Voter Apathy? (Not exactly)

According to this WSJ article, voters in New Jersey "appeared to show record apathy" in the elections this past Tuesday. The voter turnout was at at a record low of 26%. The article suggests that a lack of competitive races and a "district map favoring incumbents" are in part responsible for this unusually low turnout. However, the WSJ mistakenly labels this situation as one of voter apathy. If the lack of competitive races were in fact the primary causes of low turnout, then New Jersey residents were not being apathetic -- they were, as Johnson would say, rationally abstaining. According to Johnson's analysis, it is only rational for a voter to go vote if the individual benefits of voting are greater than the individual costs. In this case, the voters may care very much about the outcome of the races. However, if they believe that the races are not competitive (whether because of the district lines or for other reasons), then they will view their individual vote as being unable to have any effect on the outcome. It would therefore be a waste of time and energy to vote (the costs would outweigh the benefits).

The article also that mentions that Connecticut voter turnout this year was no lower than usual, despite officials' fears that the snowstorm would cause the voter turnout rate to drop. The worries of government officials are consistent with Johnson's analysis, and so it is interesting that their worries turned out to be incorrect. We would have expected that fewer people would have gone to the polls this year, because the snowstorm its related effects should have increased the individual costs of voting (for instance, many people left the state due to power outages, and so it should be much more difficult for these people to get to the polls).

Shirking

As described by Mueller, political representatives are said to “shirk” when they “vote as their own preferences dictate, even when this runs counter to the preferences of their constituents,” but this is only one of many real life examples of shirking. Another example is that of student-athletes shirking their academic obligations. Coach Ken Carter of Richmond High School faced this problem with some of his basketball players in 1999, but he took two significant steps to reduce shirking; Coach Carter created specific, well-defined responsibilities for his players, and he monitored them closely.

Carter obligated all of his players to sign contracts in order to be on the team. These contracts required that the players attend all of their classes, sit in the front row of those classes, and maintain at least a 2.3 GPA, among other things. Carter also received reports from teachers regarding the players’ academic performance, in order to monitor them. When these reports revealed that some players were failing to meet the requirements agreed to in the contracts, Carter first punished the team at practice, then, when that failed, instigated a lockout. Carter caught the players shirking their academic duties and held them accountable, closing the gym for both practices and games. Eventually the players’ academic performances reached a satisfactory level, and Carter reopened the gym. Carter’s goal for the season was to help his players get into college, and by forcing the players to sign detailed contracts, monitoring their academic performances, and implementing a lockout, he was able to effectively minimize the extent to which players shirked their academic responsibilities in favor of their personal preferences.

Of course, it is not as easy to create specific, well-defined contracts that political representatives must sign before taking office, and the costs of monitoring them would also be much greater than the costs of Carter monitoring his players. Additionally, the lack of competition in elections causes many political representatives to feel that they can shirk their duties to their constituents without significant consequence, a trend that is difficult to reverse without a complete overhaul of the American political system. Although there are some situations in which shirking can be avoided and/or punished through a variety of measures, the nature of the American political system makes the problem of representatives shirking the obligations of their position notably more difficult to solve.

Cost of Elections

With averages for voter turn-out so low in the US, we discussed reasons such as rational ignorance or opportunoity cost, but when we spoke about the opportunity forgone by voting we mostly highlighted whatever else we could have done with the one hour it might take us to go to our local voting poll, maybe read the newspaper, wash the car, or even write a blog post, but we almost never consider the cost of voting to be our own life. This article discusses the elections in Nigeria and the high risks that can still be attached to the process and outcomes of these elections. It mentions that many Nigerians were killed after riots broke out about elections in Kaduna and Bauchi. There is heavy arguing over whether or not the elections were "rigged", but the violence and rioting forced the elections to be postponed.

This is heavy news that might make Americans reconsider the importance of voting. I believe that it is safe to say that most of these Nigerians are more enthusiastic to get involved with their election because the stakes of the election are much higher. This also reminds me of the Afghans who were killed when they tried to vote around 2007 in dangerous elections. What platforms in the US might make American voters risk their lives to vote?

Shirking by the ATF Hurts Justice Department

Often there are times when people’s different intentions do not align and there are undesired circumstances as a result. This article on the Justice Department’s disagreement over gun-trafficking probes shows how when the department’s desires do not align with the individuals within it how there can be consequences. The article discusses how parts of the Justice Department like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-trafficking probes that let suspects buy firearms. These missions like Fast and the Furious and Wide Receiver have led to thousands of guns being unaccounted for which has led to unknown amounts of violence. The Bureau said it took these risky actions in order to try and help the overall image of the Justice Department. However, the United States Attorney’s Office in Arizona has said that these practices have not been condoned by their institution. Although, the Justice Department and the ATF have the same end goal, the way they achieved these goals and was different and there was inefficiency as a result. Grier describes this problem as the principal-agent problem where the agent, the Bureau, is charged with acting on behalf of the principle who is the party that gains and loses from the activities in question, the Justice Department. The disconnect that can happen between the principal and the agent occurs because although both parties are the utility maximizers, they do not have the same utility function. The disconnect that is happening in this scenario is called shirking because the ATF was trying to maximize its own utility, rather than taking into account how the risky behavior would affect the utility of the Justice Department. The oversight on behalf of the ATF that has consequences for the principal, the Justice Department, could be fixed by assessing Kalt and Zupan’s remedies for shirking. If the Justice Department had done a better job of monitoring the ATF, defining their responsibilities, and assessing their performance than these reckless missions would likely not have been undertaken and there would not be firearms unaccounted for. Kalt and Zupan would argue that the Justice Department needs to curb the shirking tendencies of their constituents in order to prevent inefficiencies like unaccounted firearms in the future.

