Keith Chen: Could your language affect your ability to save money?

Translator: Timothy Covell Reviewer: Morton Bast

Prevodilac: Filip Miletić Lektor: Mile Živković

The global economic financial crisis has reignited public interest

Globalna ekonomska finansijska kriza probudila je interesovanje

in something that's actually one of the oldest questions in economics,

za jedno od najstarijih pitanja ekonomije,

dating back to at least before Adam Smith.

koje datira sigurno iz vremena pre Adama Smita.

And that is, why is it that countries with seemingly similar economies and institutions

Pitanje glasi: zašto u državama sa naizgled sličnom privredom i institucijama

can display radically different savings behavior?

ljudi štede potpuno drugačije?

Now, many brilliant economists have spent their entire lives working on this question,

Mnogi vrhunski ekonomisti su se ovim pitanjem bavili ceo život,

and as a field we've made a tremendous amount of headway

mnogo smo napredovali kao nauka

and we understand a lot about this.

i dosta toga razumemo o ovom pitanju.

What I'm here to talk with you about today is an intriguing new hypothesis

Danas ću govoriti o novoj, interesantnoj hipotezi

and some surprisingly powerful new findings that I've been working on

i veoma značajnim saznanjima kojima se bavim,

about the link between the structure of the language you speak

a tiču se veze između strukture jezika koji govorite

and how you find yourself with the propensity to save.

i sopstvene sklonosti ka štednji.

Let me tell you a little bit about savings rates, a little bit about language,

Ispričaću nešto o stopama štednje, nešto o jeziku,

and then I'll draw that connection.

a onda ću to povezati.

Let's start by thinking about the member countries of the OECD,

Hajde da razmislimo malo o državama članicama OECD-a,

or the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

Organizacije za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj.

OECD countries, by and large, you should think about these

Države OECD-a obično smatramo

as the richest, most industrialized countries in the world.

za najbogatije, najindustrijalizovane.

And by joining the OECD, they were affirming a common commitment

Pristupanjem OECD-u su potvrdile zajedničku posvećenost

to democracy, open markets and free trade.

demokratiji, otvorenom tržištu i slobodnoj trgovini.

Despite all of these similarities, we see huge differences in savings behavior.

Uprkos sličnostima, postoje ogromne razlike u ponašanju štediša.

So all the way over on the left of this graph,

Skroz na levoj strani ovog grafikona

what you see is many OECD countries saving over a quarter of their GDP every year,

vidite da mnoge zemlje OECD-a svake godine uštede preko četvrtine svog BDP-a,

and some OECD countries saving over a third of their GDP per year.

a neke zemlje OECD-a uštede i preko trećine BDP-a godišnje.

Holding down the right flank of the OECD, all the way on the other side, is Greece.

Na desnom kraju OECD-a nalazi se Grčka.

And what you can see is that over the last 25 years,

Vidite da je u poslednjih 25 godina

Greece has barely managed to save more than 10 percent of their GDP.

Grčka jedva uštedela više od 10 posto svog BDP-a.

It should be noted, of course, that the United States and the U.K. are the next in line.

Treba napomenuti i da su SAD i Britanija odmah do nje.

Now that we see these huge differences in savings rates,

Pošto smo uočili ove razlike u stopama štednje,

how is it possible that language might have something to do with these differences?

kako je moguće da jezik ima ikakve veze sa tim razlikama?

Let me tell you a little bit about how languages fundamentally differ.

Evo u čemu je ključna razlika između jezika.

Linguists and cognitive scientists have been exploring this question for many years now.

Lingvisti i kognitivni naučnici ovo pitanje istražuju godinama.

And then I'll draw the connection between these two behaviors.

Ja ću samo povezati ta dva ponašanja.

Many of you have probably already noticed that I'm Chinese.

Verovatno ste već primetili da sam Kinez.

I grew up in the Midwest of the United States.

Odrastao sam na Srednjem zapadu SAD-a.

And something I realized quite early on

Prilično rano sam shvatio

was that the Chinese language forced me to speak about and --

da me kineski jezik tera da govorim -

in fact, more fundamentally than that --

u stvari, još je važnije -

ever so slightly forced me to think about family in very different ways.

čak i da mislim o porodici na potpuno drugačiji način.

Now, how might that be? Let me give you an example.

