Category: Political Science
Ian Leslie on Olivier Roy and culture
Roy argues that culture in the sense we have understood it is being inexorably eroded. It’s not, as some of his countrymen believe, that one culture is being replaced by another – say, Christianity by Islam. It’s that all culture is being hollowed out by technology, data, globalisation, bureaucracy, and consumerist individualism. Local cultures, in the sense of finely patterned, shared sensibilities, automatically absorbed and deeply felt, are no match for these bulldozing, ‘deculturating’ forces.
We still need shared norms of behaviour in order to function as societies, however. So in place of implicit culture, he says, we have introduced explicit “norms”: rules of behaviour and speech which aren’t felt or intuited but articulated, coded for, and argued over endlessly. Without instinctive standards for behaviour we have to thrash everything out, from the correct use of pronouns to how to behave on public transport or dress for work. “Culture war” implies some kind of profound division between people, but in truth, suggests Roy, our differences are shallow and petty and all the more bad-tempered for it. Scrape away culture and what you’re left with is negotiation. Everything is politics.
Complex, evolved, layered social identities are being replaced by a series of boxes, with freedom consisting of the right to choose your box at any one time (think about the way that sexual identity is coded into an endlessly multiplying series of letters). The oddly shaped flora and fauna of culture have been reduced a series of “tokens” which we buy and display in order to position ourselves versus others. National cuisines, musical genres, styles of dress: these are all just tokens for us to collect and artfully assemble into a personal brand.
Here is the full essay. Here is my earlier post on Roy’s book.
Mexico political challenge of the day
When Mexicans arrive at voting booths next year to elect their judges for the first time, they face a unique and daunting task.
In the capital Mexico City, voters will have to choose judges for more than 150 positions, including on the Supreme Court, from a list of 1,000 candidates that most people have never heard of. For each of the 150 posts, space will be allotted for voters to write out individually the names of up to 10 preferred candidates.
Without makeshift solutions such as dividing up the judges into subdistricts, it could take 45 minutes just to fill in the ballot papers, one analyst estimated. Even with such fixes, voters will still have to choose from many dozens of unfamiliar names.
“It’s impossible,” said Jaime Olaiz-González, a constitutional theory professor at Mexico’s Universidad Panamericana. “In no country, not even the most backward, have they proposed a system like this.” The vote will be the culmination of a drive by the country’s leftwing nationalist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to radically overhaul a branch of the state that has frequently angered him by blocking his plans.
Here is more from Christine Murray from the FT. Garett Jones…telephone!
How to persuade to YIMBY?
Recent research finds that most people want lower housing prices but, contrary to expert consensus, do not believe that more supply would lower prices. This study tests the effects of four informational interventions on Americans’ beliefs about housing markets and associated policy preferences and political actions (writing to state lawmakers). Several of the interventions significantly and positively affected economic understanding and support for land-use liberalization, with standardized effect sizes of 0.15 − 0.3. The most impactful treatment—an educational video from an advocacy group—had effects 2-3 times larger than typical economics-information or political-messaging treatments. Learning about housing markets increased support for development among homeowners as much as renters, contrary to the “homevoter hypothesis.” The treatments did not significantly affect the probability of writing to lawmakers, but an off-plan analysis suggests that the advocacy video increased the number of messages asking for more market-rate housing.
Here is more from Christopher S. Elmendorf, Clayton Nall, and Stan Oklobdzija. Here is the video.
State capacity and economic development
I do not in general trust such methods, but the conclusions are not unwelcome to me:
I provide new empirical estimates of the effect of state capacity on economic development across countries over the period 1960–2022. Specifically, I construct a comprehensive state capacity index based on six different dimensions of effective state institutions available in the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset. Then, I estimate heterogeneous parameter models under a common factor framework. My empirical strategy explicitly allows the growth effect of state capacity to differ across countries and accounts for unobserved common factors. My preferred estimates indicate that a one-standard-deviation increase in my V-Dem-based state capacity index predicts a rise in income per person by roughly 6%–7%. The magnitude of such impact equates to less than half of that implied by conventional estimates obtained under highly restrictive assumptions of slope homogeneity and cross-sectional independence. Furthermore, I provide partial evidence suggesting that worldwide heterogeneity in the economic importance of state capacity is deeply rooted in prehistorically determined population diversity, state history, long-term relatedness between countries, and interpersonal trust.
