The rise of surge pricing: ‘It will eventually be everywhere’

Oliver Barnes, Philip Georgiadis and Laura Onita in The FT

For drinkers at the Coach House in central London on a busy work night this week, there was an uncomfortable piece of news to digest: the price of Britain’s favourite alcoholic beverage had just gone up — again.

Stonegate, Britain’s biggest pub company which runs the Coach House, has announced it will charge pubgoers 20p extra for a pint of beer on busy evenings and weekends. It is part of what it called a new “dynamic pricing” policy in some of its venues.

This has come much to the annoyance of some of its regulars. “It’s not right; we’re being done over enough on beer as it is,” says Adrian, a 37-year-old brand marketing manager, who has nipped into the pub near Piccadilly Circus after work. Sipping a £6.25 pint of Heineken, he admits that after the fuzziness of a few more drinks he might not even notice the price increase as the pub fills up.

“It just fleeces people trying to enjoy themselves,” he adds.

"Dynamic” pricing, as many in industry call it, or “surge” pricing as is more widely known by consumers, whereby businesses flex prices at particular times in response to shifts in supply and demand, is not a new phenomenon. It has been used by airlines in the US, for instance, since 1983 when the US government relinquished the power to set domestic airfares.

When booking flights and hotel rooms, consumers have become accustomed to the rhythms of the dynamic pricing model: book early or during the shoulder season and get a good deal; book last-minute or during the busy holiday periods and get penalised.

However, powered by algorithms and artificial intelligence, it is being introduced at a rapid pace by a growing number of consumer industries. Amazon changes the price of its products on average every 10 minutes, using millions of real-time data points to benchmark against competitors and track demand surges.

“It will eventually be everywhere,” says Robert Cross, who created a computerised dynamic pricing model for Delta Air Lines in the early 1980s before doing the same for hotel giants Marriott, Hyatt and InterContinental Hotels Group.

As high inflation erodes margins and improvements in technology make dynamic pricing cheaper and more practical for businesses to implement, the temptation to deploy the pricing strategy is growing in industries that have so far remained largely untouched by the method. Bars, restaurants and bricks-and-mortar retailers have historically only adopted dynamic pricing for basic discount offers, but that could change.

“If you’re a business, it’s irresistible because it will improve your margins and it’s in the consumer’s best interests too,” argues Cross, who chairs a revenue management company. “Anywhere there is a mismatch between what a customer is willing to pay and the actual price is ripe for dynamic pricing.” A 2018 study by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that dynamic pricing boosted airline revenues by between 1 and 4 per cent, compared with traditional pricing.

However, the furore this week about the rollout of surge pricing in a beloved British boozer has reignited debates around the ethics of the pricing strategy and whether it is rigged against the consumer.

In some industries, dynamic pricing has proved less palatable. Ride-sharing app Uber refunded users in central London after its pricing engine briefly surged fares in the aftermath of the London Bridge terror attack in June 2017.

Fans trying to bag tickets for arena tours by Beyoncé, Coldplay and Harry Styles in the past year have expressed frustration over the wild fluctuations in Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing model, which resulted in some paying more than double the face value. Ticketmaster’s parent company Live Nation Entertainment is being investigated by the US justice department as part of an antitrust probe.

Marco Bertini, a professor of marketing at Esade business school in Barcelona who advises Boston Consulting Group on pricing practices, agrees that dynamic pricing will only become more common. But he warns companies to be aware of the pitfalls, including the way that such pricing is explained to customers.

“The question is making sure there’s no secondary effect, like people getting pissed off and not understanding [the pricing method],” he says. “The devil is in how it’s communicated because you’re trying to get this customer to come back tomorrow.”

A question of fairness

For most of the history of human commerce, dynamic pricing was the norm, with customers haggling and bartering with vendors over the price of every item. But in 1876, inspired by notions of equality, Quaker merchant John Wanamaker introduced price tags at the launch of his eponymous department store in Philadelphia. Macy’s, the iconic New York-based department store, also under Quaker ownership at the time, did the same.

Beyond high-minded ideas of fairness, fixed prices allowed the stores to save on years of training for shop clerks in price negotiation, which in turn enabled faster expansion. The price tag quickly caught on.

Now, however, with advancements in data collection and the transition of commerce online, businesses are reverting to the historical norm and pivoting away from the fixed price.

There is also still room for growth: while retailers in the US have embedded dynamic pricing into their operations more widely, Europe still lags behind, according to Pini Mandel, chief executive of Israel-based Quicklizard, whose dynamic pricing tools are used by the likes of Ikea and Sephora.

More than half of retailers use it in the Nordic countries, about 40 per cent in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but only 15 to 20 per cent in the UK, according to Mandel. “Inflation is the reason why the UK, which is the most conservative market when it comes to dynamic pricing, is also joining the revolution,” he adds.

One UK hotel group chief executive says complaints about dynamic pricing for room bookings are rare as consumer awareness has grown. “Now, I think customers generally get it in a way that they didn’t before,” he says. “Customers . . . understand that the earlier you book, the better the deal is.”

Dermot Crowley, chief executive of Dalata hotel group, which manages 52 hotels across the UK, Ireland and Germany, says despite the widescale uptake of dynamic pricing among hotel groups, even they have erred away from introducing surge pricing on food and beverage.

“When you’re deciding to stay in a hotel, it’s a big part of your weekend away, that’s the price and you can budget accordingly,” says Crawley. “If you buy a drink and then it gets more expensive, that leaves a different impression.”

