Category: Political Science
Uganda fact of the day
At 71 members strong, Uganda has the third largest cabinet in the world after North Korea and Kenya. This is in circumstances where the global average of ministers is 30. The average for Sub-Saharan Africa is 40. Even by regional standards, apart from Kenya, the average in the East African community is 30 as Tanzania has 34, Rwanda 27 and Burundi 29. Even among Africa’s oil producing countries, Uganda retains the gold medal – only Nigeria comes close with 54 cabinet ministers. The rest of the oil producing countries have ministers in the mid 40s.
Here is more and for the pointer I thank Michael Orthofer. Is there a literature on when cabinet positions are the most effective ways of distributing political rents?
Markets in everything
Bosses at Washington's cash-strapped public transportation service are mulling selling "naming rights" for Metro stations as a way of filling a budget gap, a spokesman said Friday.
"We're looking at a possible $72 million dollar shortfall in our budget for the upcoming year, and so we're looking for creative ways to try to close that deficit," Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel told AFP.
"One idea would be station naming rights," where corporate entities buy the right to have their brand associated with one of Metro's 86 stations.
There are precedents:
Philadelphia has sold telecoms giant AT&T the rights to a station for $3 million, and Barclays can append its name to a station in Brooklyn, New York after buying the naming rights reportedly for $4 million for 20 years.
In Washington, Metro thinks selling station naming rights will help to raise around two million dollars.
For 86 stations, that doesn't seem very good to me. The full story is here and for the pointer I thank Daniel Lippman. There are now jokes like "Big-Macpherson Square" stop and the like.
*Theories of International Politics and Zombies*
That is a new pocket-sized book by the excellent Daniel Drezner and it is indeed about zombies:
It is indeed to neoconservatism's credit that its doctrine is consistent with extant work on how best to respond to the zombie menace. A war against zombies would, surely, be a war against evil itself.
Here is Dan's preview of the book. A few days ago a loyal MR reader wrote to me and asked, if I were surrounded by a hoard of zombies, and could have only one weapon to fend them off, what would it be? The answer is obvious: the rule of law. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment against zombies.
What happened to all the hard-core left bloggers?
Some of you want more comment on this Freddie deBoer piece on why the harder left is underrepresented in the blogosphere. Here is RortyBomb, here is Matt, both good responses. Here is a one-sentence excerpt from the original:
The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.
My thoughts turn to the market-oriented and right-wing sides of the blogosphere. I see a few approaches out there:
1. Hold strongly to a pure free market line, but not much consider the toughest issues, starting with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and finishing with the inability of government to precommit to a lot of policies which might work as rules but never can be rules. There are plenty of easy issues to focus on, starting with farm policy and free trade and on those the market-oriented point of view is a slam dunk.
2. Hold forth on the really tough issues, take what is considered an extreme point of view, and not convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. These bloggers also frequently find that their arguments are sufficiently a priori that a) they don't have much to say about new developments in the world, and b) their arguments end up being repeated and do not evolve much. Even if you think those are good intellectual qualities when truth is on your side, you probably can see that they will not attract the largest or broadest of audiences. A popular blog needs more of a plot.
3. Give ground on the tough issues, honestly and sincerely.
4. Focus on lowering the relative status of people on the other side of the debate. This serves some functions similar to #1 and of course there is a large supply of targets.
If a lot of left-wing bloggers are following #3, that is very good (I don't pretend to judge what is a very large canvas) and we can root for that practice to spread, including of course to non-left-wing bloggers.
Freddie deBoer seems to be very smart. I had never heard of him before, which I suppose means he is not extremely famous as a blogger. So let's see how he evolves when it comes to his critique that "labor rights are undercut everywhere for the creation of economic growth" in an ongoing debate with some people who know more about it than he does. He shows much better rhetorical skill than he does an understanding of labor economics.
Who exactly are the exiled left-wing (or right-wing) bloggers who deserve more attention? From deBoer, there is a mention of Daily Kos and I checked in there again (I hadn't for years) and I wasn't exactly awestruck at the content. Nor was it obvious to me that it was extremely left-wing.
