Saturday, January 12, 2013

Politics Without Romance - James Buchanan

Review & Outlook: Politics Without Romance - WSJ.com:

EXCERPTS:


With Gordon Tullock, Buchanan developed what became known as "public choice theory." Buchanan described it as the application of the profit motive to government: "It presupposes that if there is value to be gained through politics, persons will invest resources in efforts to capture this value.... in the early 1960s, the notion that politicians were anything but unselfish public servants was, well, under-appreciated. Public choice, he wrote, was nothing new but "incorporates an understanding of human nature" that prevailed in the 18th century.

In our own times "market failures were set against an idealized politics," Buchanan wrote in 2003. Public choice provided "a set of theories of governmental failures," or as Buchanan called it, "politics without romance."
So, for example, he could explain why bureaucracies had an incentive to expand their turf in order to increase their financial resources and power. Or why politicians keep tax rates high so they can dole out special credits and exemptions for those who would reward those same politicians. Or why pork-barrel politics is the abiding concern of legislators.

In Appreciation—James M. Buchanan

Donald Boudreaux: In Appreciation—James M. Buchanan - WSJ.com:

EXCERPTS:


James M. Buchanan, who died Wednesday at age 93, was one of history's greatest economists. Though he won the Nobel Prize in 1986, Jim at heart was always a farm boy from Tennessee—an old-fashioned, hardworking American who disdained unearned privileges as well as deeply distrusting the promises of politicians and the passions of collectives.

The theme of his life's work is best summarized in the title of his 1997 article "Politics Without Romance." With longtime colleague Gordon Tullock, Jim launched a research program—public-choice economics—that challenged the widespread notion that politicians in democratic societies are more nobly motivated and trustworthy than are business people and other private-sector actors. In a wide river of books and papers, Jim warned against the foolishness of romanticizing government.

Jim regarded his work as simply extending and applying the insights of America's founding generation, especially those of James Madison. Unlike too many pundits and professors over the past century—but like America's founders—Jim understood that politicians' lovely proclamations of their desires to improve society too often camouflage unlovely venal motives that prompt politicians to disregard the general welfare in order to transfer wealth and privilege to powerful interest groups.

***

His deep skepticism of government, combined with his expert understanding of free markets, led Jim to describe himself as a "classical liberal." But it wasn't always so. Like many of his generation, the young Jim Buchanan was a socialist. His socialism was cured, though, by his studies in economics at the University of Chicago. While there, Jim polished his keen instincts for detecting nonsense.

***

Not that Jim held much hope that his speaking out against unwise government policy would do much good. He sought to prevent harmful policies by tying politicians' hands rather than by pleading with politicians to be more public-spirited. And to tie politicians' hands Jim championed constitutional reform. He believed that only binding, enforceable constitutional rules can prevent Leviathan from eventually suffocating private markets and stamping out human freedom.

Ironically, the constitutional reform that Jim advocated practically requires the cooperation of the politicians whom he so distrusted. Yet it is a mark of greatness in Jim Buchanan that he held out hope, until his dying day, that clear-eyed scholarship would eventually persuade people of the dangers of unconstrained government and of the need to somehow rein it in.
Mr. Boudreaux is professor of economics at George Mason University and chair for the study of free market capitalism at the Mercatus Center.
A version of this article appeared January 9, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: In Appreciation: James M. Buchanan.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Income inequality can be explained by demographics, and because the demographics change, there’s income mobility

EXCERPTS:


Bottom Line: Household demographics, including the average number of earners per household and the marital status, age, and education of householders are all very highly correlated with household income.  Specifically, high-income households have a greater average number of income-earners than households in lower-income quintiles, and individuals in high income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated, married, working full-time, and in their prime earning years.  In contrast, individuals in lower-income households are far more likely than their counterparts in higher-income households to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young (under 35 years) or very old (over 65 years), and living in single-parent households.
The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes, which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.  Fortunately, evidence shows that individuals and households move up and down the income quintiles over their lifetimes as the key demographic variables highlighted above change.