Some 52 per cent of 901 US consumers surveyed by software company Capterra this year said they regarded dynamic pricing in restaurants as equivalent to price gouging. Despite the negative reaction to Stonegate’s new pricing policy, Alex Reilley, chief executive of casual dining group Loungers, says price discrimination is more common in the hospitality industry than most operators let on. Stonegate, which owns the Slug and Lettuce and Craft Union chains, had previously rolled out the same pricing strategy on a temporary basis during the 2022 football world cup, upping the price of a pint by up to £1.

A spokesperson for Stonegate said that using dynamic pricing also meant it could offer promotions on food and drink throughout the week and helped offset higher running costs when it was busy.

“I think Stonegate have almost fallen foul a little bit because of their honesty because there are lots of operators, particularly in city centre locations that do exactly the same and it’s not exactly a new phenomenon,” says Reilley. “I wouldn’t necessarily see this as Stonegate taking the piss. It’s them thinking about ways they can generate extra revenues . . . given the pressure they are under.”

Seth Moore, former chief strategy and analytics officer at online retailer Overstock.com, says the backlash that Stonegate has faced is more a result of the way it communicated the price change.

“If my pub goes out and says, ‘Before 7pm, we’re serving drinks 25 per cent off’, nobody objects to that,” says Moore. “In general, it’s better to market it as a discount off prime rather than an increase on prime.”

Threat of manipulation

In the period that surge pricing has been in operation in the airline and hotel industry since the 1980s, prices have largely declined with the rise of low-cost airlines and budget hotels and consumers have grown accustomed to the pricing model.

“Back in the day, only the wealthy people travelled,” says Cross, formerly of Delta. “Now, everybody travels and that’s thanks to dynamic pricing.”

But there are signs that consumer and regulatory tolerance could be waning because of the sharp rise in prices over the past year.

Italy’s rightwing government sparked a furious row with Europe’s airlines last month after outlining plans to cap fares on flights between mainland Italy and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia at 200 per cent of average prices. The government said that ticket prices had risen 70 per cent on those routes.

The plans to intervene in the market were unusual, but followed a drumbeat of questions over airlines’ pricing models this year. The Spanish government has also laid out plans to limit fare rises on some domestic routes, while the European airport trade association has called on the European Commission to “monitor” the level of air fares.

“As a consumer, I understand why people don’t like paying more for things . . . but it is important to understand that it often allows the same business to charge less during another time and create more access to whatever it is,” says Jonathan Ayache, chief executive of South African airline Lift and a former senior executive at Uber.

For many retailers with a large bricks-and-mortar estate, dynamic pricing is still in its infancy, as it involves having to physically change labels, a costly endeavour. But the uptake of so-called electronic shelf labels, offering the ability to rapidly update prices, is spreading. Walmart is installing digital labels in 500 of its stores and France’s Carrefour has been using them for years.

But greater reliance on algorithms to price products could have downsides. A 2021 research paper published by the Competition and Markets Authority, the UK watchdog, concluded that while pricing algorithms have “enhanced efficiency”, companies “may also misuse them, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and can cause harms to consumers and competition, often by exacerbating or taking greater advantage of existing problems and weaknesses in markets and consumers”.

A push towards more dynamic pricing has proved unpopular for ticketing platforms. In the UK, 71 per cent of 1,523 music fans surveyed by polling company YouGov late last year said they were either strongly opposed or tended to oppose surge pricing for concerts. Rock star Bruce Springsteen angered fans in the US last year when he adopted dynamic pricing for a tour for the first time, leading ticket prices to surge as high as $5,000.

Robert Smith, lead singer of the Cure, who this year convinced Ticketmaster through a social media campaign to refund service charges to his fans, stressed that he had avoided dynamic pricing, calling it “a bit of a greedy scam”. Taylor Swift, the second most streamed musician globally, opted not to use dynamic pricing model for this year’s Eras tour after it dragged on sales and angered concertgoers during her 2018 tour.

Some ticketing industry figures are unrepentant. “It’s called the ticket business, it’s not called the ticket fan club. Nobody pays more for a ticket than they want,” says Fred Rosen, who built Ticketmaster into a behemoth in the industry before leaving as chief executive after 16 years in 1997. “It’s not the ticket companies that set the prices, it’s a simple supply and demand curve.” Rosen predicts that despite some pubgoers “moaning” about dynamic pricing, the pubs “will still be full”.

But others question whether the intrusion of dynamic pricing into all aspects of commerce and culture represents a step too far, fearing that it could be rolled out to ever more essential goods.

“The world is full of micro moments but they all add up,” says Phil Hutcheon, the founder of ticketing platform Dice, which shuns dynamic pricing. “People will ask, ‘Why are these tickets $1,000? Are they only available to the ultra-wealthy?’ If a beer at 6.30pm is a certain price, then an hour later it is a totally different price . . . you just start losing trust in the system.”

A Level Economics 42: Evaluating Monopolies

Benefits of Monopoly:

1. Economies of Scale and Natural Monopoly: Example: The distribution and supply of water in a city can be a natural monopoly. Building multiple water supply systems would be costly and inefficient due to duplication of infrastructure. A single water utility company can achieve economies of scale and provide water to the entire city at a lower cost per unit.

2. 
   

3. Price Discrimination: Example: Software companies often use price discrimination by offering different versions of their products at various price points. Some versions may have limited features and are priced lower, while premium versions with more features are offered at higher prices. This allows the company to cater to different customer segments effectively.

4. 
   

