« Markets in everything, Japan edition |
Main
| Network Power »
Hanson on Bounties
Robin beats me to a story on bounties in the Washington Post. I couldn't have said it better so here is his full post.
A Post article today, Bounties a Bust in Hunt for Al-Qaeda:
Jaber Elbaneh is one of the world's most-wanted terrorism suspects. In
2003, the U.S. government indicted him, posted a $5 million reward for
his capture and distributed posters bearing photos of him around the
globe. None of it worked. Elbaneh remains at large, as wanted as ever.
...
Since 1984, the program has handed out $77 million to more than 50
tipsters, according to the State Department. ... In 2004, Rep. Mark
Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) visited Pakistan to assess why Rewards for Justice
had generated so little information regarding al-Qaeda's leadership. He
discovered that the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had effectively shut down
the program. There was no radio or television advertising. ...
In 2004, Congress passed a law authorizing the State Department to post
rewards as high as $50 million apiece -- a provision with bin Laden in
mind. Last fall, Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) went further, introducing a
bill that would raise the cap to $500 million. The State Department has
declined to boost the reward for bin Laden, arguing that more money was
unlikely to do any good and would only add to his notoriety.
Let's see, billions spent via ordinary means, and millions offered
in bounties, and it is the bounties they blame for Al-Qaeda's notoriety
and failing to catch leaders? The billions are spent and gone, while
the millions in bounties we only lose when they actually work. How
then is this data suggesting we should prefer ordinary means to
bounties?
Here is one of my previous posts on bounties. The Rewards for Justice program has actually brought in some big catches.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on May 17, 2008 at 10:42 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Alex,
I am in total agreement with you in general, but in the case of Osama bin Laden and other leaders like this, I have never really seen that bounties would be that useful.
Presumably bin Laden is hiding out somewhere remote and poor, and at least a handful of people in the area know he is there. If someone calls the US to tip them off, won't he be afraid that he might get killed before he gets the payout? Is he really going to trust the American on the phone who says, "You can trust us to protect you. We're the good guys!" ?
Even if the guy gets out of dodge and gets $50 million (although I would imagine a goatherd in Afghanistan doesn't really distinguish between $5 million and $50 million), won't his extended family get killed?
And on the other hand, if he gets paid but tries to play it cool, then what's the benefit of having that much money in a Swiss bank account?
I think it's the problem that came up in 3:10 to Yuma.
(BTW I am not trying to be a jerk with the goatherd comment; I'm not saying rich Westerners are better people, I'm just saying I don't see how outrageous rewards would be as appealing to some people as they would to, say, a poor family in the U.S.)
Posted by: Bob Murphy at May 17, 2008 11:49:57 AM
Yet another example of what dumbasses the State Department is. I have yet to see them do anything worthwhile in regards to National Security.
Posted by: Ken at May 17, 2008 12:02:05 PM
Classic case of price fixing by a government monopoly.
Posted by: Matt at May 17, 2008 12:05:36 PM
Bob, you raise a number of cogent reasons why bounties might not work well to bring in Osama but I believe that you are thinking too literally about how bounties work. I see the more realistic scenario as something like this:
Osama's henchmen kill a goatherd's daughter, perhaps she offended their religious sensibilities. Goatherd hates Osama's guts. Goatherd gets a cellphone. Other scenario's include rival tribes, rival leaders, and anyone with a grudge against Osama etc.
Don't forget that with a large enough bounty you don't just get tips you get people going after Osama. Moreover, the mere knowledge that he can't trust people around him makes Osama's life more difficult.
Now I don't know whether bounties would work - clearly nothing is going to work well. But, I do know that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and years of effort since 9/11 and we still have not gotten Osama. Our current methods are not working, so raising the bounty seems like an idea worth trying.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 17, 2008 12:13:58 PM
Our current methods are not working, so raising the bounty seems like an idea worth trying.
