Category: Political Science

My excellent Conversation with John Gray

I had been wanting to do this one for a while, and now it exists.  Here is the audio and transcript, here is the episode summary:

Tyler and John sat down to discuss his latest book, including who he thinks will carry on his work, what young people should learn if liberalism is dead, whether modern physics allows for true atheism, what in Eastern Orthodoxy attracts him, the benefits of pessimism, what philanthropic cause he’d invest a billion dollars in, under what circumstances he’d sacrifice his life, what he makes of UFOs, the current renaissance in film and books, whether Monty Python is still funny, how Herman Melville influenced him, who first spotted his talent, his most unusual work habit, what he’ll do next, and more.

Excerpt:

COWEN: Do you think that being pessimistic gives you pleasure? Or what’s the return in it from a purely pragmatic point of view?

GRAY: You are well prepared for events. You don’t expect —

COWEN: It’s a preemption, right? You become addicted to preempting bad news with pessimism.

GRAY: No, no. When something comes along which contradicts my expectations, I’m pleasantly surprised. I get pleasant surprises. Whereas, if you are an adamant optimist, you must be in torment every time you turn the news on because the same old follies, the same old crimes, the same old atrocities, the same old hatreds just repeat themselves over and over again. I’m not surprised by that at all. That’s like the weather. It’s like living in a science fiction environment in which it rains nearly all of the time, but from time to time it stops and there’s beautiful sunlight.

If you think that basically there is beautiful sunlight all the time, but you’re just living in a small patch of it, most of your life will be spent in frustration. If you think the other way around, as I do, your life will be peppered, speckled with moments in which what you expect doesn’t happen, but something better happens.

COWEN: Why can’t one just build things and be resiliently optimistic in a pragmatic, cautionary sense, and take comfort in the fact that you would rather have the problems of the world today than, say, the problems of the world in the year 1000? It’s not absolute optimism where you attach to the mood qua mood, but you simply want to do things and draw a positive energy from that, and it’s self-reinforcing. Why isn’t that a better view than what you’re calling pessimism?

And:

COWEN: Under what circumstances would you be willing to sacrifice your life? Or for what?

GRAY: Not for humanity, that’s for sure.

Recommended, interesting throughout.  John is one of the smartest and best read thinkers and writers.  He even has an answer ready for why he isn’t short the market.  And don’t forget John’s new book — I read all of them — New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism.

*Everyday Freedom*, by Philip K. Howard

This is very much a book that needed to be written.  Here is one short excerpt:

Powerlessness has become a defining feature of modern society. Americans at all levels of responsibility feel powerless to do what they think is needed. The culture wars, sociologist James Davison Hunter explains, stem from institutional impotence: A “growing majority of Americans believe that their government cannot be trusted, that its leaders . . . are incompetent and self-interested, and that as citizens, they personally have little power to influence the . . .institutions or circumstances that shape their lives.”

Feeling fragile, and buffeted by forces beyond our control, many Americans retreat to online groups defined by identity and by distrust of the other side as “a threat to [our] existence.” It’s hard to identify what’s wrong amid the clamor and conflict in modern society. But a clue can be found in remembering what makes us proud. America is where people roll up our sleeves and get it done.

The ability to do things in our own ways activates the values for which America is well-known: self-reliance, pragmatism, and loyalty to the greater good—what Alexis de Tocqueville called “self-interest, rightly understood.” For most of American history, the power and imperative to own your actions and solutions—the concept of individual responsibility—was implicit in the idea of freedom.

Americans didn’t abandon our belief in individual responsibility. It was taken away from us by post 1960s legal framework that, with the best of intentions, made people squirm through the eye of a legal needle before taking responsibility. Individual responsibility to a broader group, for example, was dislodged by a new concept of individual rights focused on what’s best for one person or constituency. The can-do culture became the can’t do culture.

At every level of responsibility, Americans have lost the authority to do what they think is sensible. The teacher in the classroom, the principal in a school, the nurse in the hospital, the official in Washington, the parent on the field trip, the head of the local charity or church . . . all have their hands tied by real or feared legal constraints.

And yes he does propose concrete solutions, most of all at the level of the law.  The whole thing is only 84 pp., and this is one of the books that comes closest to diagnosing what is wrong with our country.  The subtitle is Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society.

