Tag: Policy

Posted on

Don’t put a nappy on me just because you’re mollycoddling idiot #8,749

I hereby present the latest iteration of my telling the world how it ought to be run, damn it.  The topic today is:

With (very low) probability, p, event X might occur at location Y, causing offence, harm or even death to a person of type Z.

There are many examples of this sort of scenario.  Here are a few:

  • X:  Fall off a swing
  • Y: A public park
  • Z: A small child
  • X: Trip and fall
  • Y: Footpaths (sidewalks) with cracks in the concrete
  • Z: Old, clumsy or spatially unaware people
  • X: Bringing your dog
  • Y: The outside seating area of a cafe
  • Z: People that are allergic to, or just have an aversion to, dogs

Here is another, eloquently opposed by M.S. at one of The Economist‘s blogs:

  • X: Drown
  • Y: Lakes in Massachusetts state parks
  • Z: A weak swimmer

I’m sure that you, my eager and most imaginative audience, can describe any number of other examples.

What should we do when confronted with these scenarios?  Most people think that the world positions itself along a line separating, at one end, complete government regulation and at the other, zero government regulation and, instead, the use of tort law and civil suits to restrict the “bad” behaviour.  This is poor logic, however, because it is overly simplistic; it presupposes that we need to do anything at all!

I favour a midway point between regulation and tort law, but more importantly, to my mind, we usually don’t need to do anything when confronted with these possibilities. Life inherently has risks and, while we should act to avoid exacerbating those risks, we should not necessarily seek to remove them altogether.  There are three reasons for this:  First, because removing all risk is simply impossible and it is usually the case that reducing risk in one area causes it to rise in another; second, because exposure to some risk is crucial in the development of well-adjusted people and a properly-functioning society; and third, because to restrict people’s choices in order to lower the risk they face is to deprive them of their basic liberty to choose whether to accept that risk for themselves.

Let me summarise my view in this not-even-remotely-to-scale little plot. Think of the horizontal axis as a measure of how easy it is to demonstrate harm to a point of warranting action by “the authorities.”

There are 10 dots of each colour.  Broadly speaking, Australia and the UK have chosen the government regulation approach.  In Australia, every major political party seems to agree that the “solution” is always more (they would say better) regulation.  In the UK, the Lib Dems and Tories make occasional mutterings suggesting that they might agree with me, but for the most part they’re in lock step with Labour (UK), which likes the status quo.

America is a bit more varied.  By and large, they have adopted the approach of letting tort law and the fear of civil suits induce the effect of (remarkably strict) regulation, but when America does use explicit government regulation, it tends to be something of a light touch.  Democrats seem to want to move closer to the British/Australian model, while Republicans seem to either like their status quo or wish to move to the Libertarian ideal.

Small government / Libertarian idealists typically want no government regulation and, to the extent that things need to be dealt with at all, they want everything to happen through the courts.  Although they want small government, what government they do want, they want to be strong (e.g. in the enforcement of the law).

Speaking about America, M.S. in the above-linked-to Economist entry writes:

I would gladly join any movement that promised to do away with this sort of nonsense. For example, Philip K. Howard’s organisation “Common Good” (TED talk here) works on precisely this agenda. Common Good’s very bugaboo is useless, wasteful legal interference in schools, health care, recreation, and so on. But what you quickly note with many of these issues is that they’re driven by legal liability concerns. You have a snowblader in Colorado suing a resort because she crashed into someone. You have states declining to put up road-hazard signs because the signs prove they knew the hazard was there, which could render them liable for damages. You have the war on children’s playgrounds. The Massachusetts swimming ban, too, is driven by liability concerns. The park officials in Massachusetts aren’t really trying to minimise the risk that you might drown. They’re trying to minimise the risk that you might sue. The problem here, as Mr Howard says, isn’t simply over-regulation as such. It’s a culture of litigiousness and a refusal to accept personal responsibility. When some of the public behave like children, we all get a nanny state.