Zašto je tako? Evo primera.

Suppose I were talking with you and I was introducing you to my uncle.

Zamislite da vam predstavim svog "uncle" (engl. ujak, stric, teča).

You understood exactly what I just said in English.

Razumeli biste šta sam rekao na engleskom.

If we were speaking Mandarin Chinese with each other, though,

Ipak, da govorimo mandarinski kineski,

I wouldn't have that luxury.

ne bih imao tu mogućnost.

I wouldn't have been able to convey so little information.

Ne bih mogao da prenesem tako malo informacija.

What my language would have forced me to do,

Zbog jezika ne bih mogao

instead of just telling you, "This is my uncle,"

samo da vam kažem: "Ovo je moj <i>uncle</i>",

is to tell you a tremendous amount of additional information.

već bih morao da izgovorim mnogo dodatnih informacija.

My language would force me to tell you

Zbog jezika bih morao da vam kažem

whether or not this was an uncle on my mother's side or my father's side,

da li mi je on ujak, stric

whether this was an uncle by marriage or by birth,

ili možda teča,

and if this man was my father's brother,

a ako mi je stric,

whether he was older than or younger than my father.

da li je stariji ili mlađi od mog oca.

All of this information is obligatory. Chinese doesn't let me ignore it.

Sve te informacije su obavezne. Zbog kineskog ne mogu ništa da izostavim.

And in fact, if I want to speak correctly,

Da budem precizniji,

Chinese forces me to constantly think about it.

zbog kineskog jezika o tome stalno razmišljam.

Now, that fascinated me endlessly as a child,

To mi je bilo jako zanimljivo kad sam bio dete,

but what fascinates me even more today as an economist

ali me danas kao ekonomistu još više fascinira

is that some of these same differences carry through to how languages speak about time.

što se neke od istih razlika primećuju i u izrazima o vremenu.

So for example, if I'm speaking in English, I have to speak grammatically differently

Ako govorim engleski, menjam gramatičke oblike

if I'm talking about past rain, "It rained yesterday,"

ako govorim o kiši iz prošlosti: "Juče je padala kiša",

current rain, "It is raining now,"

kiši iz sadašnjosti: "Sada pada kiša"

or future rain, "It will rain tomorrow."

ili kiši iz budućnosti: "Sutra će padati kiša".

Notice that English requires a lot more information with respect to the timing of events.

Engleski iziskuje mnogo više informacija o tome kada se radnja odvija.

Why? Because I have to consider that

Zašto? Zato što o tome moram da mislim,

and I have to modify what I'm saying to say, "It will rain," or "It's going to rain."

pa menjam gramatički oblik i kad govorim da će kiša sigurno padati ili da će možda padati.

It's simply not permissible in English to say, "It rain tomorrow."

U engleskom se ne može reći: "Kiša pada sutra".

In contrast to that, that's almost exactly what you would say in Chinese.

S druge strane, upravo biste to rekli na kineskom.

A Chinese speaker can basically say something

Govornik kineskog praktično može da kaže nešto

that sounds very strange to an English speaker's ears.

što govorniku engleskog strašno para uši.

They can say, "Yesterday it rain," "Now it rain," "Tomorrow it rain."

Može da kaže: "Kiša pada juče", "Kiša pada sada" ili "Kiša pada sutra".

In some deep sense, Chinese doesn't divide up the time spectrum

Na neki način, kineski ne deli vremenski spektar

in the same way that English forces us to constantly do in order to speak correctly.

onako kako to radimo zbog engleskog jezika da bismo ga pravilno govorili.

Is this difference in languages

Postoji li ovakva razlika u jezicima

only between very, very distantly related languages, like English and Chinese?

samo između izrazito nesrodnih jezika, kao što su engleski i kineski?

Actually, no.

Zapravo, ne.

So many of you know, in this room, that English is a Germanic language.

Verovatno znate da je engleski germanski jezik.

What you may not have realized is that English is actually an outlier.

Možda ne znate da engleski baš i ne pripada svojoj zajednici.

It is the only Germanic language that requires this.

To je jedini germanski jezik koji zahteva naglašavanje vremena.

For example, most other Germanic language speakers

Na primer, govornicima većine drugih germanskih jezika

feel completely comfortable talking about rain tomorrow

prirodno je da govore o kiši

by saying, "Morgen regnet es,"

tako što će reći: "Morgen regnet es",

quite literally to an English ear, "It rain tomorrow."

bukvalno prevedeno: "Sutra pada kiša."

