Category Archives: Public Choice

Politics in a Nutshell

Peter Boettke describes Gordon Tullock’s public choice approach on p. 134 of his new book, Living Economics:

Politics is about concentrating benefits on well-organized and well-informed interest groups, and dispersing costs on the unorganized and ill-informed masses.

That’s precisely why non-political solutions to social problems are desirable wherever possible. When the universal human impulses of self-interest, rationality, and maximizing utility find themselves in an institutional environment like Congress or City Hall, corruption and special privilege are the results almost every time.

Markets respect no special interest. This is why failing companies swarm to Washington; government exists to cater to them.

CEI Podcast for July 24, 2012: Unfunded Mandate Reform


Have a listen here.

Unfunded mandates are a way for Congress to increase government’s size and scope without increasing the deficit. Of course, this just means that state governments and the private sector are footing the bill instead. Research Associate David Deerson explains why past efforts to rein in unfunded mandates failed, and why new legislation that Congress is set to vote on this week could help.

Innovation Is Cool

A small food company in Canada has grown an apple that doesn’t turn brown after being sliced.

Not everyone thinks it’s a great idea. A representative for incumbent apple growers told The New York Times, “We don’t think it’s in the best interest of the apple industry of the United States to have that product in the marketplace at this time.”

This translates roughly to, “We think consumers will prefer this product to ours, and will hurt our bottom line. Therefore regulators should keep these things off the market for us.”

I’d rather consumers decide on the non-browning apple’s merits, thank you.

Regulation of the Day 224: Competing with Taxis


A cool startup company called Uber operates in about half a dozen cities in the U.S. and Canada, and is growing fast. Think of them as an on-demand cab service. Using their smartphone application, you request a car, and a few minutes later a professional driver in a black Lincoln Town Car will pick you up where you stand and take you where you need to go. Their system even sends you a text message to let you know when your driver is about to arrive.

Customers who don’t like Town Cars can request an SUV instead. Since Uber keeps your credit card information on file, payment is both cashless and automatic, and you do not tip your driver.

It’s an innovative business model, and customers rave about the service. No wonder the local taxi industry in Washington, D.C. sees Uber as a threat. There are two ways they can deal with it. One is to compete. The other is to use regulation to drive it out of business. Guess which option they chose?

Back in January, a shady sting operation led by Taxi Commissioner Ron Linton nearly put Uber out of business in DC, even though it failed to find any rules violations.

Today, the D.C. City Council was set to vote on an amendment from Councilmember Mary Cheh that would make it illegal for Uber to charge less than five times the minimum cab fare in D.C., currently $15. This would put a stop to UberX, a cheaper service using less flashy cars. UberX is already available in New York, and the company is planning on bringing it to Washington.

The price for Uber X is a $5 base fee, plus $3.25 per mile, so any trip under 3 miles or so would be cheaper than what the rent-seeking amendment would require.

In other words, Cheh would rather her constituents to pay more for transportation instead of less. Even in a city as cynical as Washington, this is difficult to spin as pro-consumer.

After a heartening consumer uproar, Councilmember Mary Cheh withdrew her amendment. Another Councilmember, Jack Evans, said he received more than 5,000 emails encouraging him to oppose the rent-seeking amendment.

It may return as a separate bill in the fall, but for now, Uber has won and the rent-seekers have lost.

There is reason to be optimistic that future rent-seeking attempts will also fail. Most companies become invertebrates when government comes calling, but Uber seems to have a spine. Leading up to the day of the amendment’s scheduled vote, CEO Travis Kalanick said,”We won’t stand for a DC Council price floor that limits innovation and hurts consumers. Uber DC’s minimum fare is now dropped to $12 for the remainder of July in protest.”

That’s the kind of attitude we like to see. D.C.’s taxi industry could learn a lot from Uber. Instead of purchasing corrupt politicians, they should offer a better service at a lower price. That way, everyone wins.

Who Benefits from Paternalism?

One of the most neglected questions in the paternalism debate — largely unasked by both sides — is, who benefits? Harvard’s Ed Glaeser has an answer:

“Advocating soft paternalism is akin to advocating an increased role of the incumbent government as an agent of persuasion.”

-Edward L. Glaeser, “Paternalism and Psychology,” (Regulation vol. 29, no. 2, p. 38, 2006).

Paternalist policies have built-in public choice concerns that all but ensure  results very different from their intentions. Something Mayor Bloomberg and his fellow travelers should keep in mind.

Fun Fact of the Day: The Origins of Rent-Seeking

The concept of “rent-seeking” was developed by Gordon Tullock in his 1967 paper, “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.” But he never actually uses the phrase in the paper.

Rent-seeking remained an idea without a name until 1974, when Anne Krueger published “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society” in the American Economic Review.

This and other fun facts are in Charles Rowley’s introduction to The Rent-Seeking Society, which is volume 5 of the Collected Works of Gordon Tullock.

Politics 101

When votes are at stake, truth takes a distant second to electoral success. This was just as true in Benjamin Constant’s 1815 as it is in our 2012:

“Everyone is more concerned to hit hard than accurately.”

-Benjamin Constant, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, p. 4.

Sources of Economic Error

George Mason University economist Peter Boettke has a new working paper out that not only tells Economics in One Lesson author Henry Hazlitt’s life story, but goes into great detail about the ongoing tension between pure academics and public intellectuals. Here’s how Boettke describes Hazlitt’s view on why so many people favor bad economic policies. In a prescient anticipation of public choice theory, sometimes it’s on purpose:

[P]ersistent error haunts economic reasoning not only due to the intellectual shortcomings of men. The problem of the special pleading of interest groups in economic affairs means that the inherent intellectual limitations of man are multiplied a thousand times over in the discipline of economics as opposed to physics, mathematics or medicine. Interest groups rely on fallacies to agitate for policies that benefit them at the expense of others.

Peter Boettke, “The Public Intellectual as Economist: The Case of Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993),” p.22.

Public Choice: A Primer


The good folks at the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs have just released an excellent book by Eammon Butler, Public Choice: A Primer. You can order a copy or download a free PDF version at this link. Public choice is essentially applying the economic way of thinking to politics; a volume in the collected works ofpublic choice founding father Gordon Tullock is even titled The Economics of Politics.

Most economics is about private decision-making by individuals or firms. Politicians, regulators, and voters make much more public choices, hence the name of the field. Many people think that politicians and regulators are different from other people. Instead of acting selfishly, they act in the public interest. Public choice depends on the controversial claim that people are people; government acts selfishly, too.

Politicians want to be re-elected. Bureaucrats want to enlarge their mission and budget, and to get that next promotion. These very human concerns affect the decisions they make and how they do their jobs. In short, just as there is market failure, there is government failure. That’s why Butler’s new primer should be required reading for everyone who works on Capitol Hill. If it doesn’t cause a wave of resignations, staffers would at least have a more realistic perception of how their colleagues behave, as well as the people who vote for them.

Other good public choice primers include William Mitchell’s Beyond Politics and Gordon Tullock, Arthur Seldon, and Gordon Brady’s Government Failure (free PDF)

CEI Podcast for March 15, 2012: T. Boone Pickens Amendment Fails


Have a listen here.

The Senate this week voted down a highway bill amendment that would massively financially benefit natural gas mogul T. Boone Pickens. Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis explains why the Senate did the right thing, and why Washington shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy marketplace.