The Economics of Heroism

What makes someone risk their life to save others? On the face of it, heroism is an irrational human trait, which of course makes it ripe for an economic explanation.

If it were just part of our genes, then as the population grew, we should see more people of "exceptional courage and nobility and strength."

But by one measure -- the number of Congressional Medals of Honor awarded -- heroism has been on the decline, say S. Brock Blomberg, Gregory Hess, and Yaron Raviv of Claremont McKenna College in California.

In all of the major conflicts between 1900-1975, about 1 in 40,000 troops deployed earned a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Since the Vietnam War, the United States has deployed over 2.6 million troops. If the average indicated above were to have continued, there would have been approximately 60-70 Congressional Medal of Honorees and over 5000 Silver Star recipients. Rather, there have been only 7 Congressional Medal of Honorees and around
400 silver stars, with two going to soldiers who served in Somalia, and with zero going to Persian Gulf veterans.

The Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration awarded to members of the armed forces of some of the countries that previously belong to the British Empire. The medal has been awarded to 1,353 individual recipients since 1856. Only 14 medals have been awarded since the end of the Second World War. Also, the Medal of Valor is the highest Israeli Military decoration. To this day, 40 medals have been awarded: 12 during the Independence War (1948), 5 during the Sinai War (1956), 12 during the Six-Day War (1967), 8 during the Yom Kippur War (1973) and 3 others awarded on other occasions.

And more troops in battle doesn't necessarily mean more heroes. In fact, smaller wars tend to have relatively more heroes.

What's behind these trends?

The simple answer is that both the supply and demand for heroes has declined over time.

On the supply side, it's become much costlier to be heroic. First, as incomes in non-combat jobs have grown over time, the opportunity cost of risking your life has also increased. And second, as war technology has improved -- bombs and guns are much better at killing the people they're supposed to kill -- the risk of putting your body in the line of fire has grown more onerous.

On the demand side, with improved war technology there's less need for troops to have to clean up a messy situation.

As for the observation that smaller wars have more heroes, the researchers think this is a "free-rider" problem: The incentive to put your neck out in the line of fire declines when you think there are plenty of other people who might do it instead.

All this isn't to say that we've grown more cowardly over time, or that there aren't other psychological explanations for heroism. But even an act as seemingly irrational as risking your life for the sake of others can be described by the actions of the cool, calm, and collected economic man.

UPDATE

Patrick makes a very good point in the comments:

Isn't there a far simpler explanation? I think it more likely that we've simply re-defined the definition of "Hero" by raising the bar.

the explanation that the government has neglected heroism or somehow arbitrarily changed the standards for heroism is ultimately not compelling. Given the seriousness and solemnity surrounding discussions of military heroism, the argument that the U.S. government and others have let heroism slip is not convincing to us.

---