This led me, as a behavioral economist, to an intriguing hypothesis.

To me je, kao bihejvioralnog ekonomistu, dovelo do zanimljive hipoteze.

Could how you speak about time, could how your language forces you to think about time,

Da li način na koji govorite o vremenu, na koji, zbog jezika, razmišljate o vremenu,

affect your propensity to behave across time?

utiče na vašu sklonost da se ponašate na određeni način?

You speak English, a futured language.

Govorite engleski, futurizovan jezik.

And what that means is that every time you discuss the future,

To znači da ste, kad razgovarate o budućnosti

or any kind of a future event,

ili nekom budućem događaju,

grammatically you're forced to cleave that from the present

gramatički primorani da to potpuno odvojite od sadašnjosti

and treat it as if it's something viscerally different.

i o tome instinktivno mislite kao o nečemu drugačijem.

Now suppose that that visceral difference

Pretpostavimo da zbog te instinktivne razlike

makes you subtly dissociate the future from the present every time you speak.

neprimetno odvajate budućnost od sadašnjosti kad god govorite.

If that's true and it makes the future feel

Ako je to tačno i ako budućnost doživljavate

like something more distant and more different from the present,

kao udaljenu i drugačiju od sadašnjosti,

that's going to make it harder to save.

biće vam teže da štedite.

If, on the other hand, you speak a futureless language,

A ako govorite besfuturni jezik,

the present and the future, you speak about them identically.

o sadašnjosti i budućnosti govorite istovetno.

If that subtly nudges you to feel about them identically,

Ako njih zbog toga doživljavate identičnim,

that's going to make it easier to save.

biće vam lakše da štedite.

Now this is a fanciful theory.

E, ovo je nerealna teorija.

I'm a professor, I get paid to have fanciful theories.

Ja sam profesor, plaćaju me da smišljam nerealne teorije.

But how would you actually go about testing such a theory?

Kako da zaista proverimo takvu teoriju?

Well, what I did with that was to access the linguistics literature.

Ja sam proučavao lingvističku literaturu.

And interestingly enough, there are pockets of futureless language speakers

Vrlo je zanimljivo da postoje grupe govornika besfuturnih jezika

situated all over the world.

širom sveta.

This is a pocket of futureless language speakers in Northern Europe.

Ovo je grupa govornika besfuturnih jezika u severnoj Evropi.

Interestingly enough, when you start to crank the data,

Kad počnete da proučavate podatke,

these pockets of futureless language speakers all around the world

za govornike besfuturnih jezika iz celog sveta

turn out to be, by and large, some of the world's best savers.

ispostavi se da su uglavnom među najboljim štedišama na svetu.

Just to give you a hint of that,

Čisto da vam nagovestim,

let's look back at that OECD graph that we were talking about.

pogledajte opet grafikon OECD-a o kom smo govorili.

What you see is that these bars are systematically taller

Vidimo da su sve ovakve linije duže

and systematically shifted to the left

i da su sve pomerene ka levo

compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.

u odnosu na linije koje predstavljaju članove OECD-a sa futurizovanim jezicima.

What is the average difference here?

Kolika je prosečna razlika?

Five percentage points of your GDP saved per year.

Ušteda od pet posto BDP-a na godinu dana.

Over 25 years that has huge long-run effects on the wealth of your nation.

Nakon 25 godina, ovo ima ogromne dugoročne posledice na bogatstvo države.

Now while these findings are suggestive,

Iako su ovi rezultati sugestivni,

countries can be different in so many different ways

države se mogu razlikovati na toliko načina

that it's very, very difficult sometimes to account for all of these possible differences.

da može biti veoma teško uzeti u obzir sve te razlike.

What I'm going to show you, though, is something that I've been engaging in for a year,

Ipak, sad ću vam pokazati nešto čime se bavim godinu dana,

which is trying to gather all of the largest datasets

pokušavam da prikupim najveće setove podataka

that we have access to as economists,

kojima mi kao ekonomisti imamo pristup

and I'm going to try and strip away all of those possible differences,

i pokušaću da odstranim sve moguće razlike,

hoping to get this relationship to break.

ne bih li opovrgao ovu povezanost.

