Category: Law
The price discrimination culture that is Finland
A businessman in Finland has been slapped with a hefty €121,000, or $129,400, fine for speeding in a country where tickets are calculated based on income, a local paper Nya Åland reported.
Anders Wiklöf, the chairman of Wiklöf Holding AB, was driving at 82km/h, or 51mph, when he entered a zone where the speed limit was 50km/h, or 31mph, per Nya Åland.
“I had just started to slow down, but I guess it didn’t happen fast enough,” Wiklöf told Nya Åland. “I really regret the matter.”
In Finland, speeding fines are linked to the offender’s salary and the speed at which they were going when they committed the offense.
Here is the full story. Via Anecdotal.
Evidence from Italy’s ChatGPT Ban
We analyse the effects of the ban of ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer chatbot, on individual productivity. We first compile data on the hourly coding output of over 8,000 professional GitHub users in Italy and other European countries to analyse the impact of the ban on individual productivity. Combining the high-frequency data with the sudden announcement of the ban in a difference-in-differences framework, we find that the output of Italian developers decreased by around 50% in the first two business days after the ban and recovered after that. Applying a synthetic control approach to daily Google search and Tor usage data shows that the ban led to a significant increase in the use of censorship bypassing tools. Our findings show that users swiftly implement strategies to bypass Internet restrictions but this adaptation activity creates short-term disruptions and hampers productivity.
That is from a recent paper by David Kreitmeir and Paul A. Raschky. Via Pradyumna Shyama Prasad.
How D.C. densified
DC’s relative success can be traced to a few decisions made decades ago. In the 1970s, policymakers in Arlington County made a decision to adopt what’s known as ‘transit-oriented development planning’ ahead of the opening of DC’s Metro Orange Line, which runs between Arlington and Prince George County, Maryland (via DC). Arlington policymakers identified that zoning for apartment construction in commercial areas could bring in property taxes and help balance the budget without the level of controversy of changing zoning in existing residential areas. Some nearby jurisdictions followed suit, learning from Arlington’s example, helping the DC region stay more affordable than the country’s other superstar cities.
Here is the full essay by Emily Hamilton of Mercatus, serving up a very good short economic history of Arlington. And this on the District:
The District itself has permitted extensive redevelopment of formerly industrial neighborhoods when they received new Metro stations, including Navy Yard and NoMA. In the years since the 2010 financial crisis, DC has permitted thousands of apartments each year, a high rate compared to peer cities. As in Arlington, they’ve primarily been permitted on land that previously housed industrial or low-value commercial development where there are few or no existing residents to oppose new construction.
Interesting throughout. I am pleased to live in the land of partial YIMBY.
That is all from the new and excellent issue of Works in Progress.
How effective was the IAEA?
Here is the Open AI call for international regulation, most of all along the lines of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am not in general opposed to this approach, but I think it requires very strong bilateral supplements, from the United States of course. Which in turn requires U.S. supremacy in the area, as was the case with nuclear weapons. From a 564 pp. official work on the topic:
For nearly forty years after its birth in 1957 the IAEA remained essentially irrelevant to the nuclear arms race. (p.22)
There is also this:
However, in the late 1950s and early 1960s it was not the failure of the IAEA’s functions as a ‘pool’ or ‘bank’ or supplier of nuclear material that inflicted the most serious blow on the organization, on its safeguards operation and eventually on Cole himself. For a variety of reasons, the Agency’s chief patron, the USA, chose to arrange nuclear supplies bilaterally rather than through the IAEA. One reason was that the IAEA had been unable to develop an effective safeguards system. Another was that in a bilateral arrangement it was the US Administration, under the watchful eyes of Congress, that chose the bilateral partner rather than leaving the choice to an international organization that would have to respond to the needs of any Member State whatever its political system, persuasion or alliance. But the most serious setback came in 1958 when, for overriding political reasons, the USA chose the bilateral route in accepting the safeguards of EURATOM as equivalent to — in other words as an acceptable substitute for — those of the IAEA.
It is frequently suggested that the IAEA has been partially captured by the nuclear sector itself. I do not consider that bad news, but it is a sobering thought for those expecting too much from this approach. Do note that it took years to set up the agency, and furthermore when North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons the country simply left the agency and broke its earlier agreement. Perhaps the greatest gain from this approach is that the non-crazy nations have a systematic multilateral framework to work within, should they decide to defer to the external, bilateral pressure from the United States?
On the other side, my fear is that the international agreement will lead to excess regulation at the domestic level.
There is also this:
The fact that Iraq’s nuclear weapon programme had been under way for several years, perhaps a decade, without being detected by the IAEA, led to sharp criticism of the Agency and posed the most serious threat to the credibility of its safeguards since they had first been applied some 30 years earlier.