That is from a new paper by Trung V. Vu, via the excellent Kevin Lewis. I am never sure if such results show anything more than “most good things come together at the macro level.”
India and the US
Good op-ed from Arthur Herman and Aparna Pande:
[H]ow America approaches its relations with India — the world’s largest democracy, its most populous nation and very soon its third-largest economy — may determine the balance of global power for the 21st century…As the U.S. looks for a strong strategic partner to contain China’s current hegemonic ambitions, India stands out as the one country whose economic might, military potential and political values can decisively shift the balance of power toward the U.S. and other democracies around the world.
Over 17 percent of the world’s population lives in India. India is poised to become the world’s third-largest economy by 2030 (its GDP stands at $3.94 trillion and is expected to hit $10 trillion by 2035). Its economic growth has stayed around 7 percent per year for the last decade, and it promises to remain robust in the future.
…As for cultural affinities with the U.S. and the West, it’s important to remember that India is the largest English-speaking nation in the world. It’s a vocal supporter of the global norms and multilateral trade institutions such as GATT and the WTO, which sustain a liberal global order.
…For the partnership to really deepen, however, there are important steps both sides must take.
First, India needs to open up its still relatively closed economy, a legacy from its socialist past. It needs to undertake the next generation of market reforms, bolster manufacturing, continue to build up its infrastructure and invest even more in its human capital. India also needs to increase its defense spending from the current 1.6 percent to 2.5 to 3 percent, and diversify its suppliers to include more important ones from Western countries, including the U.S.
Second, the U.S. would benefit from American companies treating the Indian market as their alternative to China in the civilian manufacturing, high-tech and defense-industrial spheres. We also need to respect the fact that as a post-colonial country with a world-class economy, and one with a 5,000-year-old civilization, India will always see itself as a global power, not as a junior American ally, with strategic interests separate from — albeit largely aligned with — those of the U.S.
The emergence of India as a global power will permanently alter the dynamic of competition between the U.S. and China. A president who can correctly guide a closer strategic partnership between India and America will not only counterbalance China’s global ambitions and economic and military might, but could trigger a new era of growth and prosperity for both countries — indeed, for all three.
Equality Act 2010
The UK’s Orwellian sounding Equality Act 2010 is strikingly Marxist. It demands equal pay for work of equal value where these are defined as follows:
A’s work is equal to that of B if it is like B’s work, rated as equivalent to B’s work, or of equal value to B’s work.
A’s work is like B’s work if A’s work and B’s work are the same or broadly similar, and such differences as there are between their work are not of practical importance in relation to the terms of their work.
…A’s work is rated as equivalent to B’s work if a job evaluation study— gives an equal value to A’s job and B’s job in terms of the demands made on a worker
…A’s work is of equal value to B’s work if it is neither like B’s work nor rated as equivalent to B’s work, but nevertheless equal to B’s work in terms of the demands made on A by reference to factors such as effort, skill and decision-making.
In short, supply and demand have been replaced by judges and labor boards with the authority to deem which jobs are “equal” and therefore should be paid equally. And the labor boards do so based on vague and subjective considerations that do not change with changing circumstances. Imagine replacing “jobs” with “condiments” and having judges decide whether ketchup and mustard should be priced equally because they are similar, broadly comparable, or rated equivalent in terms of the effort, skill, and decision-making that went into their production.
You think I am joking. I am not. Here’s an example of a case just decided in the UK.
More than 3,500 current and former workers at Next have won the final stage of a six-year legal battle for equal pay.