And just in summary, no matter how far I push this, I can't get it to break.

Ukratko, koliko god da je testiram, ne mogu da je opovrgnem.

Let me show you how far you can do that.

Pogledajte koliko daleko možemo ići.

One way to imagine that is I gather large datasets from around the world.

Prosto prikupljam velike setove podataka iz celog sveta.

So for example, there is the Survey of Health, [Aging] and Retirement in Europe.

Imamo Anketu o zdravlju, starenju i penzionisanju u Evropi.

From this dataset you actually learn that retired European families

Iz ovog seta podataka saznajemo da penzionisane evropske porodice

are extremely patient with survey takers.

imaju mnogo strpljenja za anketare.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

So imagine that you're a retired household in Belgium and someone comes to your front door.

Zamislite da ste penzionisani Belgijanac i da vam neko pokuca na vrata.

"Excuse me, would you mind if I peruse your stock portfolio?

"Izvinite, mogu li da vam prekontrolišem dokumente o investicijama?

Do you happen to know how much your house is worth? Do you mind telling me?

Znate li možda koliko vam vredi kuća? Je l' biste hteli da mi kažete?

Would you happen to have a hallway that's more than 10 meters long?

Da nemate slučajno hodnik koji je duži od 10 metara?

If you do, would you mind if I timed how long it took you to walk down that hallway?

Ako imate, je l' bih mogao da izmerim koliko vam vremena treba da ga prehodate?

Would you mind squeezing as hard as you can, in your dominant hand, this device

Hajde sad stegnite ovaj uređaj što snažnije, dominantom rukom,

so I can measure your grip strength?

da vam izmerim snagu stiska.

How about blowing into this tube so I can measure your lung capacity?"

A je l' možete da duvate u ovu cev da vam izmerim kapacitet pluća?"

The survey takes over a day.

Anketa traje više od jednog dana.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Combine that with a Demographic and Health Survey

To smo spojili sa Anketom o demografiji i zdravlju

collected by USAID in developing countries in Africa, for example,

koju je USAID sproveo u afričkim zemljama u razvoju,

which that survey actually can go so far as to directly measure the HIV status

a to istraživanje može čak direktno da odredi status HIV-a

of families living in, for example, rural Nigeria.

za porodice, recimo, u ruralnoj Nigeriji.

Combine that with a world value survey,

To smo spojili sa svetskom anketom o vrednostima,

which measures the political opinions and, fortunately for me, the savings behaviors

koja meri političke stavove i, na sreću, ponašanje štediša

of millions of families in hundreds of countries around the world.

u milionima porodica iz stotina država čitavog sveta.

Take all of that data, combine it, and this map is what you get.

Prikupili smo sve te podatke, spojili ih i dobili ovu kartu.

What you find is nine countries around the world

Primetićete da u devet država sveta

that have significant native populations

postoje znatne domorodačke populacije

which speak both futureless and futured languages.

koje govore i futurizovane i besfuturne jezike.

And what I'm going to do is form statistical matched pairs

Ja ću statistički upariti

between families that are nearly identical on every dimension that I can measure,

porodice koje su identične po skoro svemu što se može izmeriti,

and then I'm going to explore whether or not the link between language and savings holds

a onda ću ispitati da li veza između jezika i štednje opstaje

even after controlling for all of these levels.

i posle kontrole na svim ovim nivoima.

What are the characteristics we can control for?

Koje karakteristike možemo uzeti u obzir?

Well I'm going to match families on country of birth and residence,

Povezaću porodice na osnovu države rođenja i stanovnja,

the demographics -- what sex, their age --

demografskih odlika - pola, starosti -

their income level within their own country,

količine prihoda u odnosu na njihovu državu,

their educational achievement, a lot about their family structure.

obrazovanja, porodične strukture.

It turns out there are six different ways to be married in Europe.

Ispostavilo se da se u Evropi možete venčati na šest načina.

And most granularly, I break them down by religion

Najdetaljnije ću ih razdvojiti prema religiji,

where there are 72 categories of religions in the world --

pošto postoje 72 kategorije religija na svetu -

so an extreme level of granularity.

izuzetan stepen razdvajanja.

There are 1.4 billion different ways that a family can find itself.

Postoji 1,4 milijarde načina kako porodica može izgledati.

