I read this article from the New Zealand Herald from earlier this week with some interest:
Jibbitz - accessories that clip on to Crocs - are being banned in schools in Northland due to escalating arguments between youngsters over the sought-after items.
Kamo Primary School principal Sally Wilson was forced to take action after students became upset over Jibbitz trades and some resorted to stealing...
Wilson said attempts to create a safe environment for trades were a learning curve for tamariki and sometimes “ended in tears”.
Often, tamariki trade an item in the hopes of getting it back, and when they realise that isn’t going to happen, they “emotionally can’t cope”, she said.
Eventually, Wilson banned Jibbitz from the school because they had become “disruptive”.
“They were getting stashes and holding on to them, and there was an uneven trade for a certain one that they were after.”
While some kids have their “eye on the prize” and trade cheap Jibbitz for more expensive ones, Wilson said there have also been cases of stealing.
“It’s a learning curve about possessions.”
My children are well beyond the age of adding accessories to Crocs (or going to school, for that matter), but I can remember past crazes for trading Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh cards, where trading for sought-after cards got a bit out of hand. So, I can understand the attractiveness of a ban, to protect vulnerable, younger traders from being taken advantage of by older, more savvy traders, who understand that trades are 'for keeps' and better recognise the real value of what is being traded.
However, I can't help but feel that there is a missed opportunity here. The gains from trade is a cornerstone of economic principles, and can be taught very easily. And Jibbitz offer the opportunity to teach the gains from trade in a way that young children can readily understand. Jibbitz trading also offers an opportunity for young children to understand that there are two sides to every trade, and that trading is a voluntary activity. So, thinking about Jibbitz trading, whenever there is a trade of Jibbitz from one child to another (there are two traders), the trade will only happen if both children agree to the trade (either trader can say "no" to a trade), and each child will only agree to the trade if they think that what they are receiving is better than what they are giving away (there are gains from trade for both traders).
Instead of a ban, putting some simple rules for trading Jibbitz in place could really help. Here's a few. First. all trades are voluntary. Both children have to agree. Forced trades can be cancelled by a teacher. Second, all trades are 'for keeps'. There are no take-backs. As an extra rule perhaps a 'current price list' could be maintained, where the number of common Jibbitz expected to be traded for particularly rare or valuable Jibbitz are recorded. This may help avoid problems of a thin market for rare Jibbitz.
There are also opportunities for young children to better understand demand (some Jibbitz are more sought after than others), relative prices (the most sought-after Jibbitz may be traded for several less-sought-after Jibbitz), and scarcity (the rarest Jibbitz are likely to be the most valuable). All of these economic principles can be taught simply, and without recourse to economic jargon, and would help children to better understand some simple economics.
Of course, then there is this objection to Jibbitz trading:
Dargaville mother Taiāwhio Wati-Kaipo was first annoyed when Jibbitz were recently banned at Dargaville Primary School, worrying for her children’s ability to express their “individuality”.
But Wati-Kaipo soon considered the issue and realised the ban had a “deeper meaning”.
She believed the ownership of Jibbitz is a “social indication” of where someone is “sitting on the financial bracket”.
Wati-Kaipo said the price hike in Crocs themselves has created a “has and has not” situation among students.
“Without the Jibbitz, the Crocs were already speaking volumes about someone’s identity,” she said.
Wilson said the craze created a social comparison, as it was about who had the coolest ones and who had the most.
I know that at least some people really believe that inequality can be addressed by banning markets, but it's not correct. In this case, banning Jibbitz will simply shift the outward expression and indicators of social status to some other margin. There are many ways that social status is conveyed. Why stop at banning Jibbitz? Why not ban Crocs altogether? Or premium school bags? Or premium stationery? Or phone games or apps where players can buy special skins or other in-game virtual merchandise? Or phones entirely? Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The Jibbitz ban is a missed opportunity to help young children to better understand some key economic concepts that will be helpful in their development as economic citizens. A ban isn't necessary, and there are better responses to protect children from exploiting each other in the Jibbitz market.
No comments:
Post a Comment