A Legislature of far too little impact

Los Angeles TImes editorial "A Legislature of far too little impact" (September 5th, 2010) neglects the economic idea that an inefficient government may be desirable.

Unfortunately, those successes must be regarded as exceptions. Smart and important legislation, much of it propelled by substantial public support, fell by the wayside in the final days. Indeed, what is most notable about the recently concluded session is not the little bit of good policy the Legislature made but the great deal that it did not. Not to mention the bad bills it passed.

At first glance, it would appear that an increase in efficiency of government would always be pareto improving. However, it may be that an inefficient government is desirable for some.

Specifically, one might see increased government activity as a long-term drain on growth. If, as Rothbard put it, "the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large", then we might consider the societal implications for that band being more efficient (they are better able to steal). In this sense, it may be desirous for us to constrain government to only support inefficient programs.

The Law of Demand holds: if something is more expensive, people will buy less of it. In this case, increasing the price of government makes us demand less of it. This, in turn, helps to maximize freedom. This point would hold for consequentialist libertarians, for instance, who might view any government action as more likely to be from an interest group looking to transfer money from the general public using the government, than out of a real interest of a populace.

Where else might this apply?  Deontological libertarians recognize that behind every state action is the barrel of a gun, to put it bluntly.  Take a parking ticket--it wouldn't seem that a firearm is behind one.  However, if one foregoes payment, either a violation warrant may be issued, at which point at any time a man with a firearm (police officer) may go to your home and arrest you by force.  Alternatively, you may simply run the risk of being arrested (through the use of force) the next time you are pulled over.  The only power The Law has is violence and the threat of violence.  

Deontological libertarians further believe that this initiation of the use of force is wrong.  Consequentialist libertarians have no such issue with the initiations of the use of force.  These libertarians support liberty because they see it as bringing about desirable conditions.  Therefore, a politically savvy Deontological libertarian might desire to make large government inefficient so Consequentialst libertarians essentially adopt all Deontological positions.

Corrections concludes that a government that efficiently takes and spends resources is not necessarily desirable due to these economic concerns.  Indeed, we have indicated that for reasons of political economy, some groups may even desire to make it less efficient to manipulate other groups to the adoption of similar positions.

One number can't illustrate teacher effectiveness

Los Angeles Times article "One number can't illustrate teacher effectiveness" (August 25th, 2010) criticizes Richard Buddin's scoring of Los Angeles teachers, arguing that it isn't taking everything into account and that there's an "ethical issue" publishing his research:

Given analytic weaknesses, the ethical question that arises is whether The Times is on sufficiently firm empirical ground to publish a single number, purporting to gauge the sum total of a teacher's effect on children.

Corrections had a number of issues with the article's criticism of Buddin's procedure. However, the more interesting issue was the author's raising of "ethicality" in the Times decision to publish Buddin's research. Theory suggests that unions may raise short-run pay but they flatten skill differentials. Perhaps to that end, teacher's unions have nearly uniformly opposed the ranking of teachers and anything that might help that process.

One reason for this is so fellow travelers might then criticize any empirical ranking that breaks a union's power by encouraging best practices and getting rid of bad teachers. What, then, might a strategy be to break this cartel of unions denying statistics, and education professors criticizing studies using bad statistics? To publish the best studies we can using the statistics we are given. Why?

Let us imagine that there are two types of teachers, good teachers, and bad teachers. They both have the same baseline utility. Both their utilities may be decreased by increased supervision. However, given that they'll be ranked, good teachers would rather have good statistics. The idea is displayed graphically below (click to enlarge).

What might this do? If they aren't being graded, both good teachers and bad teachers prefer to obstruct good statistics being collected. However, if they are being graded, good teachers now prefer good statistics while bad teachers like them even less. However, a wedge has now been created, and it's an empirical question whether or not good teachers will be able to outvote bad teachers in the quest for the collection better statistics.

In this vein, publishing well-done, competent research that admits its flaws (which an article criticizing it then rehashes) and encourages the destruction of union power to the detriment of bad teachers and benefit of students would appear the only "moral" choice.

N.J.'s lag in 2010 Census participation should concern residents, officials say

New Jersey Star-Ledger article "N.J.'s lag in 2010 Census participation should concern residents, officials say" (March 31st, 2010) makes a common argument about the Census that strikes Corrections as incorrect. Specifically, it argues that everyone in a state loses out when an individual fails to fill out a Census, as the state may potentially lose a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (seats are apportioned according to Census results). Concerning unfilled-out Census forms, the Star-Ledger supports its argument:

That’s trouble for us. That’s loss of money. It’s a potential loss of a congressional seat, and make no mistake, that’s a problem for everyone in New Jersey,” said Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Union), who chairs the Assembly State Government Committee.

Let us imagine that I am the minority party in a state whose state legislature is controlled by the opposing party. That opposing party will gerrymander any new district to be controlled by the opposing party. If I conjecture that my state is best served by my party being in control at the Federal level, then I might choose to not fill out my Census form rationally, especially if it means my state losing a seat in the House of Representatives.

Number of People Living on New York Streets Soars

New York Times article "Number of People Living on New York Streets Soars" (March 19th, 2010) fails to note the contradictory forces present when one tries to helping the homeless.

Tim Marx, the executive director of Common Ground, a nonprofit organization that provides homeless street outreach services in Brooklyn, Queens and parts of Manhattan, said he was not surprised by the increase.

“It just says that we have to keep up our efforts and intensify them,” Mr. Marx said. “The more people we have on the streets, the more they are making demands of our emergency shelter system, emergency rooms, detox centers and jails.”

The times should also note, as Corrections does here that intensifying outreach programs (subsidizing poverty in New York city limits) removes disincentives for marginal individuals to become homeless, removes incentives for the currently-homeless to change their lifestyle, and perhaps most pertinently gives incentives for the homeless to migrate to New York.

As an interesting side note, the solution to ending poverty locally would seem quite clear to Corrections: end all local welfare programs. Indeed, Corrections is surprised that the sort of Prisoner's Dilemma payoffs that local politicians face to solve their poverty program by encouraging the homeless to migrate (a localized Mariel boatlift of sorts) does not appear to take place very often.