An employment tribunal said store staff, who are predominantly women, should not have been paid at lower rates than employees in warehouses, where just over half the staff are male.
The tribunal ruled that retail workers and warehouse workers were “equal” and thus had to be paid equally. Next replied that they paid everyone market wages. Verboten!
Next argued that pay rates for warehouse workers were higher than for retail workers in the wider labour market, justifying the different rates at the company.
But the employment tribunal rejected that argument as a justification for the pay difference.
According to the tribunal’s ruling, between 2012 and 2023, 77.5% of Next’s retail consultants were female, while 52.75% of warehouse operators were male.
The tribunal accepted that the difference in pay rates between the jobs was not down to “direct discrimination”, including the “conscious or subconscious influence of gender” on pay decisions, but was caused by efforts to “reduce cost and enhance profit”.
It ruled that the “business need was not sufficiently great as to overcome the discriminatory effect of lower basic pay”.
No one is alleging that male and female warehouse workers were paid unequally or that male and female retail workers were paid unequally or that there was any direct or indirect discrimination. The only claim is that warehouse workers, who are less likely to be female than retail workers, earn more than retail workers. And since these jobs have been judged “equal,” the company has violated Equality Act 2010.
Who could have predicted that jobs as disparate as warehouse and retail jobs might one day be deemed “equal.” Yet because Next failed to foresee such lunacy they are now required to pay millions in back wages to their retail employees. Software engineers, particularly in AI, are currently in high demand. A British firm looking to hire them may hesitate to raise wages, fearing that a future ruling could classify software engineers as “equal” to a larger, lower-paid group like HR administrators. Such a decision could easily push the firm into bankruptcy.
The warehouse workers were almost 50% female (47.25%). So females were not barred from the higher paying jobs. The fact that 77.5% of the retail workers were female suggests that retail work has special appeal to females relative to males and thus that there are compensating differentials. Any of the three female plaintiffs could have taken jobs in the warehouse. If the jobs are equal and the warehouse jobs pay more this is, on the plaintiffs’ theory, “puzzling”. [Or, as Ayn Rand would say, blank out.]
In fact, the court case reveals that Next was struggling to fill the warehouse positions and offered any retail employee—including the plaintiffs—the opportunity to switch to warehouse work. On cross-examination, one of the plaintiffs admitted that, given the unpleasant conditions in the warehouse—described by the court as “the drone of machinery,…vibration, alarm sirens and the screeching of machinery, wheels and rollers, continuously present in all areas”—the warehouse job “did not seem particularly attractive” compared to the greater autonomy and more appealing environment of the retail job. The plaintiff added that she would only have considered the warehouse job if it paid “a lot more money.”
Thank goodness for the men and women who were willing to take such jobs for only a little more money! It should not shock that different people have different preferences over jobs, just as they have different preferences over ice cream. In particular, it will perhaps surprise only the judges to learn that men tend to be more wage-focused and “women are relatively more attracted to employers with low pay but high values of nonpay characteristics (NBER 32408).” The court, however, recoiled from this idea, noting that if they were to take demonstrated preferences seriously this would be tantamount to applying “an unfettered free market model of supply and demand.” The horror.
Now consider how the jobs were deemed “equal”. On the left is the job evaluation report for claimant Amanda Cox. The specific categories and numbers are not important; what is important is that the jobs are rated across 11 categories, and the point-scores are then added to get a total score at the bottom.
Amusingly, the evaluators emphasize that they use equal weighting across the categories. Of course, they did—because “equal” is synonymous with fair, right? An unequal weighting would surely be discriminatory!
I am not making this up:
Any scheme which has as its starting point – “This qualification is paramount” or that “This skill is vital” is nearly always going to be biased or at least open to charges of bias or discrimination.
Thus, if you think that a skill is vital for a job, that’s discrimination!
(Notice also that equal weighting is just another form of weighting. Given the subjective nature of both the categories and the points assigned, equal weighting holds no inherent superiority or objectivity.)
