Numberscruncher: Public Choice

Ann Logue August 11, 2009 11

As the good folks in Washington sort through the financial crisis, they want to know what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. What happened is that public choice economics proved to work flawlessly while other theories, about free and efficient markets, fell down on the job. So what is this public choice theory?

It’s a theory dreamed up by James Buchanan, a professor at George Mason University. He won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1986 for “for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making”.  In simpler terms, he figured out exactly how money and influence work in our political system. His theory, known as public choice, says that those who have a key stake in particular legislation lobby hard for the change they want; the rest of us make the rational decision not to get involved because we really don’t have the time or energy to worry about something like safety considerations for hospital-based x-ray facilities.

Now, of course, we the people have weird issues that will get our dander up. For some, it’s broad things like health insurance reform, but they can also be tiny. Like here’s one: I’m a member of the CFA Institute, and the organization has lobbied hard so that members can be excused from different licensing requirements. To people in the investment business, it’s a huge incentive to taking the CFA exam and paying membership dues. Does anyone else even care? Is it a matter for huge public debate? Probably not. All of these special cases add up and create a system where business regulations are hard to fathom, the tax laws are a mystery, and no one knows what to do when things go wrong. However, those with money and influence know how to work the system to get what they want.

Buchanan’s victory struck a lot of people as odd. (Yes, there are people who follow the Nobel Prizes in Economics, not just me.) First of all, George Mason isn’t a hotbed of economic theory in the way that University of California, University of Chicago, Stanford, and Yale are. Second, Buchanan wasn’t explaining traditional economic activities like inflation, unemployment, or interest rates; he was trying to explain the market for political change. That seemed like an odd use of economics back then, especially because the field was becoming really mathematical.

Public choice isn’t a theory so much as an explanation.  Other economic theories tell people what to do. An economist in the monetarist school would recommend managing the economy through the money supply; the economist’s research would look at the effects that these changes had. But with public choice, we’re left with the explanation but not so much of an idea about how to solve problems or how to measure what happens. Buchanan said that public choice explained why politics failed.

There are two ways to counter public choice. The first is to be a hyper-involved citizen, and that’s hard. We allow regulation to be finely detailed; our development programs are highly specific. If you are in a state capital or in Washington, DC, pay attention to the advertising on local television. It’s often about programs and issues that you never know existed, paid for by a PAC or trade group, urging you the viewer to let your legislator know. That’s to create the illusion that these ads are being run elsewhere.  But they aren’t. They buyer of the ad is hoping that the viewer is a lawmaker or member of a lawmaker’s staff who will be inspired to do whatever it that we the people supposedly demand.

The second counter to the problems of public choice is to reduce the role of the government. That’s less likely, because people want the government to intervene when things go wrong. Whether the hot button is prayer in the public schools or investment advisor registration, someone somewhere wants the government to do something now. Sure, these same people would probably say that they want the government out of their health care or out of the markets or whatever; that’s because human nature trumps political ideology.

  • JonCummings

    So, Ann, how would you think Dr. Buchanan would characterize the current Town Hall/Tea Party mess? Because it seems to me that these are people without specific personal interests — or at least not real ones, because 99 percent of the teabaggers won't see their taxes go up under the stimulus plan, and 99 percent of the town hall crazies stand to lose nothing under healthcare reform. Yet they're out there — and while their outrage is certainly being stoked by folks who DO have a stake in the outcome (big pharma, the insurance companies), these folks themselves are becoming “activists” in a way that seems to go far beyond the “public choice” explanation.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    Hmmm, Jon. I'm not sure. Buchanan's work assumes that the public acts rationally in ignoring the political horsetrading – the stuff that seems minor but adds up. But you could argue that the Teabaggaz are being rational based on the information that they have. Of course, their information is wrong, but it's working for them.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    If we look at how government managed (mismanaged) the Iraq War, it isn't irrational to conclude that government is neither particularly adept nor efficient at running a war. (If it is a war everyone agrees is necessary, like WWII, then we accept that, but I think we also agree not all wars are necessary.)