5. Lack of Contestability: Example: Satellite communication services can be a market with limited contestability. Launching satellites and establishing infrastructure requires significant investments, making it challenging for new competitors to enter the market and compete effectively.

Costs of Monopoly:

1. Reduced Competition: Example: Microsoft's historical dominance in the operating system market led to limited competition. During the 1990s and early 2000s, there were concerns about the lack of viable alternatives to Microsoft Windows, potentially limiting innovation and consumer choice.

2. 
   

3. Potential for Predatory Pricing: Example: In the airline industry, a dominant airline may engage in predatory pricing by temporarily reducing fares on specific routes to drive out smaller competitors. Once competition decreases, the dominant airline can increase prices in the long run.

4. 
   

5. Unfair Trade Practices: Example: Some multinational corporations have been accused of engaging in unfair trade practices, such as dumping products in foreign markets at lower prices than in their home markets. This can negatively impact local competitors and raise concerns about fair competition.

6. 
   

7. Consumer Welfare Concerns: Example: In pharmaceuticals, a monopoly on a life-saving drug may lead to higher prices, making it less affordable for patients who need the medication. Lack of competition can limit access and affordability for essential goods and services.

8. 
   

9. Innovation and Incentives: Example: A dominant tech company with a virtual monopoly in a specific market may be less incentivized to invest in research and development compared to a competitive environment where it must continuously innovate to stay ahead.

Overall, the evaluation of monopolies must consider the specific industry and its characteristics. While monopolies can offer benefits like economies of scale and price discrimination, there are also concerns about reduced competition, anti-competitive practices, and potential negative effects on consumer welfare and innovation. Policymakers and regulatory authorities play a crucial role in ensuring a balance between encouraging efficient natural monopolies and safeguarding competition to protect consumers and promote innovation.

No Affirmative Action in University Admissions: US Supreme Court

 From The Economist

Should a fair country allow citizens to be treated differently based on the colour of their skin? Most people would say that it should not. But others insist that it should—if the ends are suitably enlightened.

Not long after America dismantled two centuries of slavery and segregation, it embarked on a project of “affirmative action”: a system of legally sanctioned positive discrimination for African-Americans (later expanded to other “under-represented minorities”) who sought entry to selective universities. At the time the affront to liberal norms of fairness and equality under the law was assuaged by the fact that the beneficiaries of the policy were oppressed not long ago. Yet after half a century, one marked with more racial progress than setbacks, it remained the case that an applicant to America’s top universities with the right skin colour had a much better chance of admission than one with identical credentials but the wrong skin colour. On June 29th the Supreme Court terminated the scheme.

It was right to do so. That is because affirmative action rested on contorted constitutional logic. It was also broadly unpopular outside progressive circles. Worst of all, it only marginally ameliorated America’s yawning racial gaps. Despite the sermonising of its administrators, even with race-based affirmative action the country’s best universities never represented America. The very same universities offer extreme preferences to children of alumni and donors—a shadow, unjustifiable affirmative-action scheme for the white and wealthy hidden behind the prominent one for black and Hispanic applicants (a disproportionate share of whom were wealthy themselves).

The Supreme Court’s ruling will reverberate widely. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion. This will surely encourage lawsuits to end racial preferences in other areas, such as government contracting. But the immediate impact will be on university admissions.

A touch of class

Something better can come out of the demise of the present regime. Start with the shaky legal justification for race-conscious college admissions. After the civil war, America’s constitution was amended to guarantee all of its citizens due process and equal protection under the law, regardless of their race. Yet for decades, under Jim Crow, many states prevented black people from voting, forbade inter-racial marriage and enforced racial segregation in schools, among other outrages. After the correction of the civil-rights era, America began to try to live up to its constitutional promise. It passed landmark civil-rights legislation that forbade unequal treatment “on the ground of race, colour, or national origin”.

Yet for decades the Supreme Court allowed positive discrimination in universities. How so? The policy was justified, the justices of the day argued, not as reparations for a terrible past, but because the value of diversity was compelling for promoting “cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes”. It was always odd that affirmative action was explicitly crafted for the benefit of students’ white peers. Nonetheless elite universities leapt on the rationale of diversity, using it to construct racially balanced classes while suggesting that these were the happy result not of quotas, which are banned, but of “race-conscious” holistic admissions schemes that treated people as individuals and not as avatars for their racial group.

Contrary to the dissent of the court’s liberal justices, who claim the new ban “will serve only to highlight the court’s own impotence in the face of an America whose cries for equality resound”, Americans were not happy with the old policy. In 2020 even liberal Californians voted down a referendum to reinstate affirmative action, banned in the state since 1996. Polls show that many more Americans oppose taking race into account for admissions than favour it. That is true also of Asian Americans, who typically lean left but bear the heaviest cost of race-based admissions because they are deemed “over-represented” (despite suffering discrimination in their own right).

The court’s decision could be the catalyst for fairer admissions. The extraordinary benefits that Harvard and Yale shower upon the children of alumni and donors make a mockery of meritocracy and those institutions’ self-professed progressivism. Those practices should go.

Universities that wish to do their bit for social justice should stop using race as an (often inaccurate) proxy for disadvantage and start looking at disadvantage itself. Instead of giving a leg-up to members of groups that are on average badly off, they should favour individuals who are actually poor. One randomised controlled trial found that simply offering application-fee waivers to promising students from poor backgrounds dramatically increased the chance of their applying to, and attending, highly selective universities.

