In Police Union Privileges I explained how union contracts and police bill of rights give police officers privileges not afforded to regular people. What differences do these privileges make? A new paper, The Effect of Collective Bargaining Rights on Law Enforcement: Evidence from Florida, suggests that police union privileges significantly increase the rate of officer misconduct:

Growing controversy surrounds the impact of labor unions on law enforcement behavior. Critics
allege that unions impede organizational reform and insulate officers from discipline for
misconduct. The only evidence of these effects, however, is anecdotal. We exploit a quasi-experiment in Florida to estimate the effects of collective bargaining rights on law enforcement
misconduct and other outcomes of public concern. In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court’s
Williams
decision extended to county deputy sheriffs collective bargaining rights that municipal police
officers had possessed for decades. We construct a comprehensive panel dataset of Florida law
enforcement agencies starting in 1997, and employ a difference-in-difference approach that
compares sheriffs’ offices and police departments before and after
Williams. Our primary result is
that collective bargaining rights lead to about a 27% increase in complaints of officer misconduct
for the typical sheriff’s office. This result is robust to the inclusion of a variety of controls. The
time pattern of the estimated effect, along with an analysis using agency-specific trends, suggests
that it is not attributable to preexisting trends. The estimated effect of
Williams is not robustly
significant for other potential outcomes of interest, however, including the racial and gender
composition of agencies and training and educational requirements.

This is important research but although I’m not surprised that collective bargaining rights lead to more misconduct I do find the size of the effect implausibly large. One reason is that police union privileges are only one brick in the blue wall. Juries, for example, often fail to convict police even when faced with video evidence that would be overwhelming in any other context [e.g. Philando Castile]. Police union privileges are unjust and should be abolished but solving the problems with policing requires more than a change in naked incentives.

To solve this problem we need to adopt the same kind of systems wide thinking that has led to large reductions in fatal accidents in anesthesiology, airplane crashes, and nuclear accidents. Criminologist Lawrence Sherman writes:

The central point Perrow (1984) made in defining the concept of system accidents is that the
urge to blame individuals often obstructs the search for organizational solutions. If a system-crash
perspective can help build a consensus that many dimensions of police systems need to be changed
to reduce unnecessary deaths (not just but certainly including firing or prosecuting culpable shooting officers), police and their constituencies might start a dialog over the details of which system
changes to make. That dialog could begin by describing Perrow’s central hypothesis that the interactive complexity of modern systems is the main target for reform. From the 1979 nuclear power
plant near-meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania to airplane and shipping accidents,
Perrow shows how the post-incident reviews rarely identify the true culprit: It is the complexity of
the high-risk systems that causes extreme harm. Similarly, fatal police shootings shine the spotlight
on the shooter rather than on the complex organizational processes that recruited, hired, trained,
supervised, disciplined, assigned, and dispatched the shooter before anyone faced a split-second
decision to shoot.

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:

For instance, if you are a Democrat who is strongly pro-abortion rights, gerrymandering might be very much in your interests. That’s because the sharp polarization of today’s politics favors a lot of outcomes that are either the status quo or are easier to implement and enforce. That can favor social liberalism.

Note that many Republican representatives don’t actually want strong legal enforcement of the toughest social conservative positions — can you really imagine the government trying women for murder if they try to have abortions?

Whether you like it or not, American society seems to have hit on a pretty comfortable equilibrium — comfortable for our elected representatives that is. Democrats will strongly support liberal positions on social issues, and the Republicans will stake out more conservative positions. And Republicans will tolerate the Democrats getting their way for the most part. You can debate whether this mix is what a majority of voters want or should want, but it is the easiest outcome for us to agree upon.

Do read the whole thing.

Hi Tyler, one point you didn’t mention in your talent optimization post was career path dependence. Getting an assistant professorship might require some of the skills required to being a great professor, but it absolutely does not require any degree of interest in or talent at management, even though (at least in STEM) managing a lab, including people management, attraction of talent, administration, etc., is the critical skill.

One generalization is that any sort of administrative job that selects among a highly filtered group (senior medical administration at a hospital that mostly fall to MDs, executives within technical organizations such as CTOs) is likely forced to ignore the best talent.

Nick_L in the comment section provides another interesting example: “Talent selection in the Armed Forces is in an interesting category. The only way to achieve the rank of General (in G7 forces, at least), is by entry as a 2nd lieutenant. Due to the (understandable) narrowing of opportunities the higher you go in the armed forces, the best talent frequently leaves around the time they make Colonel.” Note that that comment assumes that the skills that make a great 2nd lieutenant or colonel are the same skills that make a great general.

That is from an email by John McDonnell.