And the key point is that bounties only pay out if successful. I'm trying to imaging the downside. Certainly bounties aren't that useful if you believe that capturing Al Qaeda leaders is unimportant because new leaders will just spring up from the terrorists (although capturing via bounties may have less backlash than through the military), or that capturing individual leaders is much less important than preventing attacks or preventing Al Qaeda (and allies like the Taliban) from controlling entire countries and regions.
However, it seems like many of the critics of bounties are precisely people who seem upset that we have not captured Osama personally, and seem particularly unpersuaded by arguments that capturing Osama is less important than making sure that the Taliban don't control Afghanistan, fighting terrorists trying to take over areas in Iraq, or preventing new terrorists attacks, etc. I think that in general people who think that the top priority and best strategy is to find and arrest Osama, not invade other countries or look for other, non Osama terrorists to destroy, should welcome bounties. However, many seem to have a particular objection to bounties that overrides what I would think would be a naturally attractive policy.
Posted by: John Thacker at May 17, 2008 12:48:23 PM
It seems to me that one of the biggest impediments to bounties might be their credibility. That is, would a goatherder in Pakistan really believe that America will make good on the payment ex-post? I would go out of my way to make the bounties as credible as possible:
--Get local, respected authorities to publicly vouch for their credibility.
--Advertise that at least some of the money is effectively in an escrow account and can only be used to pay for the bounty once-delivered.
Posted by: kapkool at May 17, 2008 12:57:34 PM
Kapkool raises an interesting point. Distrust of the American govt seems high even among those who may be sympathetic to US' goals. The US does have a record of leaving folks high and dry. And conspiratorial thinking runs high. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are few takers.
Posted by: shecky at May 17, 2008 1:38:55 PM
Kapkool raises an interesting point. Distrust of the American govt seems high even among those who may be sympathetic to US' goals. The US does have a record of leaving folks high and dry. And conspiratorial thinking runs high. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are few takers.
Right, that's partly what I had in mind. In fact, I think I read a story about how someone was mad in NYC that they called the "800-COP-SHOT" hotline to report a tip about a police murder, and then didn't get the $25,000 reward. (Obviously there are all sorts of technicalities; it has to "be instrumental in the conviction of" etc.) So I definitely would be hesitant if I were a foreigner. As I said, it would be dangerous to announce to the world, "Hey, I collaborated with the Americans and turned in Osama, and they didn't pay me! I want justice!"
Posted by: Bob Murphy at May 17, 2008 1:59:53 PM
And the key point is that bounties only pay out if successful. I'm trying to imaging the downside. Certainly bounties aren't that useful if you believe that capturing Al Qaeda leaders is unimportant because new leaders will just spring up from the terrorists...
Not that I at all would endorse this line of thinking, but I imagine the hostility here would be the same as the fear of privately-run prisons. E.g. someone might say, "Well we can't control what those private bounty hunters do in order to reap the reward. Maybe they go around torturing people to find out where Osama is."
Again, what with the record of State employees in this regard, I think the objection is silly, but I imagine that could be part of the resistance to bounty hunters.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at May 17, 2008 2:03:26 PM
I think it comes down to a gut reaction to bounties. There's a large contingent out there that is repulsed by the idea of getting the bad guys for profit, it strikes them as dirty or being motivated for the wrong reasons. Although in reality this isn't so different from joining the Army for college money, it's a lot harder to pretend that it's all for the patriotism.
Posted by: Nate at May 17, 2008 2:17:12 PM
...and skeptics might be right, too. How long does it take a bounty to be credited, after how much paperwork? How much time do you have to spend somewhere in person away from your job? How easy a time do callers have getting themselves believed and (hardest) acted on?
Alex, YOU don't trust USG much, do you? Why should others?
Posted by: Jon Kay at May 17, 2008 2:40:55 PM
Last I read the state department policy positions that make decision on things like this are positions that have been filled with filled with administration appointees since before 9/11.
So tell me John Thacker when you say:However, it seems like many of the critics of bounties are precisely people who seem upset that we have not captured Osama personally, and seem particularly unpersuaded by arguments that capturing Osama is less important than making sure that the Taliban don't control Afghanistan,
exactly who are you talking about. If the people you are referring to or not Bush appointees, exactly how did they get the State Department to not use the bounty programs?
It has been republicans that did this, but almost every comment seems to assume that it is the product of some liberal conspiracy.
Posted by: spencer at May 17, 2008 2:49:57 PM
Last I read the state department policy positions that make decision on things like this are positions that have been filled with filled with administration appointees since before 9/11.
So tell me John Thacker when you say:However, it seems like many of the critics of bounties are precisely people who seem upset that we have not captured Osama personally, and seem particularly unpersuaded by arguments that capturing Osama is less important than making sure that the Taliban don't control Afghanistan,
exactly who are you talking about. If the people you are referring to or not Bush appointees, exactly how did they get the State Department to not use the bounty programs?
It has been republicans that did this, but almost every comment seems to assume that it is the product of some liberal conspiracy.
Posted by: spencer at May 17, 2008 2:51:42 PM
Note that the Rewards for Justice program has paid out (see the link in my post) thus there is some record of credibility.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 17, 2008 3:29:07 PM
Good points. Letters of Marque and Reprisal?
Posted by: Speedmaster at May 17, 2008 6:16:52 PM
How much is Osama's death or capture worth to the USA? One would think at least a billion dollars. I can't see a downside to offering a bounty like that; if he doesn't get captured nothing happens. As Alex mentions you've probably made his life more difficult, so if the bounty fails you get a utility gain at essentially no cost. If you're worried about bounty hunters using inhumane means to capture Osama or otherwise making the USA look bad, make sure your contract includes some clauses about required conduct (such as not killing innocents, etc). Its hard to imagine that bounty hunters could do more harm to our reputation than the US military is doing now, though.
One big advantage to a huge ($1 billion) bounty is that it may mobilize entire organizations, and/or spur the creation of new organizations. Governments may also get involved (either directly or through the bounty hunting organizations) at that point.
If I remember correctly, Ron Paul tried to get something like this done via letters of marque and reprisal (as Speedmaster mentions) but he did so in a way that made the whole plan sound nuts.
Posted by: Grant at May 17, 2008 6:47:20 PM
Bounties are clearly of limited utility. We can utilize them along with other strategies.
I remember in 2000, Harry Browne (the LP candidate) was campaigning on the theory that the mere threat of bounties would be sufficient: we needn't have a military. Typical vulgar libertarian idiocy.
But bounties have costs due to errors too:
Arizona bounty hunters kill 2 after invading wrong house
By Associated Press, 09/02/97
PHOENIX - Nine bounty hunters wearing black ski masks and looking for a bail jumper kicked in the front door of a house, held children at gunpoint and shot a young couple to death in a case of mistaken identity, police said.
Posted by: Mike Huben at May 17, 2008 7:16:56 PM
Alex Tabarrok--
"But, I do know that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and years of effort since 9/11 and we still have not gotten Osama."
Sorry for sidetracking, but are you counting the Iraq expenses and casualties as costs of trying to get Bin Laden?
Mike Huben-- plenty of stories on Reason about similar scenarios with with cops in place of bounty hunters.
Posted by: burger flipper at May 17, 2008 7:34:55 PM
.... and of course those bounty hunters might, unlike cops, might have to do some time for their killing.
Posted by: burger flipper at May 17, 2008 7:36:51 PM
Burger, how dare you interrupt Huben's rantings with some actual thought! Huben was busy indicting a market approach because of things that go wrong with that approach, while ignoring the far larger problems that occur with government provision! That's his entire methodology, to hold the market to a standard of perfection and declaring victory every time the market doesn't live up to that standard. And you went and rudely interrupted him with rational comparisons among different institutional arrangements! Be more careful next time. Otherwise Huben will have to quote himself on his own website some more.