There is reason to worry that elite universities will seek stealthy ways to preserve racial preferences. Many are dropping requirements for standardised tests, which would make quiet discrimination against members of unfavoured groups who do well on such tests harder to detect. Some are busily searching for loopholes. In a letter sent to its students and alumni, Harvard, which was party to one of the Supreme Court cases, quoted a portion of the majority opinion that opens the door to considering race if an applicant were to write about it in a submitted essay. “We will certainly comply with the Court’s decision,” its leadership wrote, impishly.

Rather than coaxing a generation of minority students into drafting adversity statements—and continuing to admit the hereditary mediocracy through the backdoor—schools like Harvard would do well to try to craft a fairer system of admissions. These universities should not be proud of the well-monied (albeit multicoloured) monoculture they have inculcated. They should take the opportunity to become the progressive institutions they claim to be. ■

English cricket’s reign of shame exposed with devastating admission of guilt

Damning report must act as a brutal wake-up call and a line cannot be drawn under this with prejudice rife within the sport writes Jonathan Liew in The Guardian 



You may want to sit down for this part. Turns out – no, seriously – that a sport created and codified for the purpose of allowing rich white landowners to bet against each other, and then exported around the world at gunpoint with the promise that it would civilise savage peoples, may not actually be that progressive.

How can this possibly have happened? Who do we see about this? And who’s asking, anyway?

The publication of the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket’s report into systemic discrimination in the English game will doubtless be described as many things. A wake‑up call. A line in the sand. A humiliation. What it represents to those who have been arguing the point for many years is, rather, a kind of historical artefact: documentary proof that English cricket’s in-built prejudice against women, people of colour and people from poorer backgrounds is not some fey liberal invention or a jaundiced troublemaker’s charter, but a lived reality for many people for many years, perhaps even generations. 

It is above all a devastatingly frank document, both in its analysis of the problem and its proposed solutions. The England and Wales Cricket Board’s first‑look response, a wide-ranging apology for the injustices that have occurred on its watch, may feel instinctively like so much corporate whitewash. But even a few years ago the very idea that the national governing body would admit its complicity in a racist, sexist system would have felt fanciful. In this case, diagnosis really can be the first step of the treatment.

And here the ICEC helpfully provides the hard data to back up decades of hunches and anecdotes. A staggering 87% of respondents of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage, 82% with Indian heritage and 75% of all black respondents reported encountering discrimination in the game. The real kicker, though, is the deficit of trust that the vast majority felt with a game that was supposed to protect them: a feeling that cricket’s authorities, the white male captains and coaches and chief executives and board chairs who hold all the power in the game, would instinctively lean towards the status quo.

South Asians make up 28% of the game’s recreational pool, but just 2.8% of the sport’s executive-level positions. Black participation was measured by a Sport England survey to be so low as to be statistically irrelevant. The percentage of England male cricketers who were privately educated was 58% in 2021, compared to 7% in the population at large. For years anybody pointing this out has met a wall of complacency and silence, a modern version of the classic Henry Newbolt poem: “Play up! Play up! And play the game!” This is, after all, England. We don’t talk about these things.

The debate sparked by Black Lives Matter has been steered away from meaningful change. Photograph: Reuters


The first thing to note is that there are certain people – many people – for whom all this is evidence that the world is simply working as it should. Your one black friend makes you an ally. Your one female cricket writer makes your publication diverse. Your one British Asian prime minister makes your country progressive. And your one working-class men’s Test captain makes your team representative. For these people there has long been a kind of selective blindness at work here: an image of English cricket as a kind of idyllic safe space, a world of village greens and good chaps, one of whom is called Khan, actually, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

It is a malaise almost as old as England itself, and perhaps the most devastating parts of the report are those that deal with cricket’s historical baggage, the legacy of Victorian Britain and the slave trade, the inequities that were built into the game from its very foundation.
Nobody gets to draw a line under this. Nobody gets to move on until everybody gets to move on

“Cricket needs to engage more frankly with the fact that [its] history is replete with tensions and social conflicts, even histories of brutality and oppression,” the report states. For some this will be nothing more than a statement of the obvious. But it is also perhaps the first time anybody remotely near a position of power has dared to utter it.

And of course you do not need to go back centuries to glimpse how cricket’s original sin continues to inflect it into the present day. It was in 1995 that the Independent lauded the fact that England’s (all‑white) pace attack “did not for once look like a United Nations strike force”. The same year, Surrey’s chief executive Glyn Woodman trumpeted the measures he had taken to deter British West Indies fans from attending the Oval Test.

“Twenty years ago parts of the ground were almost no-go areas,” he said. “They could sit wherever they liked, and they can’t do that now because of pre-selling of tickets.” And lest you regard even this as ancient history, then consider that one of the most bitter debates in the game at the moment is whether Eton and Harrow should be the only two schools who get to play at Lord’s.

West Indies fans celebrate during the fifth Test between England and the West Indies at the Oval in August 1976. Photograph: Fresco/Evening Standard/Hulton Archive/Getty Images


Similarly, the debate catalysed in 2020 by Black Lives Matter and Azeem Rafiq has been maliciously steered away from a conversation about meaningful change towards the more headline-friendly territory of witch hunts, who said what to whom, and who is a racist, whatever that means. One of the report’s more understandable blind spots is the role of the media and political class in actively seeking to derail the cause of diversity in an attempt to validate and provoke the prejudices of its older white male constituency (or “Type K individuals”, as the report so deliciously categorises them). But you get a flavour in the commission’s decision to anonymise all evidence to ward against “the impact of media reporting on those discussing discrimination in cricket, [which] was often alarming and profound”. The merciless hounding of Rafiq by the right-wing press springs to mind here.

