Political Entrepreneurs

The Economic Engine of Political Change

How incentives matter, even in politics (Part II)

November 22nd, 2012 by Wayne Leighton

The first lesson in economics — incentives matter! — applies well beyond citizens in their role as taxpayers, employees, business owners, and the like. And one of the key lessons of public choice economics — a lesson that Ed and I discuss in detail in our book — is that incentives matter in politics, too. Politicians do not leave their self-interest at the door when they step into the legislature.

This seemingly obvious point is too often ignored in the debate over campaign finance reform. Let’s take a look at how including it could enrich that debate.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Steve Gillman deserves an honorable mention for pointing out the problems with most attempts to regulate campaign finance. You know, like the limitations imposed on regulators by the First Amendment…

Gillman worries about those who finance right-leaning candidates and is less concerned about those who finance left-leaning ones. Still, he admirably offers a dose of reality:

“Looking at the attempts to regulate political expenditures and the many laws passed over my lifetime, I have to ask, “So how is that working out for us?” 

He then tries to understand why these reforms fail:

“The desire for campaign contribution limits ignores the simple fact that such laws simply reorganize the flow of money, without any meaningful effect on the nature of elections or the corruption that potentially follows them.”

That’s not a bad start. Gillman seems to recognize that it does little good to change a law or two if we do not also change the incentives for bad behavior. Changing campaign finance laws without changing the incentives faced by politicians — and everyone who wants to influence them — ultimately will do little good.

In short, the problem is more fundamental in nature. Money will continue to flow into political markets as long as politicians control how money is made in all other markets.

 

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.189, ch.7)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.178, ch.7)

[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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.176. ch.7)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.174, ch.6)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.166, ch.6)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.153, ch.6)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.146, ch.6)

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?

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.121, ch.5)

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.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.120, ch.5)

It’s the rules of the political game that deserve our focus, not politicians’ personalities or party affiliations.

From the Pages of Madmen, Intellectuals, and Academic Scribblers (p.119, ch.5)

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.

©2024 Wayne A Leighton & Edward López • Web Design by Barrel Strength