Scarce versus Abundant TP Equilibria

Canada is in an abundant TP equilibrium. Washrooms in restaurants, shopping malls, museums, universities, and other public places are, generally speaking, well stocked with toilet paper (TP).

Inner Mongolia is in a scarce TP equilibrium. With the exception of elite venues such as four star hotels and airports, toilet paper is absent from public places.  The trendy place that serves serious coffee, the one that looks like it was transplanted from Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto, has no TP. Neither does Hohhot's shiny new dinosaur museum. Inner Mongolia University has smart, dynamic, internationally-trained, research-active faculty, new buildings, and fast wifi - but no toilet paper that I could see.  [Updated].  

Yet each equilibrium is self-sustaining. An abundant TP equilibrium is maintained through competition. Any firm that deviates from the norm, and fails to provide toilet paper in its washrooms, will be shunned by customers, who don't like unexpectedly finding themselves in an uncomfortable position and, furthermore, interpret the lack of toilet paper as a signal of deficient management and poor quality service. 

In a scarce TP equilibrium, however, people come to accept lack of toilet paper as normal. They carry their own, hence are not unduly bothered by entering a stall and finding that no paper has been provided. Lack of TP conveys no particular signal - it's just the way things are. Hence the pressure for firms to provide paper is blunted.

The total amount of toilet paper used would be expected to be higher in an abundant TP equilibrium, as people have no incentive to economize on the use of a good that is provided at no cost. At the same time, the scarce TP equilibrium is associated with higher time costs, as people have to remember to carry tissues  - or accept the consequences of being without, which is another kind of cost. Hence we would expect to see abundant TP equilibria prevailing when the cost of time and physical discomfort is high; scarce TP equilibria prevailing when time is abundant and material resources relatively costly.

Societies can switch between equilibria - Britain, for example, went from a scarce TP equilibrium during the second world war to an abundant TP equilibrium in the post-war period. But it's not easy. In a scarce TP equilibrium, any firm that provides toilet paper can expect to experience substantial amounts of theft from people who have run out tissues and want to stock up. Unless the firm is able to establish a reputation for superior restroom comfort, so consumers know this is a TP-providing firm, and the economy has reached a stage of development where customers are willing to pay more for a TP-provided experience, the firm providing toilet paper will find themselves paying increased costs with little benefits in terms of increased revenues. 

It's hard to say a great deal more about the characteristics of scarce and abundant TP equilibria without writing down a formal model.

The point is: the difference between the developed world and the developing world is more than just material wealth. It's also the social norms and behaviours that evolve over time in response to people's material conditions. But good (in the sense of: make people happy; contribute to a just, prosperous, sustainable world) social norms cannot be taken for granted - either by developed or developing countries. They need the right environment to flourish. Yet change the underlying economic fundamentals, and social norms may well start to change too.

Comments

[Hugo André]

You don't even have to go to Inner Mongolia. Both Beijing and Shanghai seem to be stuck in a low TP equilibrium. Admittedly, my experience is a few years old. Then again, the few fancy restaurants that I visited did have TP so perhaps there exists in these cities a high TP eq. for the upper echelons of society and a low TP eq. for the less fortunate. Maybe there is hope yet?

[Gene Callahan]

But if no one had TP, would it really make it a less just and sustainable world?

Maybe deodorant is a clearer-cut case: if it had never been invented, I think no one would be worse off: we would all just be used to our non-deodorized smell. But once *some* people start to use it, it becomes "needed."

[Frances Woolley]

Hugo: "so perhaps there exists in these cities a high TP eq. for the upper echelons of society and a low TP eq. for the less fortunate."

Very probably - but to the extent that that's possible, it's symptomatic of social segregation - i.e. the less fortunate don't get near the places where abundant TP can be found.

Inner Mongolia is kind of the Saskatchewan or Alberta of China, right down to the grasslands and the museum full of local dinosaur finds. Like the prairie provinces it's been doing fairly well recently with agriculture, mining, fossil fuels etc - I didn't do a lot of shopping because prices there are higher than in the UK. But even in the trendy coffee shop that could be lifted right off of Bloor St there was no TP.

[Frances Woolley]

Gene - "But if no one had TP, would it really make it a less just and sustainable world?"

I've got some flak on Facebook for not discussing the fact that much of the world uses water rather than TP. I think that, for women, absence of TP is a problem in an urban environment and with modern Western clothing - I'd give up a lot of things (kitchen towel, for example) before I'd give up TP. (Men can shake off these difficulties in a way that women can't.) On the other hand, before going to Inner Mongolia I spent 5 days walking in Wales, happily popping squats behind bushes etc - found that much easier than the gas station toilet in Inner Mongolia.

[R Smith]

Why is Paris in a scarce TP equilibrium?

[Nick Rowe]

I really like this post.
I love the final paragraph.

[Frances Woolley]

Nick - thank you! I think this is why, even though we disagree on so many things (politics, cities, gas bbqs) we write WCI together - we agree on this, which is pretty fundamental.

[Frances Woolley]

Nick - thank you! I think this is why, even though we disagree on so many things (politics, cities, gas bbqs) we write WCI together - we agree on this, which is pretty fundamental.

[Frances Woolley]

R Smith: "Why is Paris in a scarce TP equilibrium?"

The whole point of this post is that there is path dependence in economic and social equilibria. Many types of equilibria are possible, and once a place is one type of equilibrium - a scarce TP equilibrium in the case of Paris - it's hard to get out of it. These things tend to be self-sustaining. I'll post a couple of comments that were made on Facebook from friends who work in economic development that give an additional explanation of why, once a place is in a scarce TP equilibrium, it will tend to stay there.

[Frances Woolley]

Michelle Munro and Mark Fryars, who have worked in economic development for many years, made these comments on Facebook:

Michelle Munro: Other factors are the availability of any 'public' toilets (that are not behind a financial or security barrier) and the income generation opportunities for toilet attendants where toilets do exist. It's not unusual to provide a small payment for a square or two and for this fee to vary by customer ;-)

Mark Fryars: Or then again that handful of rare settings where the commercial sale value of a sheet of TP may exceed the face value of a low denomination banknote - which is a little more durable and hard wearing than its over marketed TP rival.... ;-)