Category: Political Science
Cass Sunstein on classical liberalism
Here’s what I want to emphasize. I like Hayek a lot less ambivalently than I once did, and von Mises, who once seemed to me a crude and irascible precursor of Hayek, now seems to me to be (mostly) a shining star (and sometimes fun, not least because of his crudeness and irascibility). The reason is simple: They were apostles of freedom. They believed in freedom from fear.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I did not see that clearly enough, because they seemed to me to be writing against a background that was sharp and visible to them, but that seemed murky and not so relevant to me — the background set by the 1930s and 1940s, for which Hitler and Stalin were defining. (After all, Hayek helped found the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947.)
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, socialist planning certainly did not seem like a good idea, not at all, but liberalism, as I saw it, had other and newer fish to fry. People like Rawls, Charles Larmore, Edna Ullmann-Margalit (in The Emergence of Norms), Jurgen Habermas (a past and present hero), Amartya Sen (also a past and present hero), Jon Elster (in Sour Grapes and Ulysses and the Sirens), and Susan Okin seemed (to me) to point the way.
I liked their forms of liberalism. Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein) seemed to be fighting old battles, and in important ways to be wrong. With respect to authoritarianism and tyranny, and the power of the state, of course they were right; but still, those battles seemed old.
But those battles never were old. In important ways, Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein, and Becker and Stigler) were right. Liberalism is a big tent. It’s much more than good to see them under it. It’s an honor to be there with them.
Here is the whole Substack, recommended. I am very much in accord with his sentiments here, running in both directions, namely both classical and “more modern” liberalism.
My Conversation with David Brooks
Held live at the 92nd St. Y, here is the video, audio, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
David Brooks returns to the show with a stark diagnosis of American culture. Having evolved from a Democratic socialist to a neoconservative to what he now calls “the rightward edge of the leftward tendency,” Brooks argues that America’s core problems aren’t economic but sociological—rooted in the destruction of our “secure base” of family, community, and moral order that once gave people existential security.
Tyler and David cover why young people are simultaneously the most rejected and most productive generation, smartphones and sex, the persuasiveness of AI vs novels, the loss of audacity, what made William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman great mentors, why academics should embrace the epistemology of the interview, the evolving status of neoconservatism, what Trump gets right, whether only war or mass movements can revive the American psyche, what will end the fertility crisis, the subject of his book, listener questions, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Now, you mentioned the Tanenhaus book. It’s striking because you appear as a character in the book. I know you haven’t gotten to that part yet, but surely you remember the reality that William F. Buckley was considering making you editor of National Review. What would your life have been like if you had received that offer? Would you have even taken it? What does that alternate universe look like?
BROOKS: The American conservative movement is going from strength to strength. Donald Trump is a failed real estate developer somewhere.
COWEN: [laughs]
BROOKS: I was never an orthodox National Review person, that kind of conservative. I was a neoconservative, which was different. Basically, you can tell what kind of conservative a person is by what year they want to go back to.
I’ve learned, especially from this Tanenhaus biography, that a lot of the old right National Review people wanted to go back to the 19th century. They were pre-New Deal. I never had a problem with the New Deal. I had some problems with some of the policies of the 1960s, and I was an urban kid. I was a New Yorker, and I was a Jew, and the magazine was Catholic. I’ve been told that one of the reasons I didn’t get the job was that reason.
COWEN: Tanenhaus says this.
BROOKS: Oh, does he?
COWEN: Yes.
BROOKS: Buckley was my mentor. We can tell that story, how that happened. I worked at National Review, and then I worked at the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I went from being an old right to being a free market, Wall Street Journal sort of person. I never had the opportunity to think for myself until I left those places and went to a place called the Weekly Standard. Suddenly, I could think for myself. It was funny how long — because I was in my 30s — before I really thought, “What do I believe?” Not how do I argue for the Wall Street Journal position on this, or the National Review position.
When I did that, I found I had two heroes. One was Edmund Burke, whose main idea is epistemological modesty. Change is really complicated, and we should be really cautious about what we think we can know about reality. The second was Alexander Hamilton, who’s a Puerto Rican hip-hop star from Washington Heights. Hamilton’s belief was using government in limited but energetic ways to create a dynamic country where poor boys and girls like him could rise and succeed.
