Researching the future of inequality: An introduction to Giovanni Immordino

Giovanni Immordino is Professor of Political Economy at the University of Naples Federico II.

‍

His research areas focus on microeconomics, public economics, law & economics, and behavioural economics. We were lucky enough to speak with Giovanni during his recent visit to the Stone Centre at UCL, where we discussed his latest project and its profound implications for the future of inequality.

‍

Hi Giovanni, thank you for taking the time to speak with us. For anyone who is not familiar, please tell us a little about your academic background.

‍

I did my PhD at the Toulouse School of Economics with great professors like Jean Tirole and Jean-Jacques Laffont. After the PhD, I went back to Italy to work with the Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF) at the University of Naples. The directors are Tullio Jappelli and Marco Pagano, two very well-known Italian economists.

‍

I’ve previously done a lot of research on crime, public economics and law, but I’m currently researching another topic which aligns well with the Stone Centre’s focus on inequality.

‍

What got you started with your new research topic?

‍

It started in 2018 when a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, announced to the world that he had modified the embryos of two twins via a genetic intervention, changing one specific gene to make the twins resistant to HIV. He was arrested, by the way.

‍

There are two types of genetic intervention: germline and non-germline, aka somatic.

‍

So-called ‘somatic’ interventions are when you edit a gene that is not a reproductive cell, affecting only that person. If you alter sperm, eggs or embryos, this is a germline intervention. The next generation will inherit the modified gene.

‍

Somatic interventions are legal. There are some treatments that are already approved. For instance, to treat specific diseases. They are expensive for the moment but will become cheaper. This is possible because of an incredible new technology to cut and splice genes called CRISPR-Cas9. It’s easy to use, which makes it very democratic. It’s also very risky, since everybody can do it.

‍

I asked myself, what if the future of inequality isn’t related to education at all, but rather if you were modified before being born or not? This is the main aspect of my research.

‍

Consider a modification that gives you an advantage in the labour market, for instance. A modification that makes you more resistant to illnesses like colds and increases your productivity would make you more attractive in the labour market. Advantages will snowball, especially if you inherit them. If you have a larger wage in this generation, you create an advantage for your family and descendants.

‍

Historians, philosophers, and medical scientists have thought about this topic, but economists have neglected it. This was my starting point.

‍

Fascinating, and as you say there are clearly implications for the future of inequality. How will your study work?

‍

There are two aspects to my study: a theory component and an empirical component.

‍

For the empirical component, we’re carrying out experimental surveys. We’ve just completed the pilot. We’re now going ahead with a bigger survey, first in the US, then in other countries.

‍

We’ll present people with many different genetic enhancement scenarios, each with their own benefits and different risks. We’ll ask a lot of questions about political concerns, if the person would take an enhancement or not, if they think the procedure should be regulated or not. Would they tax it? Would they subsidise it? Are they worried that this will only advantage the wealthy? What are their ethical concerns? All sorts of questions to understand how people feel about the technology.

‍

For the theory part, we have an economic model. Parents decide either to undertake the treatment or not based on a moral trade off versus a productivity benefit that they imagine the child will get, and their advantage in the job market in the future.

‍

This is the project in a nutshell. We’ll try to understand the chances that genetic enhancement will increase or decrease inequality. If a lot of people adopt it, it could democratise the situation. Otherwise, the risk is that we end up with two unequal subspecies.

‍

Do you see the adoption of this technology as inevitable?

‍

I think it is inevitable we’ll adopt a technology that makes people more productive, even if it’s morally questionable. For many technologies, people begin with doubt, but moral concern tends to decrease over time. If you see many people doing something, you may begin to accept it more willingly.

‍

There are huge advantages, strategic advantages and military advantages, meaning that this will be done. But it’s a slippery slope. The question is, if it's going to be done, how can we regulate and control it? Because this will have a huge impact on inequality in future.

‍

Thank you for taking the time to speak to us, Giovanni. We look forward to hearing more as your project progresses!

‍

Visit Giovanni’s website to learn more about his research: https://sites.google.com/site/gimmordinoecon/