Doubtless many of the same people will now call for a line to be drawn under English cricket’s reign of shame. Sorry. Nobody gets to draw a line under this. Nobody gets to move on until everybody gets to move on. Nobody gets to plead “stick to cricket”. This stuff is cricket. Are international ticket prices too high? Should we call them “batters” or “batsmen”? Is your county’s membership really representative of the area at large? How do we prevent age-group selections from being defined by whose parents can afford a set of pads and gloves? When your fast bowler with a history of racist tweets verbally abuses a Muslim opponent in an Ashes Test, do you start asking questions, or do you simply assume you already know the answers?

The hounding of Azeem Rafiq by the right-wing press is one of the report’s blind spots. Photograph: House of Commons/PA

And of course the backlash to this report will be severe and merciless. Those who wish to remain blind will do everything to avoid seeing. But the time for squeamishness has long passed. From its very earliest days English cricket was conceived as a Type K pastime: a game run by well‑off white men, for the benefit of well-off white men, defined and written about by well-off white men. Unsurprisingly, those well-off white men quite like things the way they are. But in many ways, English cricket brought this fight on itself. The very least it can do by way of recompense is to win it.

Economics Essay 90: Price Discrimination

 Assess the view that price discrimination is always damaging.

Price discrimination refers to the practice of charging different prices for the same good or service to different customers or groups of customers. The aim of price discrimination is to maximize revenue or profit by capturing the maximum amount of consumer surplus.

Assessing the view that price discrimination is always damaging requires a nuanced analysis. While price discrimination can have both positive and negative effects, it is not inherently damaging. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Increased Market Efficiency: Price discrimination can lead to increased market efficiency by allowing firms to capture more consumer surplus and generate additional revenue. This can incentivize firms to invest in research and development, improve product quality, and introduce innovative products and services. In this sense, price discrimination can be seen as a mechanism that promotes economic growth and competitiveness.

2. Enhanced Consumer Welfare: Price discrimination can benefit certain groups of consumers. For example, in the airline industry, different fare classes are offered to cater to the diverse preferences and willingness to pay of passengers. This enables consumers with different budgets to access air travel and enjoy the benefits of increased options and flexibility. Price discrimination can also enable firms to offer discounted prices to price-sensitive consumers or those with lower incomes, thus increasing affordability and accessibility.

3. Allocation of Resources: Price discrimination can help allocate resources more efficiently. By charging higher prices to customers with a higher willingness to pay, firms can ensure that goods and services are directed to those who value them the most. This can lead to a more optimal allocation of scarce resources, promoting overall economic efficiency.

4. Potential for Exploitation: Price discrimination can be seen as unfair or exploitative when it disproportionately affects vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. For example, if certain essential goods or services are priced higher for specific demographics based on factors such as race or gender, it can perpetuate inequality and create social and economic barriers. This can be particularly concerning when price discrimination leads to exclusion or discrimination against certain individuals or groups.

5. Market Distortion: In some cases, price discrimination can distort market dynamics and hinder competition. Firms with significant market power may engage in price discrimination to drive out smaller competitors or discourage new entrants. This can result in reduced market competition, limited consumer choice, and potential monopolistic behavior.

Overall, the effects of price discrimination depend on the specific context and market conditions. While it can lead to more efficient resource allocation and enhanced consumer welfare in certain cases, there is a risk of exploitation and market distortions. It is crucial for policymakers and regulatory bodies to monitor and assess the impact of price discrimination to ensure that it does not result in harmful or unfair outcomes.

Uber and Surge Pricing

 

The 10% Ashraf get all the benefits while the Ajlaf face only atrocities: Faiyaz Ahmed Fyzie

 

Privilege - The Dark Secret behind Bill Gates

 

English football: why are there so few black people in senior positions?

Simon Kuper in The FT

Possibly the only English football club run mostly by black staff is Queens Park Rangers, in the Championship, the English game’s second tier. 

QPR’s director of football, Les Ferdinand, and technical director, Chris Ramsey, have spent their entire careers in the sport watching hiring discrimination persist almost everywhere else. Teams have knelt in protest against racism, but Ferdinand says, “I didn’t want to see people taking the knee. I just wanted to see action. I’m tired of all these gestures.”  

Now a newly founded group, the Black Footballers Partnership (BFP), argues that it is time to adopt compulsory hiring quotas for minorities. Voluntary measures have not worked, says its executive director, Delroy Corinaldi. 

The BFP has commissioned a report from Stefan Szymanski (economics professor at the University of Michigan, and my co-author on the book Soccernomics) to document apparent discrimination in coaching, executive and scouting jobs. 

It is a dogma of football that these roles must be filled by ex-players — but only, it seems, by white ones. Last year 43 per cent of players in the Premier League were black, yet black people held “only 4.4 per cent of managerial positions, usually taken by former players” and 1.6 per cent of “executive, leadership and ownership positions”, writes Szymanski. 

Today 14 per cent of holders of the highest coaching badge in England, the Uefa Pro Licence, are black, but they too confront prejudice. Looking ahead, the paucity of black scouts and junior coaches is keeping the pipeline for bigger jobs overwhelmingly white. Corinaldi hopes that current black footballers will follow England’s forward Raheem Sterling in calling for more off-field representation. 

There have been 28 black managers in the English game since the Football League was founded in 1888, calculates Corinaldi. As for the Premier League, which has had 11 black managers in 30 years, he says: “Sam Allardyce [an ex-England manager] has had nearly as many roles as the whole black population.” The situation is similar in women’s football, says former England international Anita Asante. 