Jimmy Carter is underrated, Thomas Schelling edition

“In the US protocol you have to rehearse the entire process every four months….The French, they never rehearse. And their logic is that if you start rehearsing with the president, people are going to start to know how he thinks and they’re going to be able to influence him.”

But, “When do you think Biden rehearses?” Cerf asks. This is another game he plays with students. “The answer is zero times — he never does it. He always says, ‘I’m going to send someone else instead. Not a good time for me…’ What about Trump? How often do you think Trump did it? And the answer is zero. We said, ‘OK, so let’s not [be] partisan. How often Obama?’ ” He didn’t either, according to Cerf. Presidents, Republican and Democrat, are always far too busy. “The last person to have done it is Carter in the Seventies,”

…The keyholes for this are set 18ft apart on either side of the room, he says. “They have to turn the keys at the same time…The whole arrangement requires two people, so that one serviceman having a bad day cannot decide to blow up the world. “The one thing that they all do at some point is they spend time figuring out how they would do it alone if they needed to,” Cerf says. “They’re not supposed to… [But] they said, ‘Every person in this shift at some point figured out that if they connect the broom to the teapot and hold it like this, they can actually turn the two keys together.’ So they all said, at some point, that they play this mental game of, ‘OK, I can actually start a nuclear war.’ ”

Here is the full Times of London article, gated but very interesting throughout.  Via Jason Dunne.

The Geert Wilders victory, and more

Wilders won resoundingly in the Netherlands, and polled much stronger after October 7.  Yesterday there were anti-immigrant riots in Dublin, typically a relatively open city (most likely an Algerian migrant stabbed several people).  The “far right” party in Austria is very popular, AfD is doing well in Germany, and France could flip.  Italy already is there, noting that actual governance has not been so different under Meloni.   The Sweden Democrats are part of the ruling coalition.  That is a lot of the core EU group, plus Ireland and Sweden.  And maybe I have forgotten somebody.

Note to media: Since they keep winning elections, or at least placing well, you can’t call them “far right” any more!  How about “deep center”?

In the New World, Milei won in Argentina, Bukele is extremely popular in El Salvador, and Trump is ahead of Biden in most polls.  Even the Kiwis moved to the right, albeit in a mild-mannered way.  Chile rejected a far left constitution, and Australia voted down one version of indigenous rights, not wanting to put them in the constitution.  Petro is unpopular in Colombia and may not finish out his term.

A few observations:

1. If you can’t talk about/think about/write about these developments without perpetually moralizing, it is hard to be an intelligent commentator today.

2. If your main theory here is “racism,” your contribution to the discourse probably is negative.  That said, I strongly feel that the events of the last ten or so years should cause us to upgrade our estimates of how much racism is in the world, and in a highly unfortunate manner. That is still a bad dominant explanation for what is going on in the [new] “deep center.”

3. For all the talk of why Biden’s position in the polls is so weak, I don’t see enough talk of “much of the world is moving in a right-wing direction, and global sweeps in ideology are difficult to counter” as a critical explanation.  If true, that makes it much harder for Biden to mount a comeback.

4. For the most part, these movements are not “my kind of right-wing.

5. These trends still carry a lot of momentum.  And given that immigration is not about to turn into a political winner, you should be all the more concerned about the pending fertility crisis.

6. I was right when I argued a few years ago that “Wokeism has peaked.”

The Indian Challenge to Blockchains: Digital Public Goods

In my post, Blockchains and the Opportunity of the Commons, I explored the potential of blockchains to create new commons:

Blockchains and tokenization are a way to incentivize the creation of a commons. A commons is an unowned place, platform, or protocol that helps people to meet, communicate and transact. Commons underlying modern life include TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP, GPS and the English language. We don’t see these commons clearly because they are free, ubiquitous and, like air, taken for granted. What we do see are platforms like Airbnb, Uber and the NYSE and places to meet and communicate like OkCupid, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. What blockchain and tokenization offer is the possibility of creating commons to replace all of these services and much more.

For the most part, the potential has not been realized. But the core idea of substituting a protocol for a firm has been taken in a different direction in India. Instead of blockchains, India has been experimenting with digital public goods. A digital public good is open source software with open data and open standards–available for use or even modification and adaption by anyone. The blockchain community, for example, has long aspired to develop a blockchain-based Uber, connecting drivers and riders without a corporate intermediary. India has achieved this through digital public goods instead.

Namma Yatri is an open-source, open-data Uber-like protocol with 100% of the commission flowing directly from rider to driver. Namma Yatri is built on the Beckn Protocol, a product of the Beckn Foundation which is backed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani (Tyler and I had the opportunity to talk with many people behind the project including Nandan on a recent trip to India). Namma Yatri has booked over 15 million trips in just one year of operation, mostly in one city, Bangalore. I expect it will expand rapidly.

Namma Yatri is only one example of a digital public good in the India Stack, a collection that includes identity (Aadhaar), payments (UPI) and digital data sharing (e.g. digital lockers). Since its launch in 2008, for example, India’s Aadhaar system has created a digital identity for over 1.2 billion people allowing them to open some 650 million bank accounts. This has enhanced financial inclusion and facilitated direct government payments of pensions and rations, reducing corruption. Likewise, the UPI system built modern payment rails which are then leveraged by banks and firms such as Google Pay and WhatsApp. The resulting payments system does some 10 billion transactions a month and is one of the fastest and lowest cost in the world.

Challenges remain. The development of digital public goods relies on funding from non-profits, governments, and private consortiums, raising questions about long-term sustainability. These goods need regular maintenance and updates, and some require backend support. Namma Yatri began as a completely free app for drivers and users but if there is a problem who do you call? To support the back-end office, and to pay for updated inputs (such as maps) the service has started to use a subscription fee. Nothing wrong with that but it’s a reminder that firms are not so easily dispensed with. Privacy is another concern. While blockchains offer privacy at the technology layer, privacy for digital public goods depend on legal and normative frameworks. For instance, India’s Aadhaar system is legally restricted from police use, a smart balance that needs to be maintained in changing times.

Despite these challenges, there is no denying that India has built digital public goods at scale in a way that demonstrates an alternative pathway for digital infrastructure and a challenge to blockchains.

Freer Indian reservations prosper more

Several disciplines in social sciences have shown that institutions that promote cooperation facilitate mutually beneficial exchanges and generate prosperity. Drawing on these insights, this paper develops a Reservation Economic Freedom Index that classifies institutions on a sample of Indian reservations concerning whether these intuitions will enhance the prosperity of Indians residing on these reservations. The development of this index is guided by the research of political scientists, economists, other social science disciplines, and research in law. When correlating this index with Indian incomes, the evidence shows a statistically significant positive correlation between reservations with prosperity-enhancing institutions and their economic prosperity.

That is from a recent article by my colleague Thomas Stratmann, recently published in Public Choice.  Here is the SSRN version.  Here is the index itself.  Here is a related Op-Ed.

Classical liberals are increasingly religious

Not too long ago, I was telling Ezra Klein that I had noticed a relatively new development in classical liberalism.  If a meet an intellectual non-Leftist, increasingly they are Nietzschean, compared to days of yore.  But if they are classical liberal instead, typically they are religious as well.  That could be Catholic or Jewish or LDS or Eastern Orthodox, with some Protestant thrown into the mix, but Protestants coming in last.

The person being religious is now a predictor of that same person having non-crazy political views.  Classical liberalism thus, whether you like it or not, has become an essentially religious movement.

Many strands of libertarianism are being left behind, and again this is a positive rather than a normative claim.  It is simply how things are.

Aayan Hirsi Ali announces she is now a Christian.

Here is comment from Aella:

The neo trad movement gets ayaan 🙁 But seriously this seems to be a real trend – lots of otherwise smart, successful, secular people I know have been going religious, but it’s not in the same way people used to go religious. It’s much more *cultural* now, and less about belief

Seconded.  You may recall my earlier prophecy that the important thinkers of the future are going to be religious thinkers.  I believe that will prove true outside of classical liberalism as well.

Persistence in policy: evidence from close votes

That is the job market paper by economist Zach Freitas-Groff of Stanford University.  Here is the abstract:

Policy choices sometimes appear stubbornly persistent, even when they become politically unpopular or economically damaging. This paper offers the first systematic empirical evidence of how persistent policy choices are, defined as whether an electorate’s or legislature’s decisions affect whether a policy is in place decades later. I create a new dataset that tracks the historical record of more than 800 state policies that were the subjects of close referendums in U.S. states since 1900. In a regression discontinuity design, I estimate that passing a referendum increases the chance a policy is operative 20, 40, or even 100 years later by over 40 percentage points. I collect additional data on U.S. Congressional legislation and international referendums and use existing data on state legislation to document similar policy persistence for a range of institutional environments, cultures, and topics. I develop a theoretical model to distinguish between possible causes of persistence and present evidence that persistence arises because policies’ salience declines in the aftermath of referendums. The results indicate that many policies are persistently in place—or not—for reasons unrelated to the electorate’s current preferences.

Impressively original.  Zach has several interesting papers (see the first link), some from an EA-adjacent point of view.

Is fear a bigger problem than hate?

I deploy this protocol as a lab-in-the-field experiment in Jos, Nigeria, to study the region’s ongoing conflict between Christians and Muslims. I find that fear explains 76% (and hate 24%) of the non-cooperative behavior I observe in a coordination game played between Christians and Muslims. Moreover, this fear is mostly unwarranted, as non-cooperators grossly exaggerate the percentage of hateful people in the outgroup. I then estimate a structural model to determine what type of policy intervention would most effectively increase cooperation. My counterfactual analysis suggests that interventions that correct unwarranted fears would be highly effective. In contrast, interventions that reduce hate would not because hateful people also have high levels of fear. Finally, I study an actual policy intervention with an RCT in which I provide participants access to a radio drama that promotes intergroup cooperation. Using my experimental protocol, I find that the radio drama decreases hate but not fear and thus does not translate into increased cooperation, as my model predicts.

That is from Migual Ortiz, an economics job market candidate from UC Berkeley.

My Conversation with Harriet Karimi Muriithi

This is another CWT bonus episode, recorded in Tatu City, Kenya, outside of Nairobi.  Harriet is a 22-year-old waitress.  Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

Harriet is a 22-year-old hospitality professional living and working in Tatu City, a massive mixed-used development spearheaded by Jennings. Harriet grew up in the picturesque foothills of Mount Kenya before moving to the capital city as a child to pursue better schooling. She has witnessed Nairobi’s remarkable growth firsthand over the last decade. An ambitious go-getter, Harriet studied supply chain management but and wishes to open her own high-end restaurant.

In her conversation with Tyler, Harriet opens up about her TikTok hobby, love of fantasy novels, thoughts on improving Kenya’s education system, and how she leverages AI tools like ChatGPT in her daily life, the Chinese influence across Africa, the challenges women face in village life versus Nairobi, what foods to sample as a visitor to Kenya, her favorite musicians from Beyoncé to Nigerian Afrobeats stars, why she believes technology can help address racism, her Catholic faith and church attendance, how COVID-19 affected her education and Kenya’s recovery, the superstitions that persist in rural areas, the career paths available to Kenya’s youth today, why Nollywood movies captivate her, the diversity of languages and tribes across the country, whether Kenya’s neighbors impact prospects for peace, what she thinks of the decline in the size of families, why she enjoys podcasts about random acts of kindness, what infrastructure and lifestyle changes are reshaping Nairobi, if the British colonial legacy still influences politics today, and more.

Here is one excerpt:

COWEN: How ambitious are you?

MURIITHI: On a scale of 1 to 10, I will say an 8.5.

This episode is best consumed in combination with the episode with the village elder Githae Gitinji.  The contrast between the two perspectives is startling.  And here is my CWT episode with Stephen Jennings, concerning Tatu City itself.

My Conversation with Githae Gitinji

This is a special bonus episode of CWT, Githae is a 58-year-old village elder who mediates disputes and lives in Tatu City, Kenya, near Nairobi.  Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

In his conversation with Tyler, Githae discusses his work as a businessman in the transport industry and what he looks for when hiring drivers, the reasons he moved from his rural hometown to the city and his perspectives on urban vs rural living, Kikuyu cultural practices, his role as a community elder resolving disputes through both discussion and social pressure, the challenges Kenya faces, his call for more foreign investment to create local jobs, how generational attitudes differ, the role of religion and Githae’s Catholic faith, perspectives on Chinese involvement in Kenya and openness to foreigners, thoughts on the devolution of power to Kenyan counties, his favorite wildlife, why he’s optimistic about Kenya’s future despite current difficulties, and more.

Excerpt:

COWEN: What do you do that the court system does not do? Because you’re not police, but still you do something useful.

GITHINJI: What we normally do, we as a group, we listen to one another very much. When one person reaches that stage of being told that you are a man now, you normally have to respect your elder. Those people do respect me. When I call you, when I tell you “Come and we’ll talk it out,” with my group, you cannot say you cannot come, because if you do, we normally discipline somebody. Not by beating, we just remove you from our group. When we isolate you from our group, you’ll feel that is not fair for you. You come back and say — and apologize. We take you back into the group.

COWEN: If you’re isolated, you can’t be friends with those people anymore.

GITHINJI: When we isolate you, we mean you are not allowed to interact in any way.

COWEN: Any way.

GITHINJI: Any business, anything with the other community [members]. If it is so, definitely, you have to be a loser, because you might be needing one of those people to help you in business or something of the sort. When you are isolated, this man tells you, “No. Go and cleanse yourself first with that group.”

If you find his Kikiyu accent difficult, just read the transcript instead.  This episode is best consumed in a pair with my concurrently recorded episode with Harriet Karimi Muriithi, a 22-year-old Kenyan waitress — the contrasts in perspective across a mere generation are remarkable.

My excellent Conversation with Stephen Jennings

Recorded in Tatu City, Kenya, not far from Nairobi, Tatu City is a budding Special Enterprise Zone.  Here is the transcript, audio, and video.  Here is the episode overview:

Stephen and Tyler first met over thirty years ago while working on economic reforms in New Zealand. With a distinguished career that transitioned from the New Zealand Treasury to significant ventures in emerging economies, Stephen now focuses on developing new urban landscapes across Africa as the founder and CEO of Rendeavour.

Tyler sat down with Stephen in Tatu City, one of his multi-use developments just north of Nairobi, where they discussed why he’s optimistic about Kenya in particular, why so many African cities appear to have low agglomeration externalities, how Tatu City regulates cars and designs for transportation, how his experience as reformer and privatizer informed the way utilities are provided, what will set the city apart aesthetically, why talent is the biggest constraint he faces, how Nairobi should fix its traffic problems, what variable best tracks Kenyan unity, what the country should do to boost agricultural productivity, the economic prospects for New Zealand, how playing rugby influenced his approach to the world, how living in Kenya has changed him, what he will learn next, and more.

Here is one excerpt:

COWEN: Just give us some basic facts. Where is Tatu City right now, and where will it be headed when it’s more or less finished?

JENNINGS: Tatu City is the only operational special economic zone [SEZ] in the country. It is 5,000 hectares of fully planned urban development. It is at quite an advanced stage. We have 70 large-scale industrial companies with us, including major multinationals and many of the regional leaders. We have 3,000 students come on site every day to our four new schools. We’re advanced in building the first phase of the first new CBD for the region. We have tens of thousands of core center jobs moving into that area, together with other modern office amenities. All of the elements — we have many residential modules, thousands of new residential units at a wide range of price points — all of the elements of a new city are in place.

COWEN: How many people will end up living here?

JENNINGS: Around 250,000.

COWEN: And how many businesses?

JENNINGS: There’ll be thousands of businesses.

And delving more deeply into matters:

COWEN: What do you think is the book [on economic development] that has influenced you most?

JENNINGS: It’s a very good question. I think I’ve read just about everything in development. There’s nothing I really like very much. Development is a black box. I don’t think there’s anything that has much predictive power. There’s a lot of ex post explanations, whether they be policy settings, location, culture. I think 90% of them are ex post; very few of them are predictive. Some of them are just tautologies. I really like factualization.

It’s descriptive more than analytical, but it just makes it clear that most of the world has been on a very similar development trajectory. It’s just not sequenced. Sweden started early; Ethiopia started late. But the nature of the transition and the inevitability of that transition, other than very extreme circumstances, is kind of the same.

COWEN: What do you think economists get wrong?

JENNINGS: I don’t think we really understand development at all, because if we could, we could predict it. We can predict virtually nothing. It’s just too complicated. It’s too connected with politics. I think there’s a lot of feedback loops and elements of development that we don’t understand properly. We certainly can’t quantify them because the development’s happening in such a wide range of settings, from communism dictatorships through to very liberal systems and with all different kinds of industrial — on every dimension, there’s a huge range of variables.

Excellent and interesting throughout.