That involves a lot more state intervention than National Review would be comfortable with. So, I became sort of a John McCain Republican. Now, another one of my other heroes is this guy named Isaiah Berlin, and toward the end of his life, Berlin said, “I’m very happy to be on the rightward edge of the leftward tendency.” That’s where I found myself today, as a conservative Democrat. I would not have fit in at National Review because I didn’t really hew to the gospel.
And:
COWEN: If you think about Buckley, where you disagree with him, and I don’t mean on particular issues — I feel I know that — but his method of thought, what is there in his method of thought where you would say, “I, David Brooks, diverge from Buckley in a fundamental way”?
BROOKS: His gift and his curse was that he couldn’t slow down his thinking. I would see him write a column in 20 minutes, and if he wrote it for an hour, it would get no better. He just moved at that speed. It takes me two days to write a column. It takes me 14, 20 hours. That’s one thing.
Second, he grew out of such a different background. His dad, as we know from this book, was an old right America Firster. My parents were Lower East Side New York intellectual progressives. I always felt at home in a diverse America, in a regular working-class America that was light years away from the world he inhabited.
COWEN: Your difference with Milton Friedman, again, not on specific issues such as the New Deal, but conceptually, how is it that you think differently from how Milton did?
BROOKS: Friedman — his great gift — and I think this is a libertarian gift — is that once you get inside their logical system, within their assumptive models, there’s no arguing with them. It all fits together. I don’t believe in assumptive models. I’m much less rational. I think human beings are much less rational than needed. I think they obviously respond to incentives in some ways, but often respond to incentives in no rational way. I’m, again, being more neoconservative than conservative, or more whatever you want to call it, a Humean.
I really do believe that David Hume’s famous sentence that reason is and ought to follow the passions — I believe that’s true, that our passions are wiser than our reasonable mind, and that our emotions, when well trained, are much more supple and much more responsible for the way we think. Again, I may be caricaturing, but the rational school of economics thought, well, you see the world, that simple process of looking, and then weigh costs and benefits about the world, and then you make a decision about the world, I don’t believe that’s the way thinking works.
Self-recommending!
The AI polity that is Albania?
While the rest of Europe bickers over the safety and scope of artificial intelligence, Albania is tapping it to accelerate its EU accession.
It’s even mulling an AI-run ministry.
Prime Minister Edi Rama mentioned AI last month as a tool to stamp out corruption and increase transparency, saying the technology could soon become the most efficient member of the Albanian government.
“One day, we might even have a ministry run entirely by AI,” Rama said at a July press conference while discussing digitalization. “That way, there would be no nepotism or conflicts of interest,” he argued.
Local developers could even work toward creating an AI model to elect as minister, which could lead the country to “be the first to have an entire government with AI ministers and a prime minister,” Rama added.
While no formal steps have been taken and Rama’s job is not yet officially up for grabs, the prime minister said the idea should be seriously considered…
AI is already being used in the administration to manage the thorny matter of public procurement, an area the EU has asked the government to shore up, as well as to analyze tax and customs transactions in real time, identifying irregularities.
Here is the whole Politico story, via Holger.
What do intelligence analysts do?
The people who are really good understand sourcing and how important it is for critical thinking. The education should be focused on helping people recognize and refute bullshit. Step one is the critical thinking necessary to say, “This makes no sense,” or “This is just fluff.” The people who are professionally trained to be really good at understanding the quality and history of a source, and to understand the source’s access to information or lack of, are librarians. We should probably steal shamelessly from librarians. Data journalism, same thing. There are lots of parallel professions where we could be learning more to improve our own performance.
The folks that I’ve seen who crush it, they’re like a dog with a bone. They will not let go. They’ve got a question, they’re going to answer the question if it kills them and everybody else around them. It’s a kamikaze thing. Those people, the tenacious ones who care about sources and have critical thinking skills, or at least tools to help them think critically, seem the highest performers to me. As a rule, they all keep score. It’s part of their process.
That is from Santi Ruiz interviewing Rob Johnston, interesting throughout.