Ramsey, who entered coaching in the late 1980s, when he says “there were literally no black coaches”, reflects: “There’s always a dream that you’re going to make the highest level, so naively you coach believing that your talent will get you there, but very early on I realised that wasn’t going to happen.”  

Reluctant to hire 

He says discrimination in hiring is always unspoken: “People hide behind politically correct language. They will take a knee, and say, ‘I’m all for it’. You’re just never really seen as able to do the job. And then people sometimes employ people less qualified than you. Plenty of white managers have failed, and I just want to have the opportunity to be as bad as them, and to be given an opportunity again. You don’t want to have to be better just because you’re black.” 

When Ferdinand’s glittering playing career ended, he worried that studying for his coaching badges might “waste five years of my life”, given that the white men running clubs were reluctant to hire even famous black ex-players such as John Barnes and Paul Ince. In Ferdinand’s first seven years on the market, he was offered one managerial job. “People tend to employ what looks, sounds and acts like them,” he shrugs. Yet he says he isn’t angry: “Anger’s not the right word, because that’s unfortunately how they see a lot of young black men, as angry.” 

He suspects QPR hired him in part because its then co-chair, the Malaysian Tony Fernandes, is a person of colour. After the two men met and began talking, recalls Ferdinand, “he said, ‘Why are you not doing this job [management] in football?’ I said, ‘Because I’ve not been given the opportunity.’ The conversations went from there. Had he not been a person of colour, I perhaps wouldn’t have had the opportunity to talk to him in the way that I did.” 

Szymanski can identify only two black owners in English football, both at small clubs: Ben Robinson of Burton Albion, and Ryan Giggs, co-owner of Salford City. 

Szymanski believes discrimination persists for managerial jobs in part because football managers have little impact on team performance — much less than is commonly thought. He calculates that over 10 seasons, the average correlation between a club’s wage bill for players and its league position exceeds 90 per cent. If the quality of players determines results almost by itself, then managers are relatively insignificant, and so clubs can continue to hire the stereotype manager — a white male ex-player aged between 35 and 55 — without harming their on-field performance. 

For about 20 years, English football has launched various fruitless attempts to address discrimination. Ramsey recalls the Football Association — the national governing body — inviting black ex-players to “observe” training sessions. He marvels: “You’re talking about qualified people with full badges standing and watching people train. And most of them have been in the game longer than the people they’re watching.” 

Modest though that initiative was, Ferdinand recalls warning FA officials: “A certain amount of people at St George’s Park [the FA’s National Football Centre], when you tell them this is the initiative, their eyes will be rolling and thinking, ‘Here we go, we’re doing something for them again, we’re trying to give them another opportunity.’ What those people don’t realise is: we don’t get opportunities.”  

Rooney Rule 

After the NFL of American gridiron football introduced the Rooney Rule in 2003, requiring teams to interview minority candidates for job openings, the English ex-player Ricky Hill presented the idea to the League Managers Association. Ramsey recalls, “Everyone said, ‘God, this is brilliant’.” Yet only in the 2016/2017 season did 10 smaller English clubs even pilot the Rooney Rule. Ramsey says: “We are expected to accept as minority coaches that these things take a long time. I have seen this train move along so slowly that it’s ridiculous.” He mourns the black managerial careers lost in the wait. 

In 2019 the Rooney Rule was made mandatory in the three lower tiers of English professional football, though not in the Premier League or anywhere else in Europe. Clubs had to interview at least one black, Asian or minority ethnic (Bame) candidate (if any applied) for all first team managerial, coaching and youth development roles. Why didn’t the rule noticeably increase minority hiring? Ferdinand replies, “Because there’s nobody being held accountable to it. What is the Rooney Rule? You give someone the opportunity to come through the door and talk.” Moreover, English football’s version of the rule has a significant loophole: clubs are exempt if they interview only one candidate, typically someone found through the white old boys’ network. 

Nor has the Rooney Rule made much difference in the NFL. In 2020, 57.5 per cent of the league’s players were black, but today only two out of 32 head coaches are, while one other identifies as multiracial. This month, the former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores filed a lawsuit against the NFL and three clubs, accusing them of racist and discriminatory practices. He and other black coaches report being called for sham interviews for jobs that have already been filled, as teams tick the Rooney Rule’s boxes. 

Voluntary diversity targets 

In 2020 England’s FA adopted a voluntary “Football Leadership Diversity Code”. Only about half of English professional clubs signed it. They committed to achieving percentage targets for Bame people among new hires: 15 per cent for senior leadership and team operations positions, and 25 per cent for men’s coaching — “a discrepancy in goals that itself reflects the problem”, comments Szymanski. Clubs were further allowed to water down these targets “based on local demographics”. 

The FA said: “The FA is deeply committed to ensuring the diversity of those playing and coaching within English football is truly reflective of our modern society. 

“We’re focused on increasing the number of, and ongoing support for, coaches who have been historically under-represented in the game. This includes a bursary programme for the Uefa qualifications required to coach in academy and senior professional football.” 

A report last November showed mixed results. Many clubs had missed the code’s targets, with several Premier League clubs reporting zero diversity hires. On the other hand, more than 20 per cent of new hires in men’s football were of Bame origin, which was at least well above historical hiring rates. 

Do clubs take the code seriously? Ferdinand smiles ironically: “From day one I didn’t take it seriously. Because it’s a voluntary code. What’s the repercussions if you don’t follow the voluntary code? No one will say anything, no one will do anything about it.”  

