Boston, USA - Is religion good for you? It's a loaded question, depending on whom you ask. But now economics, the famously dismal science, has a positively uplifting answer for religious believers: You bet.
The unlikely herald of this news is MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. If you've heard of him, it's likely as one of the consultants who advised the Legislature and governor in writing the state's new universal healthcare law, and now a similar proposal for California.
But Gruber also studies religion, not so much devotionally (he's Jewish and believes in "a higher power" beyond the dean of the faculty, yet attends temple only on the High Holy Days), but for faith's economic and social effects. In a 2005 paper subtitled "Is Religion Good for You?" he concluded that it is, and he believes it makes sense for public officials to encourage religiosity (as opposed to specific religions).
In "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776, the groundbreaking economist Adam Smith argued that competition in spirituality was as healthy as in business, moderating the "mixture of absurdity, imposture, or fanaticism" in many sects to create "that pure and rational religion . . . such as wise men have in all ages of the world wished to see established."
Since then, Gruber says, economists have left the study of religion to other disciplines. In recent years, there have been studies affirming a link between religious observance and medical health. By contrast, few articles about religion and churches have been published in leading economics journals, said John Siegfried, an economist at the American Economic Association, a research-promoting nonprofit. Asked if that's because economists don't share Gruber's interest in religion, Siegfried, true to his profession, replies in an e-mail, "You would have to ask a sample of them."
For all the interest in other academic fields, Gruber says, no one really separated cart from horse: Does religion really make you happy and healthy, or do happy and healthy people somehow naturally gravitate to religion? He first noticed the correlation between worship attendance and people's well-being while researching a paper on smoking some years back. Intrigued, he followed up with his 2005 paper, which relied on census data and the General Social Surveys, a sampling of American households that measures religious participation.
His paper concluded that high market density -- many people of your religion living near you -- led not only to higher church attendance, but to higher incomes and education and lower welfare and divorce rates.
Gruber admits that he's not sure about the explanation. It could be that the comfort derived from belief in a loving deity grooms one to better succeed in making a living. It could be that networking with fellow churchgoers helps you when, say, you're looking for a job or are down on your luck. Or religiously active people may be more likely to have attended religious schools, some of which have been shown to outperform many public schools.
He's done other research suggesting that elimination of blue laws cuts religious attendance, as people choose to shop Sundays. (It also appears that churchgoing young adults increase their drinking and drug use, though Gruber says more research is needed on that.)
In another paper, "Pay or Pray?" in 2004, Gruber found that donors to religious charities give more when they get a tax break, but then attend services less, feeling that their extra giving earns them time off. (The paper was suggested by his father's comment when he was elected treasurer of his synagogue: "That's great. Now I don't have to go anymore.")
Of course, Gruber says, religion can be socially destructive, too; fanatics killing nonbelievers doesn't do much for the latter's earning potential. But taken as a whole, his work makes the counterintuitive case that, since religious attendance benefits society and should be promoted, "You should be a little bit less favorable towards charitable subsidies [and] repealing the blue laws."
His work boosted his appraisal of religious groups, which came in handy working with the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization on healthcare reform. "I think five years ago, I'd have been more dismissive and less respectful toward what they're doing than I am now," he says.
Richard Moore, an interfaith group representative, recalls his first conversation with Gruber, who grilled him on the group's contention that many people might not be able to afford the subsidized premiums. "I was, like, 'Well, Jon, we've talked to our people in the pews.' "
Pushing for hard data, Gruber challenged the group, but "he has been equally open to learning the language in the faith community," Moore says. "We may not agree, but at least we value each other's opinion."