« Compensating Variations | Main | Medical free trade zones »
Bryan Caplan in *The New Yorker*
Louis Menand, who has written a book on pragmatism, writes in response to Caplan:
In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process, even if that voice is, in practical terms, symbolic. A great virtue of democratic polities is stability. The toleration of silly opinions is (to speak like an economist) a small price to pay for it.
There is much more at the link.
Addendum: Here is a good sentence from Menand: "People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers."
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 2, 2007 at 09:59 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
A great virtue of democratic polities is stability.
This is a joke, right? Has the author ever heard of Central America, South America or Africa, where democracy (indeed, perhaps every government) is remarkably unstable?
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Jul 2, 2007 10:30:23 AM
Persistent, irrational, harmful policies are a "small price"? Compared to what? Genocide?
Posted by: Person at Jul 2, 2007 11:18:45 AM
The author of the article is being deceptive suggesting that Myth of Rational Voter hints that we should be ruled by economists. Caplan suggests only that more areas of life be governed by markets, where participants increase their rationality. He does not suggest that economists should rule the earth.
Posted by: scott clark at Jul 2, 2007 11:29:13 AM
Bolivia 150 years -180 governments . Only a few democratic
Venezuela until 1908 , one dictator after other. Some of them elected, a civil war, revolution , coup d state almost every year.
Argentina since peron a dictartor after other. most Central american countries were dictatorship most of the time.Some democracies were destroyed by the USA´s government. An Africa most of the time they have for life Presidents.In contrast look at Europe, even Italy, or the USA
Posted by: Mja at Jul 2, 2007 11:29:26 AM
I liked the cartoon of the pig at the Complaint Department. "I wish I was taller."
Posted by: Colin Fraizer at Jul 2, 2007 12:16:46 PM
Most people here claim to be libertarians.But they dispise democracy.
The Caplan thesis is 2500 years old.It is Platos Republic with economists instead.
In a pig farm , since pigs dont sweat ,they are on airconditioned rooms all day. They have perfect, european style, health care.They are well fed.And at least if they are stallions even a s.. life. They live in a perfect Pareto world.Still the farmer can do what he wants with them .I guess most people , certainly not economist like Barro or Caplan, would prefer the filthy water.Well ,they recommend it for others not for the USA or Europe .I guess.
Its is a little price compared to total lack of freedom.I dont see you booking a flight to Singapur, the country with greatest economics freedom, but with ZERO democracy.
Try to write your comments in countries like Zimbawe, what a stable country, 40 years with one President. So i guess they will surpass the USA growth soon since Democracy is bad for growth and dictators are good for it.Or Russia , that miracolous engine of growth under Putin. Wirt a war with one million victims in the chechenian side, and 10 thousands russian soldiers.
120 bankers and 30 journalists killed by the government.I guess that is a little price to pay for growth.
Since democarcy is bad the alternative is aristocracy so Paris Hilton and the like must be the only able to vote not those silly farmers ,politicians, schoolteachers etc.
Posted by: Mja at Jul 2, 2007 12:32:44 PM
"In the end, the group that loses these contests must abide by the outcome, must regard the wishes of the majority as legitimate. The only way it can be expected to do so is if it has been made to feel that it had a voice in the process."
We've often witheld the vote from some people. We still do in many states for felons. The case has been made that withholding the vote based on sex or race is wrong -- and I agree. But I think we should look hard at why we give the vote to people who don't positively participate in the enconomy.
Posted by: SheetWise at Jul 2, 2007 12:41:02 PM
Joshua Holmes: Very few Latin American countries have had democracies for any extended period of time.
Another required piece is relatively swift turnover. If I've just lost the election and therefore been shut out of power for 100 years, I'll be madder than if it was 4 (and, before the election, if I think I might lose for 100 years I'll fight harder and dirtier to win). Yet another is low stakes. If winning the election grants unbridled power (as is true in most Latin American countries), I'd fight harder and dirtier to win than if the winner's power is constrained (like in the USA).
Giving everyone a voice isn't the only requirement, by far.
Posted by: jb at Jul 2, 2007 1:47:33 PM
Joshua Holmes: Very few Latin American countries have had democracies for any extended period of time.
Another required piece is relatively swift turnover. If I've just lost the election and therefore been shut out of power for 100 years, I'll be madder than if it was 4 (and, before the election, if I think I might lose for 100 years I'll fight harder and dirtier to win). Yet another is low stakes. If winning the election grants unbridled power (as is true in most Latin American countries), I'd fight harder and dirtier to win than if the winner's power is constrained (like in the USA).
Giving everyone a voice isn't the only requirement, by far.