A median voter theory of right-wing populism
From a recent paper:
Populists are often defined as those who claim that they fill “political representation gaps” -differences between the policymaking by established parties and the “popular will.” Research has largely neglected to what extent this claim is correct. I study descriptively whether representation gaps exist and their relationship with populism. To this end, I analyze the responses of citizens and parliamentarians from 27 European countries to identical survey policy questions, which I compile and verify to be indicative of voting in referendums. I find that policymaking represents the economic attitudes of citizens well. However, I document that the average parliamentarian is about 1SD more culturally liberal than the national mean voter. This cultural representation gap is systematic in four ways: i) it arises on nearly all cultural issues, ii) in nearly all countries, iii) nearly all established parties are more culturally liberal than the national mean voter, and iv) all major demographic groups tend to be more conservative than their parliamentarians. Moreover, I find that demographic differences between voters and parliamentarians or lack of political knowledge cannot fully account for representation gaps. Finally, I show that right-wing populists fill the cultural representation gap.
That is by Laurenz Guenther. I am myself (largely) a cultural liberal, so I am not siding with the right-wing populists here. But let us be clear what is going on. The right-wing populists are gaining ground in so many countries because the cultural liberals in various parliaments and congresses are extremely reluctant to meet the preferences of their median voters. On the immigration issue most of all. And then they wish to talk about threats to democracy!
The whole thing is really quite tragic. Whether you are willing to admit this state of affairs to yourself is one of the better measures of self-awareness in our current political environment. tekl.
Optimal Tariffs with Geopolitical Alignment
Here is a new NBER working paper:
As geopolitical tensions intensify, great powers often turn to trade policy to influence international alignment. We examine the optimal design of tariffs in a world where large countries care not only about economic welfare but also about the political allegiance of smaller states. We consider both a unipolar setting, where a single hegemon uses preferential trade agreements to attract partners, and a bipolar world, where two great powers compete for influence. In both scenarios, we derive optimal tariffs that balance terms-of-trade considerations with strategic incentives to encourage political alignment. We find that when geopolitical concerns are active, the optimal tariff exceeds the classic Mill-Bickerdike level. In a bipolar world, optimal tariffs reflect both economic and political rivalry, and may be strategic complements or substitutes. A calibration exercise using U.N. voting patterns, an estimate of the cost of buying votes in the U.N., and military spending suggests that geopolitical motives can significantly amplify protectionist pressures and that the emergence of a second great power can contribute to a retreat from globalization.
The authors are
“In the interests of realism, we also consider models where the government a) seeks to maximize returns from corrupt side-bargains, b) seeks to maximize public treasury revenue beyond an optimal level, for Leviathan-like reasons, and c) considers behavioral postulates for policymakers who have an ungrounded attachment to protectionist ideas. The results then change as follows…”
This is after all 2025, and economics is supposed to have a descriptive component. I will make two other points:
1. The paper’s insight about how and why the rise of China may have contributed to the shinking of the pace of globalization is quite valuable, and as far as I know original.
2. This shows once again how the economics profession produces research at least supposedly defending a degree of protectionism, and how its top (non-libertarian) contributors refuse to acknowledge that. At the same time, those people do not wish to consider public choice arguments of the sort that would overturn those conclusions, because such a public choice perspective would have unwelcome implications across a broader range of issues.
Let’s go the corruption and Leviathan and ideology postulate routes with the analysis, you’ll still end up with a good case against Trump. It’s just that it will force you to reexamine some of your other priors.
My excellent Conversation with Nate Silver
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Nate dive into expected utility theory and random Nash equilibria in poker, whether Silver’s tell-reading abilities transfer to real-world situations like NBA games, why academic writing has disappointed him, his move from atheism to agnosticism, the meta-rationality of risk-taking, electoral systems and their flaws, 2028 presidential candidates, why he thinks superforecasters will continue to outperform AI for the next decade, why more athletes haven’t come out as gay, redesigning the NBA, what mentors he needs now, the cultural and psychological peculiarities of Bay area intellectual communities, why Canada can’t win a Stanley Cup, the politics of immigration in Europe and America, what he’ll work on next, and more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: If you think about the Manifold types in terms of the framework in your book, how they think about risk — is there a common feature that they’re more risk-averse, or that they worry more? Is there a common feature that they like the idea that they hold some kind of secret knowledge that other people do not have? How do you classify them? They’re just high in openness, or what is it?
SILVER: They’re high in openness to experience. I think they’re very high in conscientiousness.
COWEN: Are they? I don’t know.
SILVER: Some of them are. Some of them are, yes.
COWEN: I think of them as high variance in conscientiousness, rather than high in it.
[laughter]
SILVER: The EAs and the rationalists are more high variance, I think. There can be a certain type of gullibility is one problem. I think, obviously, EA took a lot of hits for Sam Bankman-Fried, but if anything, they probably should have taken more reputational damage. That was really bad, and there were a lot of signs of it, including his interviews with you and other people like that. It contrasts with poker players who have similar phenotypes but are much more suspicious and much more street smart.