But no matter—we have yet to get to the best part. The evaluators selected three warehouse workers and assessed them using the same metric. For example, Amanda Cox was compared to warehouse worker Calvin Hazelhurst, resulting in the table on the right.
Can you spot something surprising in this table? I’ll give you a moment.
The obvious conclusion any reasonable person would draw from this table is that the jobs are clearly not equal. Amanda’s total score is 440, while Calvin’s is 340. 440 ≠ 340. Not even close! In nearly every category—except (no surprise!) physical demands and working conditions—the retail job requires more points, aka “skill and responsibility”.
At this point, most people would stop and ask some critical questions. If the jobs differ so much across multiple dimensions, isn’t it clear that they are not equal? And why do jobs that seemingly require less “skill” pay more? Could it be that our point-score rating system is oversimplified? Maybe the market is telling us something that this crude scoring system isn’t capturing? Is it time to check our premises?
But not the evaluators! Oh, no. The evaluators are thrilled–because the fact that the jobs are unequal proves that they are equal!
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. UNEQUAL IS EQUAL.
Adam Smith had a much better understanding of wages in 1776 than UK judges have today.
The wages of labour vary with the ease or hardship, the cleanliness or dirtiness, the honourableness or dishonourableness, of the employment. Thus in most places, take the year round, a journeyman tailor earns less than a journeyman weaver. His work is much easier. A journeyman weaver earns less than a journeyman smith. His work is not always easier, but it is much cleanlier. A journeyman blacksmith, though an artificer, seldom earns so much in twelve hours, as a collier, who is only a labourer, does in eight. His work is not quite so dirty, is less dangerous, and is carried on in day-light, and above ground. Honour makes a great part of the reward of all honourable professions. In point of pecuniary gain, all things considered, they are generally under-recompensed, as I shall endeavour to shew by and by. Disgrace has the contrary effect. The trade of a butcher is a brutal and an odious business; but it is in most places more profitable than the greater part of common trades. The most detestable of all employments, that of public executioner, is, in proportion to the quantity of work done, better paid than any common trade whatever.
Today, the UK would convene a labor board to rule that the tailor and the weaver must be paid equally because they DO WORK OF EQUAL VALUE. Case closed.
Labor boards will inevitably lead to the misallocation of labor, diminishing both wealth and fairness. Severe misallocation may lead to further intervention, in the worst scenario, even to the allocation of labor by fiat. Politicization breeds division, rent-seeking, and a stagnant, unpleasant society.
More generally, it pains me that there is no recognition that the market is a discovery procedure, including the discovery of the value of different skills and people’s preferences over different jobs. No recognition that the market harnesses tacit knowledge and knowledge of particular circumstances of time and place–knowledge that is difficult to quantify, communicate, or communicate in a timely manner–and that “society’s economic problems are primarily related to adapting quickly to changes in these circumstances.” No recognition that a price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive.
I despair when I consider that these fundamental ideas are the foundation of our liberal, global, and prosperous civilization. On economics, as on free speech, the UK has entered the great forgetting.
Addendum: A special hat tip to Bruce Greig who brought this to my attention and had the receipts.
Honduras and its disputes
More importantly, Honduras is not just locked in a dispute with Silicon Valley billionaires, as the authors would lead you to believe. Other claimants against Honduras at the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) include the Paiz family, one of the wealthiest in Guatemala, the U.S. bank JPMorgan Chase, and others from Honduras, Panama, Mexico, Chile, Norway, and the Caymans. More claims were brought by private energy companies after Castro’s 2022 reforms pushed out private investment to expand the state’s role in electricity production. Predictably, there are no signs of progress for Honduras’ crippled energy grid. The state-run National Electric Energy Company loses over $30 million every month, with debts amounting to more than 10 percent of Honduran GDP.
This is to say that Honduras’ current feud with Próspera is part of a pattern of reneging on obligations to investors and expanding state influence, not a one-time rectification of a coup by Silicon Valley billionaires.
Equally absent the article is any mention that the supposedly “center-left” Castro is a self-proclaimed socialist strongly aligned with Venezuela and, in shirking foreign investors and the US, following in its footsteps quite neatly. Castro has indeed gone so far as to remove Honduras from the ICSID over the massive list of outstanding claims against it—a move familiar to Venezuela, which left in 2012. The Honduran government’s rationale—that the ICSID favors corporations instead of states—is the same that Venezuela used. The practical effects of this move are limited, but the symbolic ones are meaningful. Honduras is branding itself as a bad place to do business.
Here is more from Snowden Todd.
Elite Human Capital Is Not Just IQ
Here is a very good response to readers’ questions essay by Richard Hanania, excerpt:
Although EHC [elite human capital] types can make a lot of mistakes, it’s inevitable that they will rule and it’s mostly a good thing that they do. I think a society where most elites could stomach someone like Trump would have so much corruption that it would head towards collapse. This is why conservatives cannot build scientific institutions, and only a very small number of credible journalistic outlets. Right-wingers are discriminated against in academia and the media, but they mostly aren’t in these professions because they select out of them, since they lack intellectual curiosity and a concern for truth. If it doesn’t make them money or flatter their ego in a very simplistic way — in contrast to the more complicated and morally substantive ways in which liberals improve their own self-esteem — conservatives are not interested.
Conservatives complain about liberals “virtue signalling,” but one way to avoid that is to not care about virtue at all. And only by forsaking any ideals higher than “destroy the enemy” can a movement fall in line behind someone like Donald Trump. As already mentioned, I think that markets are counterintuitive to people, and Western civilization has done a good job of giving the entrepreneur his due. That said, EHC is a necessary part of any functioning civilization, and I see my job as helping to make it liberal rather than leftist. A truly conservative EHC class is something close to an oxymoron, since the first things smart people do when they begin to use reason are reject religion in public life and expand their moral circle.
The piece covers other issues as well.
A simple theory of which thinkers support the elites, or not
I don’t agree with this theory as stated, but it can be worth spelling such things out, if only to see their weaknesses, or perhaps some strengths at some of the more unusual or less likely margins. Here goes:
People, especially “thinkers,” like to believe they serve all sorts of noble purposes in the intellectual infrastructure. But in reality their main effects are either to raise or lower the status of the elites in their society.
Noam Chomsky, for instance, has lowered the status of American elites. That is his net long-run effect, not that he drummed up sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. A lot more people, for better or worse, are more skeptical of a bunch of things because of Chomsky.
The New York Times, in contrast, works hard to raise the status of elites. It tries especially hard to raise the status of Democratic elites, but still it is raising the status of elites for the most part.
Most “heterodox” thinkers like to think they are encouraging a more nuanced understanding of when the elites are right and when they are wrong. And indeed that is what some of their more perceptive readers take away. But their overall important gross effect is typically to raise the status of elites. They make the public discussion of issues better and more vibrant (one hopes). And thus, if only in a longer run, the status of elites goes up. Sorry buddy, I know that wasn’t exactly your goal!
If you teach at a top or Ivy League school, your net effect is to raise the status of elites. With the exception of a few such people who make horrible blunders and end up disgraced. Or in fewer cases they may be accused of false charges. Otherwise, the simple fact of “a smart, accomplished person affiliating with elite institutions” is the main message you are sending.
In earlier media ecosystems, it was relatively difficult to act to permanently lower the status of elites. It is in fact quite impressive that Chomsky managed this, and without (earlier) the aid of the internet.
Today it is much easier to lower the status of elites, largely because of social media. But even with that aid it is not as easy as you might think. Very often you need the cooperation of elites themselves in showing their own blemishes to the public, whether they do this wittingly or not. They do it plenty in fact, a’ la Martin Gurri.
Libertarianism, as it has evolved at the institutional level, largely raises the status of elites. It keeps the idea of liberty in the public conversation. Libertarians, of course, may not intend this as their major effect, though of course they are glad to keep the liberty idea in circulation. Some of the “obsessed with Covid lockdowns” libertarians, however, probably lower the status of elites.
It is hard to lower the status of elites without lowering your own status as well. It is not just that the elites will not like you, or may treat you and your PR harshly. You also have to come across as quite negative, and furthermore some of the negativity you create for your targets will rub off on you, at least in the eyes of much of your audience. Plus being too relentlessly critical, rather than constructive, tends to make people stupider.
Just as many elections are in fact about “one thing,” so are very many intellectual discussions, namely whether elites should have higher or lower status.
Rather than classifying thinkers as left-wing or right-wing, in this (false) hypothesis we should have the taxonomy of “raising the status of elites” vs. “lowering the status of elites.” Can it be said that Richard Hanania is now in the former category? Matt Stoller, however, is mostly lowering the status of elites. So we can put them in opposite corners of the true political spectrum, though for reasons different from what you once might have expected.
Which kind of intellectual would you rather be? Which is more likely to contribute to a net gain in social trust? To improve social welfare?
If this post were in fact true, how should it induce you to change your behavior? How about as a consumer of intellectual products?
John Arnold on economic polarization
As divisive as the political rhetoric is, the policy divide between the two parties seems more narrow today than any time in recent memory. Bipartisan bills in immigration, energy permitting, and the child tax credit have been negotiated and waiting for political window to reopen. Foreign aid and military spending bills both passed in past year with strong bipartisan support. Same with infrastructure bill in 2021 and CHIPS Act in 2022. Both parties are anti-China, favorable to India, and increasingly supportive of industrial policy and tariffs. Both talk about lowering the cost of housing, more funding for the police, and are leery of big tech. Neither party is proposing big changes in health care, K-12 or social security. College loan forgiveness is in the courts. Abortion is now in the states. GOP opposition to the IRA climate provisions are around the edges, like EV subsidies. Dems aren’t proposing any new significant climate policies. Dems have enacted minor policies against oil and gas but production continues to reach record highs. Both say no new taxes for <$400k. Increasing number of Rs have joined Ds supporting increase in corp tax rates. Perhaps the biggest difference is how to pay for TCJA extension: Dems want higher taxes on the wealthy; Trump wants universal tariffs; the rest of GOP hasn’t been specific. There are other differences for sure. Dems want more subsidies for housing and child care. GOP wants more deportations (though logistically difficult). Dems would be more aggressive against consolidation, health care costs, and junk fees. GOP wants to restucture civil service rules. But there just aren’t many major fault lines on policy between the parties today. Maybe this is why so little of this election cycle is about policy.
Here is the full tweet. I would add that “ten percent tariffs” vs. “25% tax on unrealized capital gains” is a big difference, but at least one of those is never going to happen, even if the Republicans do not capture the Senate.
From the comments (on regulation)
Rawls Killed Marx
I found this Joseph Heath post very informative. In essence, Marx was about exploitation but when no theory of exploitation without gaping holes could be developed, the analytical Marxists shifted to egalitarianism ala Rawls.
Back when I was an undergraduate, during the final years of the cold war, by far the most exciting thing going on in political philosophy was the powerful resurgence of Marxism in the English-speaking world. Most of this work was being done under the banner of “analytical Marxism” (aka “no-bullshit Marxism”), following the publication of Gerald Cohen’s Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence (and his subsequent elevation to the Chichele Professorship in Social and Political Philosophy at Oxford). Meanwhile in Germany, Jürgen Habermas’s incredibly compact Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus promised to reinvigorate Marx’s analysis of capitalist crises in the language of contemporary systems theory. It was an exciting time to be a young radical. One could say, without exaggeration, that many of the smartest and most important people working in political philosophy were Marxists of some description.
