doing so. The only way to explain substantial amounts of recycle good purchases would be to suggest that the self-interest path 0G goes through points C and C’, which leaves out a great deal of interesting behavior on the part of those who do a bit of recycling, and, especially, the behavior wherein people vacillate, switch, sometimes buying recycle content goods and sometimes not, with said individuals seeing such economic choice representing self-sacrifice. This model can only explain a large amount of recycling such as revealed in the behavior of true tree-hugger, strong environmentalist... who must be represented (by this theory) purchasing the recycle content goods (recycling generally) as being only in their self-interest, such that their path 0G goes through C and C.’ Bottomline: It does a poor job of explaining the behavior of most people most of the time (see Kalinowski, Lynne and Johnson, 2006, for further elaboration on this point).
The dual motive, metaeconomics model suggests more interesting, substantive reasons for recycling, leading to a much richer, more reality-based explanation of recycling behavior. As argued in Kalinowski, Lynne and Johnson (2006), most people most of the time feel (emotions affect rational choice) conflicted over recycling generally, and buying recycle content goods in particular. Also, many if not most people will switch around a bit, buying recycle content goods at times, while buying regular (all-other-goods) at another time. So, we see when recycling is made easier for this group, they will move to point B’ rather an A’. Notice, too, that at B’ there is perceived self-sacrifice in having done the right thing, with the payoff in the self-interest domain on 0G being less at point B’ than at point A’, IG2 < IG3. Intriguingly, the model also suggests self-sacrifice in the shared other-interest domain, with the payoff in the shared other-interest domain, some IM at B’ (not illustrated, albeit there is an IM curve through point B’) < IM2, the latter being the payoff from being a strong environmentalist. We might say that individuals “satisfice” at point B’, not maximizing the payoff in either domain of interest, but rather find a kind of “peace-of-mind” from having done the right thing at B’ while still paying attention to their own egoistic-hedonistic based self-interest. In effect, they have “conditioned” their pursuit of self-interest on path 0Z with the ethic, the moral dimension, of being in unity with the shared concern over the environment and long-term sustainability. This conditioning involves acting on empathy, and evolving to be in sympathy-with, the sustainability associated with “going green” and heading toward the eco-path of sustainability. through recycling.
So, rational choice is about finding point B’ on path 0Z, an emotion conditioned cognitive calculation of the “best” position. Rational choice is a conscious choice, having considered the shared other-interest which starts first with empathizing, putting oneself in the shoes of the ecosystem, and of those living in poor environmental conditions, asking “how would I want to be treated” and then becoming “in sympathy with” the cause, the ideal of a better world, a better place to live, together. Also note that being more extreme, more completely in sympathy with the cause would put the person on path 0M with a substantial sacrifice in the payoffs from pursuing mainly self-interest on path 0G; some environmentalists see it this way, as sacrificing a great deal for the greater good (while others, as noted in the Figure 1 commentary, might see path 0M as their self-interest path, albeit we might reasonably expect very few people would see 0M as in their self-interest).
We can also handle the extreme cases. The extremely anthropocentric, hedonistic person might operate on the vertical axis; the extremely ecocentric, “in sympathy with the ecosystem” person might operate on the horizontal axis.
The policy implications are now much more succinct. For example, the general policy to reduce the costs of recycling, in effect reducing the “price” of recycling, as an incentive could easily backfire, as well-meaning policy makers may inadvertently shift individual choices over to making them strictly financial. This is easily illustrated: Consider the current situation as depicted at point B, wherein people, on their own, are doing a bit of recycling, with a bit of self-sacrifice represented work in their choice. Lowering the “price” ... increasing the incentive to recyle... supposedly (standard economic reasoning) would increase the recycling behavior. The policy backfires, however, as individuals now “monetize” the behavior, shifting it over to the more strictly self-interest domain on path 0G, moving to point A’ instead, and actually reducing the recycling behavior! An appropriate policy, instead, would not only reduce costs, prices but also build “unity with the cause” , as in slogans like “XYZ City recycles” or some such, such that the policy would now produce point B.’ The much richer metaeconomics model leads to far more intriguing, and potentially more productive, policy recommendations.