I will readily grant that points of view can be stronger than they appear in a blogosphere debate and it is worth thinking through the biases here. Arguably the more serious corners of the blogosphere overencourage moderate, "defensible" positions, with few weak spots for obvious bone-crushing attacks, "gotchas," and charges of apparent moral turpitude from onlooking scolders. Still, that incentive is mostly a healthy one. Whether the blogosphere as a whole encourages moderation, I am not sure. But the better corners of it certainly do and that should be counted as one of its virtues.
Where in the federal government do the economists work?
There has been so much talk lately about ethics and economists and now there is a whole new book out it, the new and useful The Economist's Oath: On the Need for and Content of Professional Economic Ethics, by George F. DeMartino. I was intrigued and surprised by the p.24 chart about where economists (as defined by title, not Ph.d.) work in the federal government, not counting the Federal Reserve System.
1. Department of Labor, 1262 economists, 30.5 percent of the total, 1208 of those are at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2. Agriculture, 533 economists
3. Treasury, 473
4. Commerce, 462
5. Defense, 225
6. Energy, 168
7. EPA, 163 (is that enough?)
8. HHS, 137
9. Transportation, 88
10. Interior, 86
11. FTC, 74
12. HUD, 62
13. Justice, 61
14. FDIC, 61 (do bank examiners produce the real value there?)
15. All others, 275. The total is 4130 economists in the Federal government, as of 2008, and I believe those numbers are not counting consultants.
Should we make them swear an oath not to act against the truths of their discipline for political gain?
*The Return*
The author is Daniel Treisman and the subtitle is Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev. Is this the first non-fiction book to be making my "Best of 2011" list? Most of all, it argues persuasively that, rather than botching the transition away from communism, the Russians/Soviets did a remarkably good job, relative to what could have been expected. It's also the best all-round book-length treatment of what the subtitle indicates and it is readable as well. Excerpt:
But [under Putin] did the bureaucracy become more effective and the population safer? The state certainly grew. In Putin's eight years as president, about 363,000 additional bureaucrats were hired, mostly federal agents stationed in the regions. Law enforcement mushroomed. In the United States, there are two judges and prosecutorial employees per 10,000 residents. When Putin took over, Russia had eight; when he left, it had fourteen. Federal spending on law enforcement and national security rose from $4 billion in 1998 to $26 billion in 2007.
Despite this influx of resources, most indicators suggest the state became less, not more, effective. It built less housing, paved fewer roads, and laid fewer water mains and gas lines per year than under Yeltsin. The number of public schools and buses in service fell faster than before. Reforms of the education and health systems were repeatedly postponed…As for keeping citizens safe, few saw any improvement.
Here is a recent review of the book from the WSJ; I liked the book more than he did.
What Belarus is really like
A hunter in Belarus was shot in the leg by a fox that he had wounded and was trying to kill.
The man was trying to finish the animal off with the butt of his rifle, but as the pair struggled the fox got its paw on the trigger of the gun and fired a shot.
Prosecutors from the Grodno region said the unnamed hunter ended up in hospital with a leg wound.
"The animal fiercely resisted and in the struggle accidentally pulled the trigger with its paw," the Telegraph quoted one prosecutor as saying.
The link is here, other versions of the story are here. It is said that the fox got away.
Liberal Compromise and Conservative Power
Paul Krugman has complained bitterly that Obama has compromised the progressive agenda. A new Gallup poll shows that such compromise may be an almost inevitable result of conservative and liberal ideologies.
Gallup recently polled a sample of Americans on whether it was more important for politicians to stick with their beliefs, even if little is accomplished, or compromise and get something done. Very conservative Americans were markedly more in favor of politicians sticking with their beliefs while very liberal Americans voted for compromise.
Importantly, this tells us not just about the beliefs of conservatives and liberals but about the incentives of conservative and liberal politicians. Conservative politicians face a high price of compromise and liberal politicians face a low price. Moreover, everyone knows this so conservative politicians can credibly commit that they will not compromise while liberal politicians cannot. As a result, liberals compromise more than conservatives.
If you can pull it off, credibly commiting not to compromise is a neat trick because you can get more of what you want even without an increase in basic aspects of political power such as votes. But where does the credibility originate? Is it inherent to the respective ideologies? The term conservative certainly suggests an unwillingness to change let alone compromise. Or, to turn full circle, perhaps conservative politicians are better at using apocalyptic rhetoric to instill anti-compromise feeling in their constitutients which in turn gives conservative politicians greater power.
Hat tip to L. Indyk.
The problem
Via Bob Cottrell:
"This is the place," he says. "The economy is booming and there's a real vibe. My son and I went to Ukraine recently and everyone was saying to us: 'Can we have the Belarus president in charge here for a year?'"
It's not difficult to see why. Unlike Ukraine and Russia, Belarus's economy is not dominated by billionaire oligarchs. There is no underclass: according to UN figures, Belarus has one of the lowest levels of social inequality in the world. Lukashenko wins elections not through fear, but because he has delivered social protection and rising standards of living. Growth now stands at 7 per cent.
The danger, some feel, is that a move towards a more market-oriented economy will destroy these achievements, and leave Belarusians sharing the same bitter-sweet jokes as their fellow eastern Europeans.
The full article is here. But look here for per capita income:
Belarus: $1248.60 per person (update: correction here)
If you want proof that F.A. Hayek is a brilliant and important thinker, there it is. On the brighter side, not everyone lives in Belarus.
*Monocle* and high-altitude cities
Edition Alpino, for this month's issue. I had not known there was a periodical called Monocle and now I have a piece in it, next to the ads for fancy watches and articles geared toward the European elite. (Given the business model of this periodical, I believe the piece will never be on-line.) There is also an article "Radio: Four modern alternatives to Alpine horn blowing." And "Monocle goes on snow patrol with the Federal Republic's Gebirgsjägerbrigade, the traditional Alpine troops with a very modern mission."
My fun but not very scholarly bit asks why so many cities of the far north are so pleasant to travel to, the task the editors set me. Doing the piece got me thinking why cold, high altitude cities such as La Paz and Kathmandu do not always offer the same virtues.
In high altitude cities it is harder to raise large herds of pack animals, cultivate broad agricultural plains, establish critical mass in terms of size, or trade with heighbouring regions. There are also fewer sea connections. If we look in Europe, the largest Swiss cities are near the plain rather than tucked into the Alps.
This may be historical accident, but two of the more successful high altitude cultures came in the New World, namely the Incas and the Aztec alliance. Is that because domesticated animals were less important on this side of the Atlantic? That tomatoes and potatoes and corn can do well or better at high altitudes? In and near Tenochitlan of course, the Nahuas built their own extensive network of canals.
Economics and Michel Foucault
Joshua Miller, a loyal MR reader, asks:
Another cut on local knowledge: what is economics' relationship to Michel Foucault? Often I see folks like you and Hanson making points that the rest of the social sciences and humanities would call Foucauldian, about the role of disciplinary power in knowledge-production, but you don't seem to ever reference or perhaps even read him. Perhaps he is simply not considered very interesting? Given the fact that there is some history of economics in his "Les Mots and les choses," I'd think there'd be more of an attempt to discredit or claim him.
Foucault is interesting, but use him with caution. Most of his books have not held up very well as history, even if he succeeded in drawing people's attention to some neglected factors. On top of that, his theoretical framework is incoherent. Try reading The Archaeology of Knowledge. I find The Order of Things to be an insightful but skewed account of the seventeenth century; detailed objections aside, it goes astray by assuming, implicitly, explicitly or otherwise, that structural categories somehow interact with each other in the world of ideas. It's much more micro and disaggregated than he lets on, but still I am glad I read the book. This volume is a good, readable introduction to his work.
Perhaps Foucault is best on prisons and hospitals, though again caveat emptor on the history. His most valuable insight, both theoretically and historically, is that what appears to be "enlightenment" (or for that matter "Enlightenment") is often anything but.
Foucault is important, and he deserves to be read, but I am not sure he will be much read fifty years from now. I also view "engaging with him" as a much overdone and much overrated exercise, carried in large part by the less salubrious tendencies in Continental and U.S. humanities scholarly discourse. It is better to simply work on the topics he cared about, using his books as a reminder to consider some different angles.
Did you know that Foucault — at least the late Foucault — appreciated Mises, Hayek, and Friedman?
Explaining France, a reader request
France. Explain
By which I mean this: relying solely on prejudice and snippets of information, it would seem to me that France should be an economic backwater. The rate of taxation, cost of labor, early pension age, large public sector, high welfare payments, etc., none of this suggests a highly dynamic and performative economy fit for the 21st century. Certainly, it would seem, nobody would use France as a model for restructuring their economy, but the country does seem to emerge from each crisis more or less unscathed, and remains highly prosperous, with an admirable quality of life. Why is this? What are they doing right? Are they just lucky? Or (more likely) am I just poorly informed?
In all fairness, previous talk of a "Franco-German economic alliance" has dwindled and Germany is now seen as the key to EU financial decision-making. And France has gone from the world's number one cultural power to a minor player. Still, the French economy has held up relatively well. A few points:
1. The French elite work very hard and are educated very well.
2. Contrary to stereotype, France has arguably the strongest work ethic in the world. Given the rates of taxation, and the difficulty of being fired, most people still do a fair amount of work and they do it fairly well. If that's not a work ethic, what is?
3. Esteem and approbation are especially important in France, as incentives. This is one reason, not always voiced as such, why immigration in such an issue there. It breaks down prevailing forms of status competition.
4. France has been well-positioned to benefit from the growth and economic integration of Europe. The more open the economy, the less domestic economic policy matters.
5. The French are very smart and able, and have been so for a long time. You'll note that a wide variety of French companies, whether Dannon or Carrefour, do well around the world. The French are preeminent globalizers.
6. The foreigners' view of France, and its charm, would be very different if all of the country's buildings dated from after World War II.
7. The French are the very best, and wisest, consumers in the entire world, whether it be for clothing, music, food, or for that matter Hollywood movies and American blues and jazz. The French government tries to influence this activity, or put up some nominal protectionist measures, but for the most part this French specialty and strength remains unregulated. It helps account for the very high living standard there.
8. If you see a "World Music" recording from a French record label, buy it.
Personally, what I find most distressing about France is the limited number of dimensions for status competition. Very often there is one right way to do things, to dress, and so on. But that's also part of what makes the place work.
Witches vs Vampires
Everyone curses the tax man, but Romanian witches angry about having to pay up for the first time hurled poisonous mandrake into the Danube River on Thursday to cast spells on the president and government.
Hat tip: Monique van Hoek.
We are less willing to help the victims of man-made disasters
People are more willing to donate money to help victims of natural, as opposed to man-made, disasters. Hanna Zagefka and her team found this is because people generally perceive victims caught up in man-made disasters to be more responsible for their predicament and to be less active in helping themselves, as compared with victims of natural disasters.
There is much more here.
*The World in 2050*
The author is Laurence C. Smith and the subtitle is Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future.
This book is excellent on at least two questions:
1. Which environmental problems remain real, even taking into account the dynamic adjustment properties of markets?
2. Why the northern countries will grow in economic and political importance over the next forty years.
Excerpt:
Extraction industries will favor projects nearer the water. Looking ahead, our northern future is one of diminishing access by land, but rising access by sea. For many remote interior landscapes, the perhaps surprising prospect I see is reduced human presence and their return to a wilder state.
My main criticism of this book is that it does not direct enough criticism at government water subsidies and their role in worsening this environmental problem.
Here is the book's rather non-Hayekian close:
No doubt we humans will survive anything, even if polar bears and Arctic cod do not. Perhaps we could support nine hundred billion if we choose a world with no large animals, pod apartments, genetically engineered to algae to eat, and desalinized toilet water to drink. Or perhaps nine hundred million if we choose a wilder planet, generously restocked with the creatures of our design. To be, the more important question is not of capacity but of desire: What kind of world do we want?
Definitely worth the read. I don't agree with everything here, but this is a book (very well-written by the way) which should be making a splash. For the pointer I thank a loyal MR commentator.