The BFP and the League Managers Association have called for the code’s targets to be made compulsory. Ferdinand cites the example of countries that set mandatory quotas for women on corporate boards of listed companies. 

Asante says it takes minorities in positions of power to understand the problems of minorities. “If you are a majority in any group, when are you ever thinking about the needs of others?” Corinaldi adds: “When you have a monoculture in any boardroom, you only know what you know, and it tends to be the same stories you heard growing up.” He predicts that once football has more black directors and senior executives, they will hire more diversely. 

The BFP’s model for English football is the National Basketball Association in the US, a 30-team league with 14 African-American head coaches. For now, that feels like a distant utopia. Ramsey warns: “If there is no revolutionary action, we’ll be having this same conversation in 10 years’ time.” And he remembers saying exactly those words 10 years ago.

Custody Laws disfavour Fathers

 

Islamophobia And Secularism

Nadeem F Paracha in The Dawn

Prime Minister Imran Khan frequently uses the term ‘Islamophobia’ while commenting on the relationship between European governments and their Muslim citizens. Khan has often been accused of lamenting the treatment meted out to Muslims in Europe, but remaining conspicuously silent about cases of religious discrimination in his own country.

Then there is also the case of Khan not uttering a single word about the Chinese government’s apparently atrocious treatment of the Muslim population of China’s Xinjiang province.

Certain laws in European countries are sweepingly described as being ‘Islamophobic’ by Khan. When European governments retaliate by accusing Pakistan of constitutionally encouraging acts of bigotry against non-Muslim groups, the PM bemoans that Europeans do not understand the complexities of Pakistan’s ‘Islamic’ laws.

Yet, despite the PM repeatedly claiming to know the West like no other Pakistani does, he seems to have no clue about the complexities of European secularism.

Take France for instance. French secularism, called ‘Laïcité’ is somewhat different than the secularism of various other European countries and the US. According to the contemporary scholar of Western secularism, Charles Taylor, French secularism is required to play a more aggressive role.

In his book, A Secular Age, Taylor demonstrates that even though the source of Western secularism was common — i.e. the emergence of ‘modernity’ and its political, economic and social manifestations — secularism evolved in Europe and the US in varying degrees and of different types. 

Secularism in the US remains largely impersonal towards religion. But in France and in some other European countries, it encourages the state/government to proactively discourage even certain cultural dimensions of faith in the public sphere which, it believes, have the potential of mutating into becoming political expressions.

Nevertheless, to almost all prominent philosophers of Western democracy across the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of providing freedom to practise religion is inherent in secularism, as long as this freedom is not used for any political purposes.

According to the American sociologist Jacques Berlinerblau in A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, six types of secularism have evolved. The American researcher Barry Kosmin divides secularism into two categories: ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. Most of Berlinerblau’s types fall in the ‘soft’ category. The hard one is ‘State Sponsored Atheism’ which looks to completely eliminate religion. This type was practised in various former communist countries and is presently exercised in China and North Korea. One can thus place Laïcité between Kosmin’s soft and hard secular types.

The existence of what is called ‘Islamophobia’ in secular Europe and the US has increasingly drawn criticism from various quarters. According to the French author Jean-Loïc Le Quellec, the term is derived from the French word ‘islamophobie’ that was first used in 1910 to describe prejudice against Muslims.

L.P. Sheridan writes in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence that the term did not become widely used till 1991. According to Roland Imhoff and Julia Recker in the Journal of Political Psychology, a wariness had already been building in the West towards Muslims because of the aggressively anti-West ‘Islamic’ Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the violent backlash in some Muslim countries against the publication of the novel Satanic Verses by the British author Salman Rushdie in 1988.

Islamophobia is one of the many expressions of racism towards ‘the other’. Racisms of varying nature have for long been present in Europe and the US. Therefore Imhoff and Recker see Islamophibia as “new wine in an old bottle.” It is a relatively new term, but one that has also been criticised.

Discrimination against race, faith, ethnicity, caste, etc., is present in almost all countries. But its existence gets magnified when it is present in countries that describe themselves as liberal democracies.

Whereas Islamophobia is often understood as a phobia against Islam, there are also those who find this definition problematic. To the term’s most vehement critics, not only has it overshadowed other aspects of racism, of which there are many, it is also mostly used by ‘radical Muslims’ to curb open debate.

In a study, the University of Northampton’s Paul Jackson writes that the term should be replaced with ‘Muslimphobia’ because the racism in this context is aimed at a people and not towards the faith, as such. However, he does add that the faith too should be open for academic debate.

In an essay for the 2016 anthology The Search for Europe, Bichara Khader writes that racism against non-white migrants in Europe intensified in the 1970s because of a severe economic crisis. Khader writes that this racism was not pitched against one’s faith.

According to Khader, whereas this meant that South Asian, Arab, African and Caribbean migrants were treated as an unwanted whole based on the colour of their skin, from the 1980s onwards, the Muslims among these migrants began to prominently assert their distinctiveness. As the presence of veiled women and mosques grew, this is when the ‘migration problem’ began to be seen as a ‘Muslim problem’.

The Muslim diaspora in the West began to increasingly consolidate itself as a separate whole. Mainly through dress, Muslim migrants began to shed the identity of their original countries, creating a sort of universality of Muslimness.

But this also separated them from the non-Muslim migrant communities, who were facing racial discrimination as well. Interestingly, this imagined universality of Muslimness was also exported back to the mother countries of Muslim migrants.