Posted by: jb at Jul 2, 2007 1:47:51 PM
The Post had a report summarizing research on the results of political assassinations. As I recall, assassinations in democracies tended not to result in a change of the form of government, whereas assassinations in authoritarian governments sometimes resulted in democracy. That, to me, argues that democracy can be more stable than authoritarianism.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Jul 2, 2007 2:13:00 PM
Menand tries to defend democracy by arguing that while it may choose bad economic policy, it acheives other values such as "values that are deeply constested," "protect themselves from the downside of change," "preserve a way of life," and "feel good about themselves." Menand doesn't seem to appreciate that irattional voters can mess up these things just as easily as they can mess up simple economic policy.
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Jul 2, 2007 2:16:02 PM
I think Menand begins his article with an important point but fails to appreciate the power of his own critique. He starts by commenting that rational people wouldn't vote because they cannot effect the outcome but that we see voting anyway. Yet, when you ask people why they vote they almost always give as one of the reasons that they want their voice to count or are afraid that if they don't vote the worse candidate will win. Thus, voters irrationally DO believe that their vote is decisive and thus DO internalize the consequences of bad policies just like they would at the grocery store. This is one factor that makes voting more like a market than Bryan allows.
Posted by: j at Jul 2, 2007 2:31:38 PM
Hate democracy?
Caplan’s book, and I admit I’m not done with it yet, continually refers to the institution of democracy (representative voting via universal suffrage) without once taking an opposite view. It’s a critique of an institution. As an author, economist, and human with a working cortex he doesn’t make his critique a diametric screed where voters are stupid and economists are philosopher kings. (At page 147 it’s still possible he says this, but I doubt it.)
Democracies choose bad policies because the aggregate decision making that takes place within the voting process supports the weak reasoning of many of its participants. I personally love the democratic process but find it very frustrating for the same reasons Caplan suggests for low turnout—it’s hard to stay informed, have an impact, or sometimes even see the point. (I live near Chicago where Democratic city politics seems, well, less than democratic.) The overwhelming bias toward ‘make everyone happy’ social programs is understandable but still damaging-- minimum wages, anti-foreign tariffs, and farm subsidies make most voter ‘good deed’ lists. Like a 5,000-year-old earth, 100 percent employment, and Paris Hilton as an actress, they are dumb but very popular ideas.
Menand suggests that Caplan, the mean spirited economist, thinks in a clumsy or oafish way by critiquing democracy. But Caplan’s critique is as important as it is accurate given the evidence of history and controlled studies. He then suggests barriers to voting booth entry and incentives for critical thinking might make voting count for more than it seems to now. The idea that your candidate might lose and you’ll move to another country (as much as Hollywood folk keep promising) isn’t true here or in the EU. So somewhere between low stakes and catastrophic stakes might be an improvement to the system.
Libertarians don’t hate government any more than Republicans do when Democrats are in power, or Liberal Dems do when Conservatives hold Parliament. It’s a trust issue. And it’s a stretch to wholly trust a process that supports returning Congressmen to seats term after term, indicted or not, at a statistically overwhelming rate. Having said that I admit to not only enjoying democracy but actually reveling in it. Years ago I lost a small town election by one vote—seriously only 1. But then I found out that if I had one more vote to tie, the tie-break method was to toss a coin. I was actually happy it didn’t come to that. I didn’t hate the democratic process but I think I can fully appreciate Prof. Caplan’s book. Having read Plato lo those many years ago I don’t see the philosopher king in what he suggests. Just a little more thought.
Posted by: Eric at Jul 2, 2007 3:19:50 PM
The real question, ignored by Menand, is what types of institutions do a better job of revealing and weighting the people's preferences? Is democratic voting really the best one?
This generates my following discussion questions:
Is a Smith auction less democratic than voting?
In what ways?
Should we care?
Should we prefer Smith auctions (if implementable) and other mechanisms over voting?
Why or why not?
Posted by: Keith at Jul 2, 2007 3:27:22 PM
It's sad that that article had to be written. It's sad that people here defend Kaplan. It's sad that people don't seem to understand that some of your interest you should be allowed to defend on an equal basis with other people, without concern for how useful you are to society (= how rich you are. Except for the existence of crime and unpaid work like raising kids and caring for your old parents, but never mind that right now).
Yes, there are some questions best left to experts, scientists, economists, and so on. And there are some where no one are more important than others, especially issues of ethics.
The question of which questions should be left to experts, is itself a question which should not be left to experts. I hope Kaplan sees that and comes to his senses.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Jul 2, 2007 3:57:26 PM
The question of which questions should be left to experts, is itself a question which should not be left to experts. I hope Kaplan sees that and comes to his senses.
I'm curious...
Do you view the rights of free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition, et multi cetera, as mere quaint customs frozen into the metalaw of the United States by the experts of the 1780s, or as something that for some reason should be beyond question?
If the latter, what is that reason?
Posted by: MikeP at Jul 2, 2007 4:12:14 PM
Very few Latin American countries have had democracies for any extended period of time.
My point exactly.
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Jul 2, 2007 5:05:22 PM
Come on, MikeP. That statement was so pithy it must be true.