Also, the Bay Area is weird. I feel like the West Coast is diverging more from the rest of the country.
COWEN: I agree.
SILVER: It’s like a long way away. Just the mannerisms are different. You go to a small thing. You go to a house party in the Bay Area. There may not be very much wine, for example. In New York, if the host isn’t drinking, then it’d be considered sacrilege not to have plenty of booze at a party. Little things like that, little cultural norms. You go to Seattle — it feels like Canada to me almost, and so these things are diverging more.
COWEN: Why is belief in doom correlated with practice of polyamory? And I think it is.
SILVER: If you ask Aella, I guess, she might say, if we’re all going to die or go to whatever singularity there is, we might as well have fun in the meantime. There’s some of that kind of hedonism. Although in general, it’s not a super hedonistic movement.
COWEN: It seems too economistic to me. Even I, the economist — I don’t feel people think that economistically. There’s more likely some psychological predisposition toward both views.
SILVER: I guess you could argue that society would be better organized in a more polyamorous relationship. People do it implicitly in a lot of ways anyway, including in the LGBTQ [laughs] community, which has different attitudes toward it potentially. and if there’s not as much childbearing, that can have an effect, potentially. I think it’s like they are not being constrained by their own society thing that is taken very seriously in that group. There’s enough disconnectedness and aloofness where they’re able to play it out in practice more.
That creeps a little bit into Silicon Valley too, which can be much more whimsical and fanciful than the Wall Street types I know, for example.
Recommended. Here is my 2024 episode with Nate, here is my 2016 episode with him.
*Saving Can-Do*
The author is Philip K. Howard and the subtitle is How to Revive the Spirit of America. The book is short, to the point, in the “abundance + state capacity” genre. Excerpt, noting I will not double indent:
“Three major changes are needed to restore the authority to achieve results: a new legal framework, a new institution that can inspire trust in ongoing decisions, and a special commission to design the details of these changes.
New legal framework defining official authority.
Here’s a sketch of what a new infrastructure decision-making framework might look like:
- Separate agencies should be designated as decision-makers for each category of infrastructure. The head of that agency should have authority to approve permits. For federal approvals, all decisions should be subject to White House oversight. For projects with national or reigonal significance, federal decisions should preempty state and local approvals.
- Fifty years of accumulated mandates from multiple agencies should be restated as public goals that can be balanced against other public goals….a recodification commission is needed to reframe thousands of pages of detailed regulatory prescriptions into codes that are goal-oriented and honor public tradeoffs. But unti this canhappen, Congress should authoritze the executive brranch to approve permits “notwithstanding provisions of law to the contrary” — provided the executive branch identifies the relevanto provisions and provides a short statement of why the approvals are in the public interest.
- Processes should be mainly tools for transparency and should be understood by courts as general principles reviewed for abuse of discretion, not as rules requiring strict compliance. NEPA has been effectively rewritten by judicial fitat, so it should be amended to return to its original goals — to provide enviromental transparency, public comment, and a political judgment.
- The jurisdiction of courts must be sharply limited. Lawsuits should be allowed foro approvals that transgress boundaries of executive responsbility, not inadequate review of process, unless these are so deficient as to be arbitrary.
Changing law is always politicall difficult, but the second challenge is perhaps even harder: creating new institutions that can inspire trust.”
TC again: All worth a ponder.
Personalism and the returns to democracy
Studies of income and regime type typically contrast democracies and autocracies, ignoring heterogeneity in the character of authoritarian regimes. We focus on the consequences of personalist rule, where power is concentrated in an individual or small elite. Extending the dynamic panel strategy of Acemoglu, Naidu, Restrepo, and Robinson (2019), we estimate the differential growth performance of democracies, institutionalized autocracies, and personalist autocracies. Across eight GDP series, eight autocracy codings, and six measures of personalism, we observe a consistent pattern: Whenever an “autocratic penalty” emerges, it is concentrated in personalist regimes. The growth performance of institutionalized dictatorships, in contrast, is statistically indistinguishable from that of democracies. We document evidence that the “personalist penalty” is driven by some combination of low private investment, poor public-goods provision, and conflict. These findings emphasize the analytic payoff of unpacking autocracy and highlight the different incentives facing leaders with narrow and broad bases of power.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Christopher Blattman, Scott Gehlbach, and Zeyang Yu.