Now effectively everything I'm going to tell you from now on

Ovo što ću nadalje govoriti u suštini je

is only comparing these basically nearly identical families.

samo poređenje praktično identičnih porodica.

It's getting as close as possible to the thought experiment

Ovo je praktično misaoni eksperiment

of finding two families both of whom live in Brussels

pronalaženja dve porodice koje obe žive u Briselu,

who are identical on every single one of these dimensions,

identične su u svakoj od ovih dimenzija,

but one of whom speaks Flemish and one of whom speaks French;

ali jedna govori flamanski, a druga francuski;

or two families that live in a rural district in Nigeria,

ili dve porodice koje žive u ruralnom području Nigerije,

one of whom speaks Hausa and one of whom speaks Igbo.

od kojih jedna govori hausa, a druga igbo.

Now even after all of this granular level of control,

Da li i posle ovako detaljne kontrole

do futureless language speakers seem to save more?

izgleda da govornici besfuturnih jezika štede više?

Yes, futureless language speakers, even after this level of control,

Da, čak i posle ovakve kontrole, verovatnoća da su

are 30 percent more likely to report having saved in any given year.

govornici besfuturnih jezika štedeli u nekoj godini veća je 30 posto.

Does this have cumulative effects?

Ima li to kumulativne posledice?

Yes, by the time they retire, futureless language speakers, holding constant their income,

Da, do penzije će govornici besfuturnih jezika, ako zadrže iste prihode,

are going to retire with 25 percent more in savings.

imati 25% više ušteđevine.

Can we push this data even further?

Možemo li podatke još nekako tumačiti?

Yes, because I just told you, we actually collect a lot of health data as economists.

Da, kao što sam rekao, ekonomisti prikupljaju mnogo zdravstvenih podataka.

Now how can we think about health behaviors to think about savings?

Kako se zdravstveno ponašanje može posmatrati kao štednja?

Well, think about smoking, for example.

Uzmimo za primer pušenje cigareta.

Smoking is in some deep sense negative savings.

Ono je na neki način negativna štednja.

If savings is current pain in exchange for future pleasure,

Ako je štednja bol u sadašnjosti u zamenu za uživanje u budućnosti,

smoking is just the opposite.

pušenje je upravo suprotno.

It's current pleasure in exchange for future pain.

To je uživanje u sadašnjosti u zamenu za bol u budućnosti.

What we should expect then is the opposite effect.

Onda treba očekivati i suprotne posledice.

And that's exactly what we find.

To smo i zaključili.

Futureless language speakers are 20 to 24 percent less likely

Od 20 do 24 posto je manja verovatnoća da su govornici besfuturnih jezika

to be smoking at any given point in time compared to identical families,

pušili u nekom trenutku u poređenju sa identičnim porodicama

and they're going to be 13 to 17 percent less likely

i od 13 do 17 posto je manje verovatno

to be obese by the time they retire,

da će biti gojazni kada odu u penziju,

and they're going to report being 21 percent more likely

a 21 posto je veća verovatnoća da će reći

to have used a condom in their last sexual encounter.

da su koristili kondom u poslednjem seksualnom odnosu.

I could go on and on with the list of differences that you can find.

Ima još mnogo ovakvih razlika.

It's almost impossible not to find a savings behavior

Skoro da je nemoguće ne pronaći ponašanje štediša

for which this strong effect isn't present.

za koje ova pojava nije izražena.

My linguistics and economics colleagues at Yale and I are just starting to do this work

Zajedno sa kolegama lingvistima i ekonomistima sa Jejla tek počinjem time da se bavim

and really explore and understand the ways that these subtle nudges

i da zaista istražujem i proučavam način na koji nas ove male razlike

cause us to think more or less about the future every single time we speak.

teraju da o budućnosti razmišljamo manje ili više kad god govorimo.

Ultimately, the goal,

Konačni cilj,

once we understand how these subtle effects can change our decision making,

kada razumemo kako ove jedva primetne pojave utiču na način donošenja odluka,

we want to be able to provide people tools

jeste da svima ponudimo sredstva

so that they can consciously make themselves better savers

pomoću kojih mogu postati bolje štediše

and more conscious investors in their own future.

i svesnije investirati u svoju budućnost.

Thank you very much.

Hvala vam.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)