Which is exactly what I’m saying about America in my summary, but I think (at least, from my reading) that M.S. is assuming that the opposite of a litigious society is personal responsibility.  That’s not true, I’m afraid.  The level of personal responsibility is orthogonal to whether your society chooses litigiousness or state regulation.

Nevertheless, I suspect that M.S. (and Matt Yglesis) and I are on the same side in this debate.  Let people decide for themselves; they’re adults, or should be.  Don’t put a nappy (diaper) on me just because you’re mollycoddling idiot number 8,749 over there.

Posted on

The perverse incentives of Queensland traffic law

In the Australian state of Queensland, a violation of traffic law is punished by a fine and the awarding of points.  Points for a conviction stay on your licence for three years.  If you ever have 12 points at the same time, you’re in trouble.  I’ll come to that in a moment.

Somebody I know, let’s call him Semaj, has recently got himself up to 11 points.  He doesn’t dispute that he broke the law for all of them; he did.  Most of them came from speeding, but the last three points came from driving through a yellow light.  In Queensland, just like everywhere else on the planet, you must stop at a red light; but for a yellow light, you must stop if you are safely able to do so.  Some people believe that the yellow light should just be to warn drivers that the red is coming and have no penalty tied to it, but that’s not what I want to focus on.  To really rub salt in the wound, the light was still yellow when Semaj left the intersection and the only other car in the area was that of the police officer that booked him.  That’s what those in the business call a “dick move” by the cop, but it’s not what I want to focus on either.  What I want to focus on is …

***

Perverse incentive #1

The punishment for not stopping for a yellow light when you were safely able to is the same as that for not stopping at a red light:  AU$300 and 3 points.  This is absurd, because it fails to make the punishment proportionate to the severity of the crime.  By doing so, the government offers an incentive to people to treat them as equivalent.  To illustrate the point, let me take the idea embedded here in Queensland law to a logical, but ridiculous conclusion:

The violation of all laws should be punishable by the same penalty. A serial rapist-murderer should be locked away for life. Therefore, overstaying your parking for just one minute should lead to your being locked away for life.

See?  Absurd.  Clearly there are gradations of severity and, just as clearly, there should be corresponding gradations of punishment.  If the punishment for running a red light is a fine and 3 points, then the punishment for running a yellow should be a smaller fine and 1 point.

***

Anyway.  Moving on.  Semaj now has 11 points on his licence.  The oldest of his points is only one year old, so he has two full years before any of them are removed.  If he gets even a single point over the next two years, he will be faced with the following choice when he turns up at the Department of Transport to pay his fine:

  • either give up his licence for three months;
  • or go on a probationary licence (with a limit of two points instead of 12) for a full year.

After this, he will be returned a regular full licence entirely clear of points.  Hopefully you can now see …

***

Perverse incentive #2

Semaj is in a position where he would be better off by breaking the law.  The government is giving him an incentive to break the law.  If Semaj follows the law, he will have a one-point buffer for two years, then a three-point buffer for a year before returning to a full licence.  That’s three years in total.  If he deliberately gets caught for a one point infraction tomorrow, he can have a two-point buffer for one year and then go immediately to a full licence.  The cost to him will just be the fine for tomorrow’s infraction; maybe $100.

Who wouldn’t take that option?  It’s crazy.  If you’re going to have a point system with the possibility of a probationary licence, then the length of the probationary period should be long enough that someone in Semaj’s position wouldn’t actually prefer to be on it.

***

As I’ve said before, I believe that all fines issued for misdemeanours should not be for a fixed amount, but for a percentage of the transgressor’s income. When faced with the prospect of a $400 fine, somebody earning $20,000 a year will pay attention, but somebody earning $200,000 will not care nearly as much.  The two people therefore face different incentives when it comes to obeying the law.

Of course, none of this comes close for the most ridiculous traffic law in Queensland.  That most dubious of prizes goes to this piece of nanny-state-run-amok trash:  Drivers on P-plates (that’s a “provisional” licence) “under 25 years of age can only carry one passenger under the age of 21 years who is not an immediate family member, when driving between 11pm on a day and 5am on the next day.”