My entertaining Conversation with Annie Jacobsen
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Annie explore whether we should be more afraid of nuclear weapons or if fear itself raises the risks, who should advise presidents during the six-minute decision window, whether moving toward disarmament makes us safer or more vulnerable, what Thomas Schelling really meant about nuclear war and rational actors, the probability that America would retaliate after a nuclear attack, the chances of intercepting a single incoming ICBM, why missile defense systems can’t replicate Israel’s Iron Dome success, how Pakistan-India nuclear tensions could escalate, why she’s surprised domestic drone attacks haven’t happened yet, her reporting on JFK assassination mysteries and deathbed phone calls, her views on UFOs and the dark human experiments at Area 51, what motivates intelligence community operators, her encounters with Uri Geller and CIA psychic research, what she’s working on next, and more.
Excerpt:
JACOBSEN: I quote him in the notes of my book, and this is perhaps the only regret I have in the entire book, that I put this quote from Schelling in the notes rather than in the text. Maybe it’s more interesting for your listeners if we drill down on this than the big platitudes of, “Do more nuclear weapons make us more safe?” It goes like this. This was Schelling in an interview with WGBH Radio in 1986 in Boston.
He says, “The problem with applying game theory to nuclear war is that nuclear war, by its very nature, does not involve rational men. It can’t. What sane person would be willing to kill hundreds of millions of people, ruin the earth, and end modern civilization in order to make somebody called the enemy doesn’t win first?”
COWEN: But Schelling did favor nuclear weapons. That was his dark sense of humor, I would say.
JACOBSEN: You think what I just read was his sense of humor?
COWEN: Absolutely.
JACOBSEN: I believe it was a man in his elder years coming to the conclusion that nuclear war is insane, which is the fundamental premise that I make in the book.
COWEN: You can hold both views. It is insane, but it might be the better insanity of the ones available to us.
JACOBSEN: Yes. From my take, he, like so many others that I have interviewed, because, for some reason — call it fate and circumstance — I have spent my career interviewing men in their 80s and 90s, who are defense officials who spent their entire life making war or preventing war. I watch them share with me their reflections in that third act of their life, which are decidedly different — in their own words — than those that they would have made as a younger man.
I find that fascinating, and that’s my takeaway from the Schelling quote, that he came to terms with the fact that intellectualizing game theory — like von Neumann, who never got to his old age — is madness.
COWEN: Let’s say that Russia or China, by mistake, did a full-scale launch toward the United States, and they couldn’t call the things back, and we’re in that six-minute window, or whatever it would be with hypersonics. What do you think is the probability that we would do a full-scale launch back?
…COWEN: The word madness doesn’t have much force with me. My life is a lot of different kinds of madness. I’ve heard people say marriage is madness. A lot of social conventions seem to me to be madness.
The question is getting the least harmful form of madness out there. Then, I’m not convinced that those who wish to disarm have really made their case. Certainly, saying nuclear war is madness doesn’t persuade me. If anything, if enough people think it’s madness, we won’t get it, and it’s fine to have the nuclear weapons.
A different and quite stimulating episode.
Solve for the equilibrium
The title of the paper is “Terrorism and Voting: The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Germany.” Here is the abstract:
We document that right-wing terrorism leads to significant increases in vote share for the right-wing, populist AfD (Alternative fur Deutschland) party in Germany. To identify causal effects, we exploit quasi-random variation between successful and failed attacks across municipalities. Using the SOEP, a longitudinal panel of individuals, we find successful terror leads individuals to prefer the AfD and worry about migration. Political parties—the AfD in particular—adjust their messaging in election manifestos in response to terror. Overall, and in contrast to previous work, we find terrorism is consequential to the rise of right-wing populism in a Western, multiparty democratic system.
Note that is “right-wing terrorism,” not Islamic terrorism. The piece is by Navid Sabet, Marius Liebald, and Guido Friebel.
Why the tariffs are bad
I am delighted to see this excellent analysis in the NYT:
Mr. Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president.
“Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn’t have to vote on tariffs in the first place,” Mr. Tedeschi said.
Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Mr. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. “We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,” Mr. Trump said last month of the tariffs.
Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy.
“That’s a hefty chunk of change,” Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. “The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that ‘these will be impossible to withdraw.’ It’s: ‘Oh look, there’s now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.’”