All of these issues could use much more intelligent discussion.
Attack monopoly power with deregulation
One recent study shows just how important regulation is in contributing to monopoly. Since 1970, increased regulation can explain 31% to 37% of the subsequent increase in market power.
Upon reflection, it is obvious that larger firms are better able to deal with regulatory burdens. They have more employees, bigger legal departments and are better suited to deal with governments. Startups are generally leaner and more nimble, but these aren’t necessarily advantages in dealing with Washington or state and local agencies. As regulatory costs rise, the comparative advantage shifts to the larger firms — exacerbating market power problems…
According to researcher Shikhar Singla, regulation costs an average of $9,093 per employee for a typical small firm, compared to $5,246 for a large firm. It is no surprise that, according to the data, smaller firms invest relatively less in more highly regulated areas.
Based on a study of regulatory comments, Singla also found that large firms oppose regulation in general, but push for regulation when such rules and laws damage the interests of smaller firms. Singla also finds that regulatory costs have increased significantly since the late 1990s.
Here is the full Bloomberg column.
Mexico fact of the day
In 2022 almost double the number of Mexicans reported having money extorted than did five years before (see chart). Only a tiny minority report.
From The Economist, here is more:
The big money comes, however, from “taxing” businesses in sectors such as agriculture and mining. Avocados, Mexico’s “green gold”, are a good example. The country provides almost a third of global supply, most of which is grown in the western state of Michoacán. The $3bn-worth of them exported every year to the United States is a huge source of income for the producers and also for gangs. For the past three years Erick Rodríguez, a farmer, has paid an annual “fee” of 10,000 pesos ($560) per hectare to Familia Michoacana, a local criminal group. Mr Rodríguez (not his real name) says the gang comes with data about the size of his farm and tells him to hold back stock to push up prices. Ms Felbab-Brown’s fieldwork in Mexico shows how gangs also force fishermen to sell their catch at a cut price, which they then sell for a profit to restaurants. They also dictate the terms of when and what they can fish.
I suppose the optimistic take is that if this ever can be stopped, Mexican economic growth will be especially high?
Immigration and falling fertility rates
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:
Some countries can be expected to keep their relatively restrictionist immigration policies. But in these countries, the population will become smaller and smaller while taxes on the young will get higher and higher, in part to pay for the retirements and health care of the elderly. The high taxes will in turn lower living standards, and that may depress fertility further yet.
A less obvious problem is that once nations enter the lower-population-higher-tax cycle, it may be very difficult for them to attract new migrants. If you were thinking of leaving your country, would you rather go to a wealthy country with higher tax rates, or one with lower tax rates? Especially if the country with higher taxes has a long tradition of not welcoming migrants, and you would be less likely to find any expatriates there? Besides which, due to their aging population, those countries may simply be boring, at least for young people.
The danger is that countries with more restrictionist immigration policies will get locked into low-migration outcomes for the foreseeable future, whether they like it or not.
Recommended.
The FDA Still Doesn’t Trust Women
The FDA has a long history of antipathy towards personal testing. The FDA has opposed personal pregnancy tests, HIV tests, genetic tests, and COVID tests, as I discussed in my article Testing Freedom. Well, the FDA is at it again:
NYTimes: At a hearing Tuesday to consider whether the Food and Drug Administration should authorize the country’s first over-the-counter birth control pill, a panel of independent medical experts advising the agency was left to reckon with two contradictory analyses of the medication called Opill.
During the eight-hour session, the manufacturer of the pill, HRA Pharma, which is owned by Perrigo, and representatives of many medical organizations and reproductive health specialists said that data strongly supported approval. They said that Opill, approved as a prescription drug 50 years ago, was safe, effective and easy for women of all ages to use appropriately — and that over-the-counter availability was sorely needed to lower the country’s high rate of unintended pregnancies.
In contrast, F.D.A. scientists questioned the reliability of company data that was intended to show that consumers would take the pill at roughly the same time every day and comply with directions to abstain from sex or temporarily use other birth control if they missed a dose. The agency seemed especially concerned about whether women with breast cancer or unexplained vaginal bleeding would correctly choose not to take Opill and whether adolescents and people with limited literacy would use it accurately.
Note carefully: The FDA isn’t worried that women won’t take the pill at the same time every day they are worried that women who get the pill without a prescription won’t take it at the same time every day. I guess in the FDA’s view women need some mansplaining to take birth control or at least some doctorplaining.
Dr. Westhoff suggested that for most women, there is no advantage to a doctor prescribing the pills because doctors don’t typically monitor patient adherence and often only see such patients once a year.
Similarly, I suspect that women with breast cancer will be concerned enough about their health to read the warning, Don’t Take This Pill if You Have Breast Cancer. Who knows, women with breast cancer might even ask their cancer physician or Google or their GP(T) about what foods and drugs to take and which to avoid.
If I didn’t know the FDA’s long history of opposing personal testing, I would think this simply bizarre but not trusting people with their own health decisions is practically in the FDA’s DNA.
Private ownership sentences to ponder
Anyone keen to understand how should look at Brookfield Renewable Partners’ recent investment of up to $2 billion in Scout Clean Energy and Standard Solar. B.R.P. is a vehicle of Brookfield Asset Management, a leading global asset management firm, with around $800 billion of assets under management, and it purchased two American developers and owner-operators of wind and solar power-generating facilities. This took place six weeks after President Biden signed the I.R.A. into law.
The I.R.A. will help accelerate the growing private ownership of U.S. infrastructure and, in particular, its concentration among a handful of global asset managers like Brookfield. This is taking the United States into risky territory. The consequences for the public at large, whose well-being depends on the quality and cost of a host of infrastructure-based services, from energy to transportation, are unlikely to be positive.
A common belief about both the I.R.A. and 2021’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, President Biden’s other key legislation for infrastructure investment, is that they represent a renewal of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal infrastructure programs of the 1930s. This is wrong. The signature feature of the New Deal was public ownership: Even as private firms carried out many of the tens of thousands of construction projects, almost all of the new infrastructure was funded and owned publicly. These were public works. Public ownership of major infrastructure has been an American mainstay ever since…
So it would be truer to say that in political-economic terms, Mr. Biden, far from assuming Roosevelt’s mantle, has actually been dismantling the Rooseveltian legacy. The upshot will be a wholesale transformation of the national landscape of infrastructure ownership and associated service delivery.
That is from Brett Christophers (NYT), who is disapproving. For an alternative view, see this WSJ Op-Ed by Katherine Boyle and David Ulevitch.
Lessons from the COVID War
In preparation for a National Covid Commission a group of scholars directed by Philip Zelikow (director of the 9/11 Commission) began interviewing people and organizing task forces (I was an interviewee). The Covid Commission didn’t happen, a fact that illustrates part of the problem:
The policy agenda of both major American political parties appear mostly undisturbed by this pandemic. There is no momentum to fix the system….The Covid war revealed a collective national incompetence in governance….One common denominator stands out to us that spans the political spectrum. Leaders have drifted into treating this pandemic as if it were an unavoidable national catastrophe.
The results of this early investigation, however, are summarized in Lessons from the COVID WAR. Overall, a good book, not as pointed or data driven as I might have liked (see my talk for a more pointed overview), but I am in large agreement with the conclusions and it does contain some clarifying tidbits such as this one on the Obama playbook.
Innumerable speeches, books, and articles have stated that the Obama administration gave the incoming Trump administration a “playbook” on how to confront a pandemic and that this playbook was ignored. The Obama administration did indeed prepare and leave behind the “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.”
But this playbook did not actually diagram any plays. There was no “how.” It did not explain what to do…when it came to the job of how to contain a pandemic that was headed for the United States in January 2020, the playbook was a blank page.
I also appreciated that Lessons has some some unheralded success stories from the state and local level. You may recall Tyler and I blogging repeatedly in 2020 about the advantages of pooled tests. Eventually pooled testing was approved but I haven’t seen data on how widely pooling was adopted or the effective increase in testing capacity that was produced. Lessons, however, offers an anecdote:
In San Antonio, a local charitable foundation paired with a blood bank to create a central Covid PCR testing lab (antigen tests were not yet readily available) that could combine samples (pooling) for efficiency and cost reduction, but also determine which individual in a pool was positive. Importantly, results were available within about twelve hours. That meant results were available before the start of school the new day.
The program helped San Antonio get kids back into the schools.
More generally, it’s striking that US schools were closed for far longer than French, German or Italian schools. See data at right on the number of weeks that “schools were closed, or party closed, to in-person instruction because of the pandemic (from Feb. 2020-March 2022)”. (South Korea, it should be noted, had some of the most advanced online education systems in the world.)
One general point made in Lessons that I wholeheartedly agree with this is that the school closures and many of the other controversial aspects of the pandemic response such as the lockdowns and mask mandates “were really symptoms of the deep problem. Without a more surgical toolkit, only blunt instruments were left.” With better testing, biomedical surveillance of the virus and honest communication we could have done better with much less intrusive and costly policies.
Addendum: See my previous reviews of Gottlieb’s Uncontrolled Spread, Michael Lewis’s The Premonition, Slavitt’s Preventable and Abutaleb and Paletta’s Nightmare Scenario.
Addendum 2: A typo in Lessons had France closing schools for 2 weeks instead of 12 weeks. Corrected.
