What they are saying about Madmen
“Ideas matter. Madmen, with its engaging stories, is perfect for anyone interested in public policy, or how our world could be a better place. Read it, and assign it to your students.”
“There’s no shortage of writing about bad government policies, but Leighton and López go several steps deeper, by exploring the incentives that foster bad policies, the institutions that foster bad incentives, the ideas that foster bad institutions, and the social processes that foster the spread of bad ideas. Better yet, they offer wise prescriptions for change and colorful stories to illustrate their wisdom. This is a book that manages all at once to be sage, important, and great fun to read. I highly recommend it.”
“Come along with Leighton and López as they speed date significant economic and philosophical influencers and chart the triumph of markets. As an erstwhile political practitioner in radical market reforming mode, I was relieved to find that I could dodge the moniker of ‘madman’ and classify myself as a ‘political entrepreneur.’ Racy and relevant, this book is a call to reforming arms.”
“This book is an inspiring reminder that great thinking matters. It’s a delightful, accessible, and thought-provoking book for anyone interested in big ideas at the intersection of economics and politics.”
“Leighton and López have written a captivating book that explains the process of social change, from ideas to outcomes. Their theoretical framework—centered on the figure of the ‘political entrepreneur’—is illuminating and original. It will spark productive conversations among those who are interested in social change and the wealth of nations.”
“Madmen makes clear there are several necessary conditions for a political shift to take place. We tend to think of change as resulting from a single hero or villain, but the story is more complex. The tales in this book show what it takes to effect change, while weaving a yarn that is entertaining and memorable.”
“Madmen is a rare treat—and a rare feat. Seldom does a work combine the rigors of academic inquiry with the delights of a successful storytelling enterprise. The principles of “political change,” as it turns out, can explain human behavior in the body politic, in sports, in decisions of daily life, in financial markets, and naturally in the complex field of structural reform. This book is required reading for people focusing on the dynamics of political transformation; it is also a splendid read in itself.”
“Leighton and López supply intellectually sound arguments, grounded in public choice and Austrian economics, to explain why democratic governments often fail to produce policies that are consistent with the public’s interest. Most impressive are the authors’ evident grasp of—and ability to synthesize—complex arguments about the properties of ‘good government.”
The most successful entrepreneurs know what they do well, they know the market and the opportunities within it, and they choose those activities that create the most value. This is true in economic as well as political markets.
[W]hen the right elements come together at the right time and place and overwhelm the status quo, it is because special people make it happen. We call them political entrepreneurs.
While we started this book with Danny Biasone saving basketball, we end it with Norman Borlaug saving a billion lives. These stories are not that different. Both faced vested interests, which were reinforced by popular beliefs that things should be a certain way—that is, until a better idea came along.
Because there was a general belief that homeownership was a good thing, politicians found the public with open arms.... Everybody was winning—except Alfred Marshall, whose supply and demand curves were difficult to see through the haze of excitement at the time, and except Friedrich Hayek, whose competition as a discovery procedure was befuddled... In short, once politicians started getting credit for homeownership rates, the housing market was doomed.
Everyone responded rationally to the incentives before them. In short, the rules that guided homeownership changed over time, which in turn changed the incentives of these actors. And bad things happened.
They understood the economics. The ideas had already won in ... the regulatory agency itself. All that remained to be overcome were some vested interests and a handful of madmen in authority.
If the idea for auctions of spectrum use rights had been part of the public debate since at least 1959, why didn’t the relevant institutions change sooner? What interests stood in the way?
When an academic scribbler comes up with a new idea, it has to resonate well with widely shared beliefs, which in turn must overcome the vested interests at the table. Many forces come together to explain political change, even though it may seem like coincidence of time and place.
It’s the rules of the political game that deserve our focus, not politicians’ personalities or party affiliations.
In short, ideas are a type of higher-order capital in society. Like a society that is poor in capital and therefore produces little consumer value, a society that is poor in ideas and institutions will have bad incentives and therefore few of the desirable outcomes that people want.