That is from Andrew Duehren, bravo.
In which ways is the BLS biased?
No, they do not sit around changing the numbers to serve the interests of Democratic presidents, or to harm Republican ones. The system has too many different steps, too many checks and balances, and too many people who do not want to do the wrong thing. In a sense, you could say that the BLS is too bureaucratic to do that. They are better thought of as an agency which maximizes process, and the successful execution of process, success being defined in heavily process-intensive terms.
Their ideology, if that is even the right word, is to maximize adherence to the process. And “defensibility of the estimate” is important there.
You might argue they are not very good at seeing “the big picture,” but that same emphasis makes it difficult for them to deviate much from established procedures.
If there were important reasons why we should be creating new, useful, but highly speculative estimates (how about “the number of jobs that were not created because of AI”?), the BLS would not be good at doing that. They would not do it at all. Such estimates would open them up to too much criticism, and the speculative nature of the enterprise would clash with their desire to be managing controllable and defensible processes.
Over the last twenty years, a lot of their innovations have come in the form of disaggregated, sector-specific or region-specific data, which is fine. Or more emphasis on “work from home” issues. Which is fine.
So they estimate “that which they can,” rather than producing unreliable estimates that might be highly interesting.
That is the sense in which the BLS — and many other parts of the government in fact — is biased. It can matter, but it is a mistake to be looking for partisan bias that skews the numbers.
From the comments, on language preferences
Those wanting good, efficient government are not doing so well this century.
That is from Paco. The rest of the comment is a bit more specific:
In Spain, language politics are a key way to get your friends government jobs: When you manage to make regional language proficiency mandatory on any of said jobs, from schoolteacher up, and make the regional language the only language schools will teach on, you basically get a political cleansing of the institutions. Catalonia also pays those people quite a bit better than other regions: Not good for the budget (although now they get to hand the debt to Spain while they keep the taxes!), but it’s great for clientelism. Love your region, speak your regional language over all, get rewarded economically.
This is why you have similar schemes in every region that can get away with it: It’s just jobs for your friends. But that also translates to worse English for everyone, a language that might actually help do better in the long run. They call it maintaining the culture, I call it grift.
Then we’ll hear them all complain about Madrid’s corruption, when the 3% “friend tax” on basically any catalonian government contract, or anything large that needed a permit was documented for decades. It’s a key disease all across Spain. Blaiming Madrid made great sense circa 1920s or 30s, where it was just a bureaucratic capital with no industry of any sort. But now it’s the largest economic engine of the nation, largely because they are the closest to an economically liberal area.
As for the economists, it’s easy: They are inclined to any pro-independent movement that claims oppression, for any reason. At that point that cause is on their team, and careful analysis disappears. I bet you can all find an example or two of people justifying the waste and corruption elsewhere, just due to association.
Should Catalonia receive more financial independence?
Jesús details how Spain already operates one of the most decentralized fiscal systems in the world, “more latitude than most U.S. states,” he notes, yet Catalonia now seeks the bespoke privileges long enjoyed by the Basque Country and Navarra. The Regional Authority Index rates how much self‑rule and shared rule each country’s sub‑national governments actually wield. In its last update the index places Spain as the most decentralized unitary state in the sample and fourth overall among 96 countries.
Those northern provinces collect every euro on their own soil and forward a modest remittance to the central treasury, a setup that Fernández‑Villaverde brands “a Confederate relic.” Extending it to Catalonia, he argues, would hollow out Spain’s common‑pool finances, deepen inter‑regional resentment and erode the principle of equal citizenship, while turning the national revenue service into little more than a mailbox for provincial checks.
That is from the episode summary of a podcast of Rasheed Griffith with Jesús Fernandez-Villaverde. On the Catalan language, matters look grim in any case:
Right now around only 55% of births in Catalonia are born from a mother that was born, actually not even Catalan, that was born in Spain. That basically tells you that only 40, 45%, perhaps even a little bit less of mothers that were born in Spain speak Catalan at home. At this moment, I will say that less than 30, 28% of kids born in Cataluña, perhaps even less, will speak Catalan at home.
It amazes me how many people ignore the reality that a host of leading economists led or endorsed a constitution-violating movement to separate Catalonia from the rest of Spain and not long ago. The podcast will tell you more. It is also interesting throughout, including on Spanish history since the 19th century.