Economics of the Hunger Games

 

The Economics of the Hunger Games

The Hunger Games portrays a North American dystopia, Panem: a totalitarian state, divided into 12 administrative ‘Districts’, governed by the ‘Capitol’, the country’s power-centre. This is an exploitative country, with most citizens living in oppression and poverty. In this article, I aim to provide a detailed understanding of the economic functioning of this dystopia, by examining its features and the implications of these.

Note: The Hunger Games are an annual practice in Panem, wherein two ‘tributes’ (a boy and a girl of the ages 12-18) are selected (via lottery or voluntary participation) from each District, to engage in a televised fight to the death in an arena.

Features

Panem follows a Command Economy. This is an economic system where the Government decides what goods are to be produced, how much to be produced, and the price at which these are sold. (Chappelow) Further, no free trade is allowed in Panem. This is complemented by the restriction of freedom of occupation. Each District of Panem is allotted only one sector of the economy. For example: District 1 produces luxury goods, whereas District 12 handles coal mining. (Collins) Consequently, Districts have restricted economic activity, leading to poor economic performance, not unlike that of the USSR, or India and China before liberalisation.

There is no inter-District migration of people. The state uses force to discourage citizens from leaving the territorial boundaries of their respective Districts. Therefore, there is almost zero mobility of labour in Panem.

Further, the economic system is modelled on the extractive/colonial model. The Capitol seeks to extract economic gains for itself, on the shoulders of the Districts; to “preserve the ancient regime…the status quo, keeping the rich richer and the poor in the dirt.” (Kain) This is not unlike the economic structure of British India, wherein the colonisers imposed harsh policies on India, extracting all of its natural and human resources for their own benefit, whilst leaving the colonised impoverished. Cronyism is the norm in Panem, where a group of entitled elites hold all economic and political power, not unlike Putin’s Russia, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, or Saddam’s Iraq.

Consequences

Among the most significant consequences of this system is economic stagnation. This is primarily caused by the absence of free markets, along with a lack of labour mobility, lack of market competition, and minimal investment in human capital.

A free market is an economy characterised by free exchange of goods and service among individuals, where “market forces of demand and supply decide what, how, and for whom to produce” goods. (Bahuguna)

Free markets create healthy competition for businesses and firms, which then translates to qualitative and pricing policies which aim to appeal to the consumer base: Every individual is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention…By pursuing his own interest, he…promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” (Smith) Substitution of this in favour of a command economy removes incentives among producers to innovate, and pricing policies are no longer consumer-friendly. Thus, consumption—a key driver of economic growth—falls, leading to a decline in saving and investment, resulting in sluggish economic growth. This is not unlike the state of India’s economy on the eve of Independence, where growth rate was “less than 2%”. (Bahuguna)

This economic model also perpetuates poverty amongst the populace. Poverty may be defined as “the inability to fulfil the minimum requirements of life…[they] include food, clothing, shelter, education, and health facilities.” (Bahuguna). Absence of opportunities—educational, professional, entrepreneurial—play a major role in accentuating poverty. Poor economic development forces most households to subsist at bare minimum income levels. Further, the inefficient and exploitative nature of the economy leads to shortage of essential goods. Similarly, in the USSR, these factors perpetuated poverty and starvation across the Soviet Republics (which were also closed off from each other, much like Panem’s Districts).

Poor social infrastructure is another problem. While most healthcare services are in disrepair, education serves the singular purpose of feeding propaganda to the youth: “It’s mostly…blather about what we owe the Capitol…I don’t see how it will help me get food on the table.” (Collins)  This acts as yet another hindrance towards citizens aiming to improve their economic status and income levels.

An evident consequence of Panem’s economic framework is inequality. This inequality can be classified into three levels:

Capitol against Districts

While the Capitol prospers, most Districts remain poor and backward. This is a consequence of the Capitol’s exploitation of the Districts’ resources, without any reciprocal regard to their welfare and development.

Inter-district

Some Districts (like Districts 1, 2, and 3) are far more prosperous than others, which is ensured by the Capitol for political reasons. This inequality is further accentuated by the Hunger Games. Whenever a Tribute wins the Games, their District is lavishly rewarded by the Capitol. This encourages the prosperous Districts to train Tributes beforehand, something the poorer Districts cannot afford. This gives an unfair advantage: using their existing wealth, these Districts train Tributes in order to gain even more wealth for themselves by winning the Games.

Intra-district

Inequality exists within Districts as well. Certain elites, such as political leaders, Peacekeepers (the police force) etc. are economically more prosperous than the majority population in Districts. The practice of tesserae exacerbates these inequalities: youth eligible to be chosen in the Hunger Games may sign up to receive a yearly supply of grain and oil from the authorities, but in exchange, the number of lottery entries for the Games’ selection with their names are increased, thus increasing their chances of being selected as a Tribute. Clearly, tesserae would only be availed in a state of desperation, i.e., only the poor would ever do so, rather than the rich. This increases the likelihood of poorer youth being selected for (and being massacred in) the Games. This is not unlike the disproportionate share of poorer youth being conscripted in the US Military during the Vietnam War, where University students were exempted, i.e., all those unable to afford University fees could not escape conscription.

In conclusion, Panem portrays a dangerous economic model, which perpetrates inequality and exploitation, while being inept at ensuring economic growth. Command Economies have historically proven to be failures, either because they are practically difficult to implement, or because they get corrupted by vested interests of the powerful. In Panem, the impoverishment of the citizens appears to be a result of both of these. This was a catalyst leading to eruption of rebellion in Panem, which led to a toppling of the government. Panem is not unlike modern-day North Korea or pre-1979 Iran (then Persia), both of which depict dictatorial regimes with severe economic backwardness, where the ruling elites live in lush splendour, on the backs of state-sponsored exploitation of their citizens. Economics can be a tool of control as much as that of prosperity, and political factors determine how it manifests in social life.

Bibliography

Bahuguna, Radha. Indian Economic Development. n.d.

Chappelow, Jim. “Command Economy.” Investopedia (2020).

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. 2008.

Kain, Erik. “Five Economic Lessons of The Hunger Games.” forbes.com (2012).

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 1776.