For reference, the very earliest that somebody in Queensland can move from a provisional to a full licence is at the age of 20.  That is two or three years into university.  Most Queenslanders, if they go to university and don’t take a gap year, would turn 21 in their fourth year.

The “peer passenger restriction” of provisional licences is designed to prevent distraction (from drunk louts in the back seat) to the driver and so, presumably, lead to fewer accidents and thus fewer fatalities.  Whether it ultimately succeeds in reducing road deaths is an empirical question.  I don’t have access to the data, but to my mind there’s a fair possibility that we’ll actually see more road deaths from this, because …

***

Perverse incentive #3

By forcing university-age people to not share a car, the Queensland government is:

  • abandoning the idea of a designated driver; and
  • encouraging more traffic onto the roads at just the time of day when people are least likely to pay full attention to the road (what, did they think that those kids would stay home?).

Both of those effects will serve to push up the accident (and thus, fatality) rates.

If you want to keep drunk 20-year-olds off the roads, then give them a way to avoid them.  Improve public transport.  Lift the licencing restrictions on taxis.

***

Idiots.

Posted on

Why is the US Fed lowering interest rates?

Continuing on from my previous wondering about how panic-driven and effective current US (monetary) policy is, I notice these two posts from Paul Krugman …

Ben Bernanke has cut interest rates a lot since last summer. But can he make a difference? Or is he just, as the old line has it, pushing on a string?

Here’s the Fed funds target rate (red line) — which is what the Fed actually controls — versus the interest rate on Baa corporate bonds (blue line), which is probably a better guide to what matters for actual business spending.

It’s pretty grim. Basically, deteriorating credit conditions have offset everything the Fed has done. Doubleplus ungood.

INSERT DESCRIPTION

… and Brad DeLong …

Further cuts in the federal funds rate are on the way. Ben Bernanke is talking about how we are in a slow-moving financial crisis of DeLong Type II: one in which large financial institutions are insolvent–“pressure on bank balance sheets”–and in which lower short-term interest rates and a steeper yield curve are a way of providing institutions with the life jackets they need to paddle to shore.

Larry Meyers has pointed out that the BBB yield is no lower than it was in July–that all the easing has had no effect on the cost of capital that the financial markets feed to the “real economy,” and hence that Fed policy today is no more stimulative than it was last summer.

I’m more inclined to agree with Brad’s assessment than Paul’s implicit prediction of gloom, although it depends on what you think the Fed should be looking at.  Paul is clearly hoping for a decrease in long-term rates so-as to stimulate the real economy, while Brad is simply noting that steeper yield curves, manifested here through a drop in base rates and no movement in longer-term paper, are pumping up banks’ profit flows, which will help them deal with the hideous losses from the sub-prime mess, the monoline insurer implosion and all the other nasties out there.

This seems like pretty clear “Bernanke put” behaviour to me.  The banks need the short-term increase in profit flows in order to stay solvent in the medium-term.  Whether Mr Bernanke is pushing down the base rate because the banks can’t lift the yields on long-term debt or because he doesn’t want them to (since that would hit the real economy) is a moot point.

This doesn’t change the fact that Bernanke is slopping out the good times to save the industry from its own mistakes.  It’s probably safe to say that there’ll be no more knuckles rapped (except maybe those of the ratings agencies), so the real question is whether they’ll be allowed to make the same mistakes again …

Posted on

Oh please, oh please, oh please

Mr. Rudd, call Andrew Leigh.  Call him now.  Speaking on Indigenous policy, he writes:

  1. School attendance rates are appalling, and as Woody Allen says “90% of life is just showing up”. So pay Indigenous children to attend school.
  2. Literacy and numeracy gaps are large, and part of the difference may be teacher quality. So the federal government should promise bonuses of up to $50,000 to teachers who can get large improvements in performance in Indigenous schools. Teaching disadvantaged kids is the most important job in Australia – so why does no-one doing it earn a six-figure salary?
  3. Indigenous people are overrepresented in Australia’s jails, which do little more than warehousing. Since many are now private, why not rewrite the contracts, making payment conditional on post-release recidivism and earnings? Let’s create incentives for those who run jails to do more education, and less clock-watching.
  4. A major impediment to children attending school is drunkenness in communities. But a ban is a drastic measure. Let’s allow communities to set their own tax rates on alcohol, and keep the revenue (remember, a ban is effectively a tax rate equivalent to the cost of petrol to the nearest no-ban town).
  5. As many Indigenous policies as possible (including those above) should be subjected to rigorous randomised trials. Those that fail should be discarded without sentiment, and those that succeed should be expanded. We know from the headline indicators that many Indigenous policies haven’t worked; it’s time to start sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

Amen.