Smile markets in everything, Japanese demasking edition
Thirty-seven people, including the elderly, took a smiling lesson to prepare for taking off their masks in public following three years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The instruction was held in the Akabane district in Tokyo’s Kita Ward on May 7, the day before the reclassification of COVID-19 to a less-severe category that includes the seasonal flu.
“With mask wearing having become the norm, people have had fewer opportunities to smile, and more and more people have developed a complex about it,” said Keiko Kawano, 49, the smile trainer who served as the instructor for the lesson.
“Moving and relaxing the facial muscles is the key to making a good smile,” she said.
Participants used hand mirrors to check their smiles.
Here is the full story, via John McLennan. Note that the Japanese mask requirement was dropped only in March.
Should we limit capital flows from America to China?
I am not thrilled with these policy proposals:
President Joe Biden is expected to issue an executive order next month restricting US investment in China, in part over concerns about US national security. Those concerns are valid, but the move would cede far too much arbitrary power to the federal government over capital flows and economic activity.
The policy will reportedly cover semiconductors, AI and quantum computing, and on the supply side it applies to venture capital, private equity and some technology transfers and joint ventures. It’s reminiscent of the proposed ban on TikTok. You can debate whether a bill that said “Ban TikTok” — and little else — would be a good idea. In reality, what was proposed would potentially criminalize a broad swath of internet activity in America.
Restrictions on capital flows to China would run into similar problems. On the surface, they would be addressing commonsensical national-security issues. Underneath, they would give the executive branch carte blanche to both punish foreign nations economically and to restrict domestic investors.
And this:
All said, it would be better for the US to devote resources to limiting Chinese espionage, or upgrading US supply chains and weapons systems. When it comes to relations with China, blocking its access to key weapons systems should be the priority.
Here is the full Bloomberg column.
Catawba Digital Economic Zone Passes Banking Code
The Catawba Digital Economic Zone (CDEZ), a project of the Catawba Indian Nation (I am an advisor), has passed a banking and financial services regulatory code. The code allows financial services companies and banks to receive charters to operate a bank similar to that offered by US states.
…The goal of the code is to create a “best-of-all-worlds” set of laws that will provide the Nation with: 1) a comprehensive legal code for the regulation of traditional and emerging digital financial activities; 2) legal terms that are already recognized and accepted by the federal government for access to the U.S. and global financial systems; and 3) provisions that enhance the Nation’s sovereignty and create competitive advantages for the Nation’s economic development.
To achieve these objectives, the foundation of the code synthesizes terms from the existing financial codes of three states: South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming. These state codes were selected as a starting point based on their commitment to regulating innovative financial activity to protect consumers and encourage responsible innovation.
The One-Child Policy and Intergenerational Mobility in China
We examine whether and how the world’s largest population planning program, the One-Child Policy, has shaped intergenerational mobility in China. Using a dataset with 2,096,798 childparent(s) pairs combined from various rounds of ten separate national household surveys, we leverage exogenous variation in fine rates imposed for One-Child Policy violations across provinces to study causal impacts of the One-Child Policy on intergenerational persistence. Using a continuous difference-in-differences approach, we find that for cohorts born between 1980 and 1996, the One-Child Policy reduced persistence in intergenerational income, education, and social class, comparing to those born prior to 1979. We estimate that the overall effect of the One-Child Policy fines was to reduce persistence in intergenerational income, education, and social class by 28.1%, 48.7%, and 24.8%, respectively. Analyzing mechanisms, we find that the One-Child Policy boosted China’s intergenerational mobility by diminishing elite family heirship, concentrating resources for lower-income families, and decreasing returns to education. The One-Child Policy has brought about a significant socioeconomic reshuffle that has reshaped the role of China’s longstanding class solidification.
That is from a recent paper by Shanthi Manian, Qi Zhang, and Bin Zhao. Via Linghui Han. Might some similar results be true for any other low-fertility societies? Or are the environments too disparate?
The link between economic concentration and political power?
Our findings do not support the political antitrust movement’s central hypothesis that there is an association between economic concentration and the concentration of lobbying power. We do not find a strong relationship between economic concentration and the concentration of lobbying expenditure at the industry level. Nor do we find a significant difference between top firms’ and other firms’ allocation of additional revenues to lobbying. And we find no evidence that increasing economic concentration has appreciably restricted the ability of smaller players to seek political influence through lobbying. Ultimately, our findings show that the political antitrust movement’s claims do not rest on a solid empirical foundation in the lobbying context. Our findings do not allay all concerns about transformation of economic power into political power, but they show that such transformation is not straightforward, and they counsel caution about reshaping antitrust law in the name of protecting democracy.
Here is the recent paper by Sepehr Shahshahani and Nolan McCarthy. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis. And yes, yes I know there is much more here than just lobbying expenditures, but that it doesn’t show up in that area…isn’t supportive.