Posted by: josh at Jul 2, 2007 5:22:35 PM
So, according to Menand, Caplan wants to "teach people introductory economics without making the usua qualifications about the limits of market solutions", yet does not regard himself as a "market fundamentalist."
In other words, if you admit to the proles that there might be just the teensiest problem with your beloved theories you're asking for trouble.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jul 2, 2007 7:05:49 PM
I, for one, would like to see this guy's voting record. If he's so informed and all, why not just lay it on the line. Show us the error of our ways, Mr. Caplan.
Show me your Bush vote. I know you want to.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jul 2, 2007 9:07:11 PM
Menand writes a competent summary of many of the arguments in Caplan’s book, but then reverts to “democratic fundamentalism” toward the end of his review. He ignores Caplan’s take home message (democracy is fallible so we should ask ourselves where and when it outperforms other institutions) and does a hack job of cost-benefit analysis, implicitly assuming that democracy is the best method to decide questions such as “when life begins, whether liberty is more important than equality, how racial integration is best achieved.” To Menand, because some issues are not straightforward optimization problems, democracy must sort out the answer and psychologically appease the losers.
Menand also seems to have a short memory; he aptly describes many of the problems irrational voters create, but then decides in conclusion that they are nothing but “silly opinions”, ignoring the negative externalities often associated with such opinions.
Posted by: Jim Outen at Jul 2, 2007 11:50:32 PM
Most people here claim to be libertarians.But they dispise democracy.
The two concepts are orthogonal, or (according to some) opposed.
Its is a little price compared to total lack of freedom.I dont see you booking a flight to Singapur, the country with greatest economics freedom, but with ZERO democracy.
There are still exit costs. I wonder what Singapore's net migration rate vis a vis more democratic countries' is.
Try to write your comments in countries like Zimbawe, what a stable country, 40 years with one President.
Mugabe was elected in 1980 and has been re-elected repeatedly. I bet his policy of sticking it to white farmers was very popular.
Or Russia , that miracolous engine of growth under Putin.
Russia actually did start growing under Putin after it's decline with the fall of the Soviet Union. Part of that is due to bogus data/black markets and rises in energy prices though.
Since democarcy is bad the alternative is aristocracy
Caplan's alternative is not dictatorship or aristocracy, but MARKETS.
The question of which questions should be left to experts, is itself a question which should not be left to experts. I hope Kaplan sees that and comes to his senses.
It seems to me that political scientists/public choice economists that analyze the behavior of voters and political systems are experts that should be listened to over the layman when it comes to the nature of political systems and voting. His name is also spelled "Caplan". Instead of writing while sad, try clearing your mind of all but reason.
I, for one, would like to see this guy's voting record. If he's so informed and all, why not just lay it on the line. Show us the error of our ways, Mr. Caplan.
Show me your Bush vote. I know you want to.
I personally doubt that Caplan votes at all, given that he knows how small the probability is that he will effect anything and his contempt for both parties. Regarding Bush specifically, this post definitely seems to argue against your assumption.
Posted by: TGGP at Jul 3, 2007 1:47:51 AM
MikeP, since you're getting philosophical: Yes, I believe in absolutes, and that some policies are actually better than others. Also some policies are immoral. However, I realise that the best way for society of finding out which is which, and how our insitiutions should act, democracy is the only decent option. Ultimately, experts must be recognised by non-experts.
Those "experts" you speak of were not only experts, but also prophets. They had good ideas for how certain goals should be attained, and as such they were experts, but they also had strong opinions about which goals should be striven for, and in that way they are similar to prophets. Winning not just minds, but hearts as well.
The ugly thing with Caplan is that he doesn't admit that he is a "prophet" himself, with pretty big assumptions about what is desirable.
TGGP, if you think it's possible to "clear your mind of all but reason", I see the problem right there. You can't - there will always be foul-smelling moral assumptions left lurking in the corners, if you try.
So it seems to you that various experts are best suited to decide how democracy should be? Maybe, but it's up to us all to decide what we want from that institution (which needs not be what the experts want!), and to verify that these experts are indeed experts on terms meaningful to us, and not just terms meaninful to themselves.
Otherwise they are just the social science equivalients of quacks or craniometricians.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Jul 3, 2007 2:10:50 AM
It seems most people making comments here have not the slightest idea of what Caplan actually argues in his book. Even worse, some people, such as the reviewer mentioned in the original post, seem to deliberately invoke fake ignorance in order not to be percieved as politically incorrect.
Posted by: Erik at Jul 3, 2007 3:27:06 AM
"People are less modern than the times in which they live, in other words, and the failure to comprehend this is what can make economists seem like happy bulldozers."
Yes, I agree. Economists give people way too much credit. I credit Caplan for not making that mistake. It appears that Menand is making Caplan's point for him.
Shorter Menand: "People are irrational and superstitious, and I shall demonstrate that by making irrational and superstitious critiques of Caplan."
Posted by: Keith at Jul 3, 2007 2:30:51 PM