Posted on

Evil? No. Amoral? Hopefully, yes.

The NY Times looks at economists and the ‘yuck’ factor here.

You can kill a horse to make pet food in California, but not to feed a person. You can hoist a woman over your shoulder while running a 253-meter obstacle course in the Wife-Carrying World Championship in Finland, but you can’t hold a dwarf-tossing contest in France. You can donate a kidney to prevent a death and be hailed as a hero, but if you take any money for your life-saving offer in the United States, you’ll be jailed.

…

Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale … conducted a two-year study to try to get at why people consider athletes who take steroids to be cheating, but not those who take vitamins or use personal trainers … The only change that caused the interviewed subjects to alter their objections to steroids was when they were told that everyone else thought it was all right. “People have moral intuitions,” Mr. Bloom said. When it comes to accepting or changing the status quo in these situations, he said, they tended to “defer to experts or the community.”

Often introducing money into the exchange – putting it into the marketplace – is what people find repugnant. Mr. Bloom asserted that money is a relatively new invention in human existence and therefore “unnatural.”

Economists are asking the wrong question, Mr. Bloom said[.] They assume that “everything is subject to market pricing unless proven otherwise.”

“The problem is not that economists are unreasonable people, it’s that they’re evil people,” he said. “They work in a different moral universe. The burden of proof is on someone who wants to include” a transaction in the marketplace.

I disagree.  Economists are not immoral (violating moral principals), they simply seek to be amoral (not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral).

There is, or ideally is, a permanent distinction in economics between positive statements (statements of fact, shorn of moral interpretation; a statement of what is) and normative statements (moral judgements; a statement of what ought to be).  The distinction didn’t originate in economics.  We’ve borrowed it from the philosophy department (that economics, like all branches of study, first grew out of).  David Hume was using the idea back in 1739, for example.

It’s an enormously powerful technique.  It allows us, for example, to observe that there are trade-offs to be balanced in creating optimal tax policy, or that there is a statistically significant correlation between increased rates of abortion and decreased crime rates 20 years later, or that the decision to be a prostitute may be a marginal one instead of a discreet one.  These are statements of what is; they are positive statements and can be debated as such.  But once a positive statement is agreed upon, it then informs the normative debate.

This is an awkward thing for many non-economists to grasp, because for most of us, our beliefs about facts and beliefs about morals are closely intertwined and even interdependent.  None of which is to say that we always can separate the positive from the normative, especially in studying the economics of (government) policy.  But even in these cases, attempting to make the separation and acknowledging where any given statement contains an element of the other makes for better, more informed debate.

Posted on

Two policies that I would vote for

  • I think that all forms of leave (annual/recreation leave, sick leave, public/bank holidays, etc.) should be bundled together into a single, generic pool that workers can draw down on when they wish, subject to managerial approval. However, it should be illegal for managers to deny approval for days of significant ceremonial importance to the major religions or for days of national significance (e.g. Australia Day and ANZAC Day in Australia).
  • I think that all fines issued for misdemeanours should not be for a fixed amount, but for a percentage of the transgressor’s income. When faced with the prospect of a $400 fine, somebody earning $20,000 a year will pay attention, but somebody earning $200,000 will not care nearly as much. I also think that any money raised through fines (a) should not be available to the department that issued the fine, but go into broader government funding (the police should not have a direct economic benefit from fining people for speeding) and (b) should be carefully tallied and reported publically on a regular basis. People need to be able to see that, for example, the money raised through speeding fines is contributing to funding hospitals.