Posted by: Keith at May 17, 2008 8:06:03 PM
Bounty hunters make errors, no surprise there. The Arizona case, however, did not involve bounty hunters. It was a home robbery where the perpetrators claimed they were bounty hunters. Of course, the second part of the story never made the national news. Not as sexy when thugs murder people.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at May 17, 2008 8:21:27 PM
Huben,
Be honest. Are you a libertarian plant? Your arguments are consistently so bad that you seem like the kind of straw man a dim-witted libertarian would enjoy arguing against.
Posted by: mrsinister at May 17, 2008 10:48:19 PM
The government of Pakistan is the one that needs to be offered a bounty. The cash for no performance paid to them since 9/11 hasn't bought much.
Another reason hundreds of billions of conventional spending is preferred over bounties: lobbyists can actually steer some of that cash to their employers. One more way the government pursues private interests over our common interests.
Posted by: Alan Brown at May 18, 2008 5:24:49 AM
I do see some problems with bounties, especially if those bounties are high enough to attract organizations instead of individuals.
What if other terorists give up Osama? Presumably, the people who know where he is are no friends of the US. Do you want to give them 100s of millions of dollars?
What if Osama, or some other high-ranking target, stages his own capture? If their organization has people willing to blow themselves up for the cause, they might have people willing to let themselves be captures, if the bounty eventually ends up for the cause.
What if people start terrorist attacks, including a puppet head who might or might not be aware that he's a puppet, and then sell the puppet to the US? For a billion dollars, this might be worth the trouble.
Capturing Osama or any other indivdual is mostly a PR stunt. Is it still good PR if it is known you paid 500 million for him, especially if you are paying to shady people? And bad is the PR if you offer 500 million, and still no one turns him in?
Do you want to encourage Blackwater type companies, or even cash-strapped countries, to go hunt for him on a large scale? Presumably, the US military and intelligence are better than theirs. If they can capture Osama but the military can't, it will be because they use methods you do not want to use yourself for diplomatic reasons, such as massive torture or action in friendly countries. But you probably had a reason to the draw the line there. People really do not care if they were invaded by the US or by US-encouraged bounty hunters.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at May 18, 2008 5:51:36 AM
But, I do know that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and years of effort since 9/11 and we still have not gotten Osama.
Do we, in fact, know this for sure?
If the US did capture or kill Osama, it might make perfect sense to keep quiet about it. If he's known to be dead, it would give him immortality as a martyr and leave an open path for a successor to make a bid for unchallenged leadership legitimacy. If he's known to be captured, it might inspire acts of massive terrorist blackmail against civilians to force his release (think of some of the things the Chechens tried in Russia). On the other hand, if he's perceived to be alive and on the run but completely ineffectual, he gradually fades into irrelevance while still blocking the emergence of a new, possibly more effective leader (a "Brigham Young" or "Saint Paul" figure, perhaps).
Something to think about: We can do interesting things with CGI to create very realistic artificial images by modeling the reflective properties of a material and running ray tracing Monte Carlo simulations (although we still can't produce fake photographs of people let alone fake videos)... perhaps the technology exists to do the same thing by modeling a person's mouth, nose and vocal tract (perhaps working backwards to deduce these parameters from actual vocal samples of their speech, or measuring them directly from a corpse) and then doing computation-intensive "air molecule tracing" to realistically reproduce sounds and words. American intelligence authorities keep certifying each new Osama audio tape as genuine... but then they would, wouldn't they? :)
A disembodied artificial Osama voice would also be useful for spreading misinformation to followers (through private audio tapes not released for public broadcast), or for directing followers to locations where they could be killed or captured (although the latter would have to be used sparingly to avoid giving the game away).
Posted by: at May 18, 2008 9:05:46 AM
Post a comment