(3) Implications of US Tax Policy for House Prices, Rents, and Homeownership

Kamila Sommer and Paul Sullivan

This paper studies the impact of the mortgage interest tax deduction on equilibrium house prices, rents, homeownership, and welfare. We build a dynamic model of the housing market that features a realistic progressive tax system in which owner-occupied housing services are tax-exempt and mortgage interest payments are tax-deductible. We simulate the effect of tax reform on the housing market. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction causes house prices to decline, increases homeownership, decreases mortgage debt, and improves welfare. Our findings challenge the widely held view that repealing the preferential tax treatment of mortgages would depress homeownership.

Here is the link to the AER piece.

Monday assorted links

by on January 29, 2018 at 11:44 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. A left-wing take on Dalits and caste and class struggle.

2. Dan Drezner’s five most important (not the same as “influential”?) public intellectuals: Coates, Gessen, Fukuyama, Chernow, and Autor.  I think he considerably underrates how much Bezos and other tech people are respected for vision, execution, and depth of understanding, rather than just having a lot of money.

3. Chinese train station built in nine hours.

4. Was Rome or Han China more technologically advanced?

5. “This futuristic house actually gets stronger as hurricanes pass through.

The Return of Henry George?

by on January 29, 2018 at 10:16 am in Economics | Permalink

NYTimes: Today, with the subway in precipitous decline and the city enjoying an economic boom, some policymakers think the time has come for the subway to profit from the financial benefits it provides, including its considerable contribution to property values.

…In Manhattan’s main business corridors, from 60th Street south, the benefit of being near a subway adds $3.85 per square foot to the value of commercial property, according to calculations by two New York University economists.

The notion that property owners should pay extra for their proximity to the subway is called “value capture” and has long been debated in urban planning circles. Now Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, has made value capture a prominent part of his plan to salvage the subway system by proposing to give the Metropolitan Transportation Authority the power to designate “transit improvement subdistricts” and impose taxes.

..The Cuomo proposal calls for before and after assessments in neighborhoods where a new transportation project, like the extension of a subway line, raises property values. Officials would determine the difference between the previous assessment and the new, higher one.

Of the tax on that difference, 75 percent would go to the transit agency and 25 percent to the city.

Solve for the Dutch equilibrium

by on January 29, 2018 at 2:26 am in Current Affairs, Law | Permalink

Police in the Dutch city of Rotterdam have launched a new pilot programme which will see them confiscating expensive clothing and jewellery from young people if they look too poor to own them.

Officers say the scheme will see them target younger men in designer clothes they seem unlikely to be able to afford legally – if it is not clear how the person paid for it, it will be confiscated.

The idea is to deter criminality by sending a signal that the men will not be able to hang onto their ill-gotten gains.

…He [the police chief] said the young men targeted often have no income and are already in debt from fines for previous convictions but wearing expensive clothing.

This “undermines the rule of law” which sends “a completely false signal to local residents”, he explained.

I know how this would play out in New Jersey or Rhode Island, but the Netherlands?  Here is the full article, and for the pointer I thank the excellent Samir Varma.

Surgery (and many medical specialties, esp. highly compensated ones) should be on the list of ‘Bad at finding best talent.’ There’s no way to show aptitude for a surgical specialty before medical school, and there is no mechanism for good surgeons to rise to the top, and bad surgeons to be identified and punished. If you make it into a surgical residency, you will succeed, even if you faked your way into med school and your surgical success rate is terrible. There is essentially no mechanisms to make sure aging surgeons learn the newest techniques, and no checks on waning competency. It is only because the training is so long and difficult that it isn’t a complete disaster.

Policing should also be on the list. It’s another job where, like being a surgeon, once you’ve made it into the profession, you have to fail spectacularly to be kicked out. At least half the police officers I know shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms, much less have the power of life and death over ordinary citizens.

That is from Kevin, based on my earlier post on this question.

Sunday assorted links

by on January 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

Trained as an anthropologist and medical doctor, Mr. Kim now says that the world of high finance is “some of the coolest stuff I have ever looked at.”

And:

Mr. Kim is, by nature, a cheery person, but there was no mistaking the edge to his voice when he started talking about the World Bank economists whose pay is tied to how many loans they churn out. In his view, the bank needs to reward staff, Wall Street-style, for devising innovative financial solutions.

“One of the most difficult things to do in a large bureaucracy is to change incentives,” Mr. Kim told the financiers. “And if you have a large bureaucracy full of economists it is especially hard, because it turns out that economists really hate it when you change the incentives.”

That is from Landon Thomas Jr. at the NYT, there is much more in the story.  And in case you hadn’t heard, Paul Romer is no longer working there.