So what happened to all this ferment and excitement, all of the high-powered theory being done under the banner of Western Marxism? It’s the damndest thing, but all of those smart, important Marxists and neo-Marxists, doing all that high-powered work, became liberals. Every single one of the theorists at the core of the analytic Marxism movement – not just Cohen, but Philippe van Parijs, John Roemer, Allen Buchanan, and Jon Elster – as well as inheritors of the Frankfurt School like Habermas, wound up embracing some variant of the view that came to be known as “liberal egalitarianism.” Of course, this was not a capitulation to the old-fashioned “classical liberalism” of the 19th century, it was rather a defection to the style of modern liberalism that found its canonical expression in the work of John Rawls.
If one felt like putting the point polemically, one might say that the “no-bullshit” Marxists, after having removed all of the bullshit from Marxism, discovered that there was nothing left but liberalism.
That’s the opening. Read the whole thing.
Why massive deregulation is very difficult
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, just to clarify context for the newbies I think more than half of all current regulations are a net negative. Anywhere, here are some of the problems:
Consider the relatively straightforward idea, popular in some Republican circles, of firing large numbers of federal bureaucrats. There would be immediate objections, not only from the employees themselves but also from US businesses.
Businesses need to make plans, and they frequently consult with regulatory agencies as to what might be permissible. The Food and Drug Administration needs to approve new drug offerings. The Federal Aviation Administration needs to approve new airline routes. The Federal Communications Commission needs to approve new versions of mobile phones. The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice need to give green lights for significant mergers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. needs to approve plans for winding down failed banks. And so on.
If those and other agencies were stripped of their staffs, a lot of US businesses would be paralyzed. You might argue that this fact is itself proof that there is too much regulation, but the fact remains. Shutting down a large chunk of the federal regulatory apparatus would make it harder, not easier, for the private sector. Furthermore, regulation would give way to litigation, and the judiciary is not obviously more efficient than the bureaucracy.
And this:
The basic paradox is this: Government regulations are embedded in a large, unwieldy and complex set of institutions. Dismantling it, or paring it back significantly, would require a lot of state capacity — that is, state competence. Yet deregulators are suspicious of greater state capacity, as it carries the potential for more state regulatory action. Think of it this way: If someone told a libertarian-leaning government efficiency expert that, in order to pare back the state, it first must be granted more power, he would probably run away screaming.
Recommended, the piece has numerous good points of interest.
What should I ask Musa al-Gharbi?
Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with him.
Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist and assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. He is a columnist for The Guardian and his writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Atlantic, among other publications.
I am a big fan of his forthcoming book We Have Never Been Woke, which I have blurbed. Here is Musa’s home page, do read his bio. Here is Musa on Twitter.
So what should I ask?
How do musical artists end up getting cancelled?
There is a new paper on that topic by Daniel Winkler, Nils Wlömert, and Jura Liaukonyte. Here is the abstract:
This paper investigates how the consumption of an artist’s creative work is impacted when there’s a movement to “cancel” the artist on social media due to their misconduct. Unlike product brands, human brands are particularly vulnerable to reputation risks, yet how misconduct affects their consumption remains poorly understood. Using R. Kelly’s case, we examine the demand for his music following interrelated publicity and platform sanction shocks-specifically, the removal of his songs from major playlists on the largest global streaming platform. A cursory examination of music consumption after these scandals would lead to the erroneous conclusion that consumers are intentionally boycotting the disgraced artist. We propose an identification strategy to disentangle platform curation and intentional listening effects, leveraging variation in song removal status and geographic demand. Our findings show that the decrease in music consumption is primarily driven by supply-side factors due to playlist removals rather than changes in intentional listening. Media coverage and calls for boycott have promotional effects, suggesting that social media boycotts can inadvertently increase music demand. The analysis of other cancellation cases involving Morgan Wallen and Rammstein shows no long-term decline in music demand, reinforcing the potential promotional effects of scandals in the absence of supply-side sanctions.
That is from Mike in VA.