Take the example of how, in Pakistan, some recent textbooks have visually depicted the dress choices of Pakistani women. They are almost exactly how some second and third generation Muslim women in the West imagine a woman should dress like.

But there was criticism within Pakistan of this depiction. The critics maintain that the present government was trying to engineer a cultural type of how women ought to dress in a country where — unlike in some other Muslim countries — veiling is neither mandatory nor banned. This has only further highlighted the fact that identity politics in this context in Pakistan is being influenced by the identity politics being flexed by certain Muslim groups in the West.

Either way, because of the fact that it is a recent phenomenon, identity politics of this nature is not organic as such, and will continue to cause problems for Muslims within and away.

We can't talk about racism without understanding whiteness

To dismantle racial hierarchy, we need to start by discussing the power it grants those on top writes Priyamvada Gopal in The Guardian
 

 

Manchester City and Burnley players - and the referee, Andre Marriner - take a knee before their match at the Etihad Stadium last month. Photograph: Michael Regan/NMC/EPA


When it comes to race and racism, we focus on those at the sharp end of discrimination – from black people routinely subjected to police brutality to people of colour missing from positions of influence. Progressive ideals invoke “inclusion” for ethnic minorities, or special bias training. These measures may be necessary, but they put the focus squarely on those subjected to victimisation – rather than the system that perpetuates racism.

What results is a form of benevolence whereby some people of colour get “included” as part of diversity measures, even as social hierarchies and habits of thought in white-majority societies remain largely unchanged.


There is no point in declaring that race doesn’t make a difference or that equality exists when it clearly doesn’t


The truth is that there is nothing pleasant about confronting the reality of an acute racial hierarchy. If the racial order is really to change – and there are those who don’t want it to – it is not just black lives or racial minorities that should be the topic of discussion, but the racial ideology that currently calls the shots in western societies.

This is what brings us to “whiteness” – which is not a biological category so much as a set of ideas and practices about race that has emerged from a bedrock of white supremacy, itself the legacy of empire and slavery. Confronting the idea of whiteness involves far more uncomfortable discussions than “inclusion”, especially for people deemed white, since it involves self-examination and acknowledging ugly truths, both historical and contemporary. It is simply easier to try to shut it out or down. 

I found this out to my cost last week when I tweeted a response to the racially inflammatory “White Lives Matter” banner flown over the Etihad Stadium after Manchester City and Burnley footballers had “taken the knee” to honour George Floyd. My tweet, deliberately playing with the wording of the banner by qualifying it, made the point that white lives cannot be deemed to matter because they are white, that it should not be whiteness that gives those lives value. In addition to the tsunami of racist sewage that immediately came my way, littered with N-words and P-words along with sexist slurs, rape fantasies, death threats and open declarations that “white lives matter more”, I was repeatedly asked why, if white lives did not matter as white lives, do black lives matter? Was that also not also racist?

No, it is not also racist. White lives already matter more than others so to keep proclaiming they matter is to add excess value to them, tilting us dangerously into white supremacy. This doesn’t mean that all white people in western societies are materially well-off or don’t experience hardship, but that they don’t do so by virtue of the fact that they are white. Black lives remain undervalued and in order for us to get to the desirable point where all lives (really do) matter, they must first achieve parity by mattering. It’s not really that hard to understand unless you choose not to.

Studies of “whiteness” are not new. Respected scholars, such as the late Noel Ignatiev, author of How the Irish Became White, and David Roediger, have studied the history and sociology of whiteness in great detail. Ignatiev, who was Jewish, wrote about the “abolition of whiteness”, not as a call to eliminate white people but a system of racial entitlement that necessarily relied on the exclusion of those deemed to be lesser. For Ignatiev, whiteness was not a biological fact so much as a kind of ideological club where “the members go through life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about the cost” to others.
Over time, people have been added to the club and aspire to membership of it, from the Irish and European Jews to many Asians today. One distinctive feature of whiteness as ideology is that it can make itself invisible and thereby make its operations more lethal and harder to challenge. Science and the humanities are largely in accord that “race” is not a biological category, but a way of creating power differentials, which have practical consequences. If that power differential in western societies is to be removed, then the ideology at the top – whiteness – must be abolished. Only then can the abolition of all other racial categories – and the post-racial world we so often claim to espouse – actually follow.

Although in Britain I am racialised as “non-white” or Asian, in my birth country of India I have some experience of what it is like to be a member of a powerful but invisible ruling category. As a Brahmin (the “highest-ranking” tier of the deeply hierarchical Hindu caste system), I belong to a social grouping that operates much like whiteness does. It rules the roost, is not disadvantaged by virtue of caste (though there are those who might suffer from poverty or misogyny), and it treats any challenge to its power as a form of victimisation or “reverse oppression”. For the record, there is no such thing: oppression only operates downwards. This is why, at the same time as I reinforced Ignatiev’s call for the abolition of “whiteness”, I repeated that Brahmin supremacy in India must also be abolished.

One of my less discourteous correspondents last week asked me, using only one expletive, why people “need a manual for race relations” when we could just respect each other. Unfortunately, until we get to a point where all lives really do matter, there is no point in declaring that race doesn’t make a difference or that equality exists, when it clearly doesn’t. “White lives matter” implicitly suggests whites matter more than others. “Black lives matter” is saying those lives need to matter more than they have, that society needs to give them more weight. Until we square up to the ugly realities of how whiteness operates – lethally, invisibly, powerfully – we are doomed to fighting a toxic and pointless culture war, where the only winners are those who want hatred to prevail.