Diversity versus Equality

by on January 28, 2018 at 10:56 am in Economics, Law | Permalink

The Australian Behavioural Economics Team conducted a randomized trial of hiring in which applications for senior positions in the Australian Public Service were reviewed and ranked. By comparing outcomes in treatments in which gender, minority status and indigenous status could be inferred with outcomes using de-identifyed applications the researchers were able to test for bias and the effect of de-identification.

We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority candidates:

Participants were 2.9%
more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2%
less likely to shortlist male applicants when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified.

Minority males were 5.8%
more likely to be shortlisted and minority females were 8.6%
more likely to be
shortlisted when identifiable compared to when applications were de-identified.

The positive discrimination was strongest for Indigenous female candidates who were 22.2% more likely to be
shortlisted when identifiable compared to when the applications were de-identified.

Interestingly, male reviewers displayed markedly more positive discrimination in favour of minority candidates than
did female counterparts, and reviewers aged 40+ displayed much stronger affirmative action in favour for both
women and minorities than did younger ones.

The study was small and the participants knew they were in a study (although not what the study was studying).

This reminds me of the important Williams and Ceci paper which also found positive gender discrimination in academic hiring (with one notable exception of equal treatment):

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.

Hat tip: Phil Magness.

Kaia Gerber’s Dad Was a Model, Too

 

Rande Gerber is married to Cindy Crawford, is a father to the teenage supermodels Kaia and Presley Gerber, and is a tequila baron (with his pal George Clooney).

That is the front-page header for this NYT piece, you will note it is not a critique of the wealthy or famous.  Recommended, interesting throughout, and don’t forget to check out the photos…

Oh, and here is the closer:

The Gerbers can sound a little corny, and that’s because they are. Nothing confounds a celebrity profile like a happy family. They are four golden figures that, even viewed up close, seem to be constantly dissolving into a Malibu sunset.

“When I meet people from my past, they’re not really shocked where my life has taken me,” Mr. Gerber said, clinking his Casamigos and ice, flanked by his wife and equally symmetrical daughter.

“Most people just figured I would have been successful,” he said, and shrugged.

Here were reader recommendations: remember the ground rules, namely that the book must aspire to some degree of comprehensiveness:

Japan and the Shackles of the Past by R. Taggart Murphy.
Japan and the Shackles of the Past is very good. David Pilling’s Bending Adversity: Japan and the Art of Survival
Also, Japan through the looking glass, by Alan Macfarlane.
While Richie is *the* famous foreign voice on Japan, Alan Booth’s “The Roads to Sata” is, to use Tyler’s favorite word, underrated and worth a read.

Confucius Lives Next Door: What Living in the East Teaches Us About Living in the West Paperback – March 28, 2000 by T.R. Reid

Good book about Japan by the WaPo correspondent. Funny.

Alex Kerr is another great writer on Japan, but this one is a bit dated although definitely still worth a read. His Lost Japan is my favorite.

The best book I’ve read about Japan, or at least modern Japan, is “Dogs and Demons” by Alex Kerr. It’s a fairly pessimistic book about how various postwar obsessions — material comfort, social harmony, and clear class identities — have created a surprisingly unambitious, overly conservative, deeply sclerotic country that has seen its brief glimpse as one of the world’s major powers unambiguously pass.

For Japan:

Modern: Bending Adversity by David Pilling is an excellent view on modern (deflation era) Japan.

Recent: Covering the Showa Period (1923-1989), the graphic novel “Showa” by Shigeru Mizuki is excellent. (I’m not usually a graphic novel reader, but this was amazing)-4 volumes.

Through 1867: A history of Japan by George Sansom (published 1958) is a three volume set covering -1334, 1334-1615 and 1615-1867.

There are a number of other enjoyable books as well (e.g., Road to Sata) but I would not say that they are representative or “must-reads”, regardless of how pleasant reading it may be.

I am not endorsing (or rejecting) those selections, merely aggregating them.  That said, you should read them.

You can certainly add having bought the right properties in the right cities in the 1970s and 1980s to the list of drivers of inequality, but I don’t think it is a big piece of the puzzle. Instead, I think it is more accurate to point out that one of the first and most valuable amenities people purchase when they become wealthier is wealthier neighbors. Wealthy people self-segregate, and the places to which they self-segregate become valuable, because the way you get a place limited to wealthy people is by bidding up the price of being in that place. The community, or the city, is gated for a reason.

Here is much more by Steve Randy Waldman.  So given this not so ideal preference is in place, might building restrictions be a relatively efficient way to satisfy it?  Compare to violence, racism, or more direct interference with individual mobility?

Saturday assorted links

by on January 27, 2018 at 12:39 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink