Category: Political Science
*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.
My pre-election column on Obama
Guessing the “true economic views” of Barack Obama has become a small industry in the United States and also around the world. I’ve met people who are convinced that he is a radical left-winger and that his parents were 1960s communists. I’ve met others who claim Obama absorbed lots of free market economics at the University of Chicago, during his time as a Law Professor there. In this view he is a conservative stealth candidate who will surprise many of his left-wing supporters.
Obama’s voting record in the Senate is relatively but not radically left-wing. But since he’s been planning on the Presidency for years, that recent experience does not settle the question.
My view of Obama’s economics is a simple and straightforward one and it is consistent with his public pronouncements. I view him as an economic pragmatist who is willing to borrow good ideas from many sources. He stands further to the left than do most Americans (myself included) but he has lined up the very best economic talent to advise him.
Since politicians are so often professional liars, why should we take Obama’s proclaimed pragmatism seriously?
If you read’s Obama first memoir, which he wrote before he was a public figure, issues of race and identity dominate. He is acutely aware of being a mixed-race person in a community of largely white American leaders. Most of all, I think Obama wants to do a good job as President and he wants to be seen as having done a good job. That would pave the way for improved race relations and also, although Obama would not use these words, it would bring higher status for African-Americans. When it comes to his subconscious emotions, I see Obama as more attached to the notion of excelling than to any particular view of economic policy.
Keep in mind that Obama was raised by a white mother (the black father was absent) and he “decided to be black,” and to marry a black woman and attend a black church, only later in his life. Oddly, his hopes for improved race relations are the hopes that would be held by a utopian white liberal rather than the vision held by most African-Americans. That is one reason why African-Americans were initially so slow to support him and why so many educated white elites feel so at home with him.
Obama is also famously detached and it seems he never loses his cool. He does not drink up ideology like a drug but instead is focused on creating his own personal success. That implies a very strong ego but also again a economic and also a foreign policy pragmatism, in the good sense. If Obama is elected, I expect the major economic storyline to be Obama pushing policies in the national interest (as he perceives it) and Congress pushing back with earmarked expenditures and special privileges for interest groups.
There is plenty of talk about Obama being half-black but perhaps the more important fact is that Obama is from Hawaii. Hawaiians barely think of themselves as North Americans and they do live many miles from the continent. The Hawaiian background is part of where Obama’s cosmopolitanism – which is strong and sincere – comes from.
My description may sound like a very favorable portrait of Obama on economics but he will likely encounter serious problems if he wins the election. The important American Presidents are those like Reagan who “know a few big things” and push them unceasingly, without much regard for the pragmatic or even the reasonable. Obama is not used to connecting with mainstream America. Congress will test him and push him around. There’s a very small chance that he makes big mistakes, but at this point the best prediction is that he will be ineffective in tackling many of America’s biggest problems.
End of column, a few notes: There was no room for citations (my apologies!), it was written for a non-American audience, and I will look for my McCain draft as well.
Advice for a future regulator
WW, a loyal MR reader, emailed me a request:
My friend recently accepted a fellowship at REDACTED and will be starting in a few months. I was wondering what advice or reading suggestions you might have for a future component of the regulatory regime.
I am assuming this is not a "policy level" position. I suggest these pointers:
1. Ponder whether you actually wish to move up into a managerial position over time. Your job will change a lot and your headaches will increase. Inertia will push you in this direction, but don't take it for granted.
2. Figure out in advance what kinds of cognitive capture you will be subject to, and whether you wish to fight or embrace them.
3. Watch Kurosawa's movie Ikiru, about a dying Japanese bureaucrat and his final quest for meaning.
4. Keep on reading within the field you work on. There will be a tendency to assume you "know it all," but the perspectives of outsiders will remain valuable, even if they commit stupid blunders on some of the details.
5. If you don't already know, learn the value of ambiguity and how to build alliances in the workplace. Many people remain bad at these skills.
What else can you all think of?
Addendum: David Henderson has more.
Joseph Gibson on how to improve Congress
Chug refers me to this new book. A few of the ideas are:
1. Make Congress a temporary job, a bit more like jury duty or serving in the military.
2. Allow all financial contributions but require full disclosure on the internet.
3. Lower or eliminate the fixed allotment for Congressional staff, to limit the "bubble" which surrounds Congressmen.
4. Do not allow fundraising while Congress is in session, to make sessions more urgent.
5. Require that bills be written in plain English.
6. Allow formal vote-trading, so minority legislators could have some prospect of promoting their better ideas.
7. Make it easier to repeal unnecessary laws.
8. Eliminate the "hold" and make filibusters much harder.
9. Make confirmations quicker and easier.
10. Make the House smaller.
There is more, but that is a start.
In general I find Congressional reform proposals, including filibuster abolition, difficult to evaluate. There is no simple model at hand. Sometimes the median voter model is useful, but in most cases it implies the reforms don't matter, a conclusion which I would not wish to accept so readily. Multi-dimensional cycling models often imply that either a) it still doesn't matter (the agenda setter remains in charge), or b) it matters some huge amount in a way which is difficult to forecast but the entire political equilibrium can shift and not just locally.
There are many "near median voter models," perhaps too many.
There is also the Becker QJE 1983 model about the bargaining power of different interest groups. Still, when it comes to outlining exactly how the procedural reforms shift the political bargain, we are again looking at a black box. The first cut version of the model seems to imply that political procedures don't much matter.
The overall problem is that plausible models generate either no changes or large, non-local changes. Maybe we should take those results seriously, but then in the former case it doesn't matter and in the then-more-relevant latter case we still can't predict the nature or even the direction of the non-local shift.
Markets in everything
There is only one legal gun store in all of Mexico, and the military serve as the clerks, and yet in the country guns are still bought and sold:
Alberto Islas, a security expert based in Mexico, said it is common knowledge that the easiest way for the average citizen to buy a gun is to ask a friendly local police officer.
"The cop will bring it to your house and show you how to load it," Islas said. "Of course, it is technically illegal."
Here is police reform in Mexico.
Women and alcohol
Is there a better blog post title? Here is the abstract of a new paper, "Women or Wine, Monogamy and Alcohol":
Intriguingly, across the world the main social groups which practice polygyny do not consume alcohol. We investigate whether there is a correlation between alcohol consumption and polygynous/monogamous arrangements, both over time and across cultures. Historically, we find a correlation between the shift from polygyny to monogamy and the growth of alcohol consumption. Cross-culturally we also find that monogamous societies consume more alcohol than polygynous societies in the preindustrial world. We provide a series of possible explanations to explain the positive correlation between monogamy and alcohol consumption over time and across societies.
That's by Mara Squicciarini and Jo Swinnen.