    If we review the series of actions, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, that systematically dismantled financial markets and banking regulations, leading to the speculation that blew up internet stock, real estate, and commodity price bubbles, it isn't irrational to conclude that government doesn't have a good record of regulatory competence when industry insiders (or soon-to-be industry insiders) are doing the regulating. (Remember, it was implicit government guarantees on much of the real estate debt that led to a false sense of confidence about these securitized instruments, allowing the fraudsters to peddle them to pension funds and other trusting souls. So there is another layer of government responsibility — refusing to clamp down on Fannie and Freddie when they knew shenanigans were afoot.)

    Many ordinary people have experienced the regulations that impede small businesses, and make it more expensive for domestic companies to produce a product or service than a big company which outsources its labor and legally transfers profits to foreign subsidiaries so that only a small percentage of said corporations are paying comparable taxes.

    If government had proven itself an honest, effective, and efficient manager, then we could have a debate about how much control versus individual choice we want to have in the system at all levels. But government has not. I wish someone who wants a comprehensive government managed system would give me two or three good reasons why, given the past record of failure in other arenas, we ought to be confident the government would do a good job managing health care.

    And a note to Jon: In a narrow sense you are correct, most people will not have their “taxes” go up as a result of health care reform, but there will be hidden costs. They might be forced to buy a more expensive insurance plan than the high deductible catastrophic plan they now have. There must of necessity be rationing of some sort (call it by another name, it will still be rationing — because we see this in every other country where socialized medicine is now entrenched). And there aren't enough rich people to pay for it, according to CBO. That means deficit spending, which means inflation, which is a tax, though hidden. So whether taxes go up or not for the “little folks,” they will pay, one way or the other.

    My friend said the other night in an inspired moment of anger, “The folks in Washington think all this can be paid for by money that just magically flies out of the unicorn's ass!” He's right. It is Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and all who support “heath insurance reform” who are living inside a delusion. The shouters and screamers at town hall meetings may only be expressing their emotion. But behind them, there is reason, based on observation.

  • JonCummings

    I'll name you three programs that inspire plenty of confidence in many millions of people: Social Security, Medicare and the Veterans Administration. None of them are perfect, none of them fulfill every single need or do things as effectively as they might (particularly the VA), but any argument against them is trumped by the now-famous quote from last month: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” And yeah, SS and Medicare are going broke, but that's a combination of demographics and poor fiscal planning, not a problem caused by the programs themselves.

    In response to a couple other items: there's rationing now — it's those form letters you get from your penny-pinching insurance company, telling you they don't plan to pay for this procedure or that medication, or continue insuring your mom now that her diabetes is creating expensive complications. And if some ski bunny has a $5000 deductible on a catastrophic insurance policy and doesn't happen to have the $4500 it will take to set that broken leg, that's called being woefully underinsured — and you and I will end up paying her bill just as surely as we pay the migrant farmworker's ER bill, whether he's legal or not. That's what a minimum-coverage mandate — paired with regulations standardizing the types of policies insurers can sell — is for.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    There most definitely is rationing now, and it's naive to say that there is not. Do people decide to have abortions because they have a surprise pregnancy and no health insurance? Do people stay in jobs they don't like rather than start businesses because they have pre-existing conditions and can't get health insurance? Do people skip medications because they cannot afford them? You betcha! The free market is not an endless fount of wonderful health care for everyone that will be eliminated as soon as the big, bad government gets involved. Health care reform will not introduce rationing, it will simply change who and how the health care is rationed.

    I'm guessing, Autodidact, that you have high-quality coverage from a large employer?

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Try again. I speak on principle. I am disabled, but do not receive disability income. I am living on my mother's social security. I have a modest nest egg that I hope can sustain me, if the asshats in Washington and the Federal reserve do not inflate it away. I have no health insurance. I firmly believe it is government interference in health care that makes it so expensive for my own medical bills and for insurance in general.

    Perhaps I am speaking against my own personal interests, because I believe it is best for the country at large. But no, your assumption could not be farther from the truth.

    Sorry.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    So, in essence, you are saying that we should ignore the fact that Soc Sec is demographically unsound, and that Medicare is already bankrupt and gets worse every year. We should load on top of this another deficit-spending program (“revenue neutral” — excuse me, Mr. President, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.) Those minor details have little to do with whether Washington is ethically or intellectually capable of fixing health care with the legislative equivalent of “One Ring To Rule Them All.”

    Failure begets failure. I think it is time to take away Congress' checkbook.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    Certainly, the fact that the goverment is the sole provider of health insurance to the costliest population is an enormous market distortion.

    I don't speak on some philosophical principle, I speak as a citizen and taxpayer who expects the government to work for me.

  • JonCummings

    C'mon, man, don't make leaps of logic that bear no relation to reality. Of COURSE it's not OK that Social Security and Medicare are going broke–which is precisely why the GOP were such douchebags to ridicule Al Gore's “lockbox” in 2000, and why the Bushies were such morons to cut taxes instead of putting the surplus toward making the two programs solvent. And of COURSE we're now going to have to do something else–including, probably, raising the payroll-tax limit substantially and changing the parameters of the programs so they kick in later in seniors' lives.

    Obama's mandate is to cover everyone and to reduce costs so that, in the long run, the entire system functions more efficiently than it does now. Both those things are unlikely to come under one piece of legislation, no matter how many pages long (boo hoo) it is–particularly if your friends have their way in gutting true reform out of it. Instituting new policies–and, yes, creating a new bureaucracy if the Dems don't wuss out (because Republicans are so dead-set on not expanding the already-existing Medicare but insist on reinventing the wheel once again)–will cost money in the short term. It's a bitter pill, but here's hoping you (and I) will have to swallow it.

  • JonCummings

    C'mon, man, don't make leaps of logic that bear no relation to reality. Of COURSE it's not OK that Social Security and Medicare are going broke–which is precisely why the GOP were such douchebags to ridicule Al Gore's “lockbox” in 2000, and why the Bushies were such morons to cut taxes instead of putting the surplus toward making the two programs solvent. And of COURSE we're now going to have to do something else–including, probably, raising the payroll-tax limit substantially and changing the parameters of the programs so they kick in later in seniors' lives.

    Obama's mandate is to cover everyone and to reduce costs so that, in the long run, the entire system functions more efficiently than it does now. Both those things are unlikely to come under one piece of legislation, no matter how many pages long (boo hoo) it is–particularly if your friends have their way in gutting true reform out of it. Instituting new policies–and, yes, creating a new bureaucracy if the Dems don't wuss out (because Republicans are so dead-set on not expanding the already-existing Medicare but insist on reinventing the wheel once again)–will cost money in the short term. It's a bitter pill, but here's hoping you (and I) will have to swallow it.

  • JonCummings

    C'mon, man, don't make leaps of logic that bear no relation to reality. Of COURSE it's not OK that Social Security and Medicare are going broke–which is precisely why the GOP were such douchebags to ridicule Al Gore's “lockbox” in 2000, and why the Bushies were such morons to cut taxes instead of putting the surplus toward making the two programs solvent. And of COURSE we're now going to have to do something else–including, probably, raising the payroll-tax limit substantially and changing the parameters of the programs so they kick in later in seniors' lives.

    Obama's mandate is to cover everyone and to reduce costs so that, in the long run, the entire system functions more efficiently than it does now. Both those things are unlikely to come under one piece of legislation, no matter how many pages long (boo hoo) it is–particularly if your friends have their way in gutting true reform out of it. Instituting new policies–and, yes, creating a new bureaucracy if the Dems don't wuss out (because Republicans are so dead-set on not expanding the already-existing Medicare but insist on reinventing the wheel once again)–will cost money in the short term. It's a bitter pill, but here's hoping you (and I) will have to swallow it.