Comparative Advantage

Moses lived during a period of profound and far-reaching change. The entire Eastern Mediterranean was in turmoil. The power of Egypt was in sharp decline. The Hittite Empire, long a source of stability in what is now Turkey, Syria,and Iraq, collapsed. New empires and numerous smaller kingdoms emerged. The Exodus is close in time to the Trojan War. Homer’s heroes may have been one of many aggressive “Sea Peoples” that terrorized the region for a century or more.

These changes created an opportunity that Moses exploited, but the same conditions presented several serious threats. The descendents of Jacob were comparatively few in number, militarily weak, and economically poor. Their survival was uncertain and, even, unlikely.

Moses was in serious need of a source of comparative advantage. His small enterprise was exceedingly vulnerable. To escape Egypt and conquer Canaan Moses and his people needed something that would give them strength greater than their size or wealth. In a world characterized by violent change and aggressive rivalries, the descendents of Jacob needed a source of security and continuity.

Moses promised a place – flowing with milk and honey – but if we consider his behavior it is clear that Moses did not consider the place a sufficient comparative advantage. Otherwise he would have moved to seize the place much sooner than he did. Instead he delayed.

In about the fourth year of the forty-year Exodus Moses sent spies into Canaan in preparation for an invasion. But most of the spies returned reporting, “The people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large…. We are not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we.” (Numbers 13: 28-31)

Reacting to the spies’ reports most of the people began to talk of replacing Moses and returning to Egypt. Moses ultimately preserved – and even enhanced – his authority. But the episode demonstrated that his people were not ready to claim their potential. They saw themselves as weak and exaggerated the strength of the opposition. Their fears obscured reality and suppressed their potential.

Each of the great-grandsons of Abraham had arrived in Egypt in distress, but free and keenly aware of their unique value. In the generations that followed, however, the unique value had been nearly forgotten and the people fell into the false identity of slavery. The passivity and fear of slavery was, ultimately, too much for Moses to overcome. Almost all those who had been slaves in Egypt would die before a new generation was allowed to complete the Exodus and enter the Promised Land.

With the new generation born during the Exodus Moses worked to restore a sense of unique purpose and potential. To survive in an environment of convulsive change, Moses had to change the mind-set and worldview of his people. Instead of nostalgia regarding the security of slavery (a constant refrain in the book of Exodus) he encouraged an enthusiasm regarding future challenges.

Moses was a realist. He understood his position in the world. He understood the strength of his adversaries. Moses knew the limitations of his people and foresaw the disasters ahead. He anticipated failure, but was confident that recovery was possible.

The strategy that Moses implemented to achieve comparative advantage was focused on recurring recovery more than immediate success. This was a crucial choice. He was focused on long-term survival and continuity. The descendents of Jacob would outlast their adversaries. They would encounter disaster, but would be restored.

When you have had children and children’s children, and become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, and provoking him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples; only a few of you will be left among the nations where the Lord will lead you. There you will serve other gods made by human hands, objects of wood and stone, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. From there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find him if you search after him with all your heart and soul. In your distress, when all these things have happened to you in time to come, you will return to the Lord your God and heed him. Because the Lord your God is a merciful God, he will neither abandon you nor destroy you; he will not forget the covenant with your ancestors that he swore to them. (Deuteronomy 4: 25-31)

Over one hundred generations later the effectiveness of this strategy is evident. It was a courageous and creative strategic choice. It was also very realistic. Most strategies are based on much more short-term and much less realistic thinking.

Most organizations fail within seven years; very few last a generation. An enterprise that has preserved its identity and independence for a century is remarkable. Most of our lives are forgotten and our contributions lost within a few years of our death. In some cases, these outcomes are the result of explicit choice. But more often these are the unintended consequences of failing to make a choice. In the words of Moses they are the outcome of complacency.

The organization – or individual – that makes a choice and then moves to behave consistently with that choice has a significant advantage over the complacent.