Presbyterian Church Split(?)

It’s difficult when thinking of ‘interest groups’ to think of denominations inside the Christian Church. According to Olson’s definition, though, groups are formed when common interest is found within individuals and when these individuals seek to ‘further’ this interest. Regardless, you can agree that different denominations within Christianity are formed because of a unity in a difference in religious convictions and practices. We have seen throughout Christian Church history many major denominations formed and within some of those groups, smaller denominations. For example, within the Presbyterian denomination, two major specific denominations were formed, both the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) and PC(USA) (Presbyterian Church (USA)). These are not exclusive within the Presbyterian church however. This article is explaining how some churches and individuals within the PC(USA) denomination have recently decided to try and leave the denomination because of conflicting personal interests. What I find most interesting in this article is that religious and political beliefs are called to be directly related. As we see much polarization and difference in conservative and liberal views within religious organizations, we see the same within the political sphere. This separation could hurt the Presbyterian denomination as a whole. To Olson, large interest groups are successful when political activity is a byproduct of the group’s interests. Within the Christian community, although the political and religious sphere seem to be growing closer related, each Christian denomination’s main purpose is for the interest of religious and spiritual growth. But, this article seems to imply that there is some political activity deriving from religious organizations. So, as these denominations lose ‘power’ and support from within, as a religious group, they will directly lose political influence as well. The inherently conservative or liberal beliefs of these groups will bring less into the political field.

Occupying Olson

Stories about the Occupy Wall Street Movement have been crowding my newsfeed and leaving me confused for almost 2 months now. With little leadership, a stunning lack of unified demands, and some downright silly protesting strategies, this economics major continues to be puzzled that more and more Americans are finding it prudent to jump on board with OWS. However, for better or worse, OWS is continually managing to grow both in size and scope, and has even played a role in Obama’s recent endorsement of a bill aimed at increasing oversight and regulation in the financial industry (see the article here).

Thinking of OWS as an interest group and looking at it through the lens of Olson’s theories on group size and group behavior yields some interesting results. For one thing, the growth of OWS seems to defy the free-rider problem that Olson claims large interest groups have. If Olsen were correct, then we would expect the growth of OWS to taper off as politicians begin to take notice of their demands; after all, people supporting OWS’s stances will be able to free-ride and reap the political rewards of having politicians who are sensitive to their frustrations without actually having to protest themselves. This, however, has obviously not been the case, as OWS's success in gaining the attention of politicians has actually proved to draw more protesters to its side. The group’s growth and relative political effectiveness seems even more interesting when you consider that OWS is clearly a group for which political activity is a focus (rather than a byproduct), which again goes against Olson’s claims that large groups are most effective at exerting political pressure when political activity is only a byproduct of the group’s function.

While I think there is much more to be said about this topic, I regrettably have run out of space. However, I would like to open the floor to further discussion about this issue, either to expand on this (admittedly brief) analysis of how OWS seems to contradict Olson’s claims or to argue the converse.

Keynes or Friedman nowhere to be found

"Wanted: Worldly Philosophers", an article in the New York times (link in title), talks about the changes that economists have had in regards to approaching capitalism. It used to be that economists were trained to compare and contrast capitalism with other systems or different types of capitalism. However, today economists are trained with a dentistry approach: they should look at a small part of the body but remove a lot pain. They no longer discuss matters as big as "capitalism" and the Friedman and Keynes of current times are no where to be seen. With the recent economic crisis Friedman's ideas were disregarded. The government had to intervene to avoid a new Great Depression. The article proceeds to suggest that we need a new, alternative vision of capitalism.

I think Friedman would disagree with this article. He believes that the role of the government should be strictly limited. The market should be used on as many activities as possible because the market permits unanimity without conformity. On the other hand, the use of political channels strains the social cohesion that is needed for a stable society. Friedman would argue that it was not capitalism as he sees it that was defied with the current financial crisis but rather the over involvement of the government, that is straining the social cohesion of society. Currently, the government plays a role in a lot more than Friedman suggested it should. For example, there are wage controls (minimum wages) and as we discussed in class the state restricts several occupations and enterprises to people who have a license. All this strains the social fabric of society and thus allows for instability. Thus, I think that instead of saying that we need a different approach to capitalism, Friedman would argue that we need to limit the government and allow the market to play a bigger role so that his approach to capitalism leads to a stable society.

Local Expenditures in Henrico

In October, Henrico County opened a new rec center as part of a building boom financed by a "$349.3 million bond referendum approved by county voters in 2005."  This article calls the Eastern Henrico Recreation Center the "jewel" of the project, which also included new and expanded fire stations.  The center is the product of a suggestion made by a 15-year-old high school student who thought a place like this might help cut down on crime and violence by teenagers in the area.  Now 28, Terrell Pollard is part of the Eastern Henrico Community Action Committee that had a lot to do with the project. 

The new rec center is located in an area of Henrico that is "home to a number of predominantly black neighborhoods that have long sought more public amenities, especially for their youth."  Henrico is a county with good schools, relatively high median household income, and all the benefits that come with being located near a city like Richmond.  However, the community that will benefit from the rec center is one that "feels like it has seen little of the county's riches."  In the same way, this rec center will mainly benefit this particular community and not the entire county, but Pollard hopes it will cut down on "crime and violence among teens in neighborhoods along Laburnum and Nine Mile and Creighton Roads," which would be a positive externality benefiting everyone.  I think this presents an issue with Tiebout's model of locally provided public goods, because if communities are  not homogenous it is impossible for consumer-voters to make decisions based on revenue-expenditure patterns about which community best approximates their preferences.  County-level governance is about as local as it gets, and it would seem that local public goods provision in Henrico has had some failings.  In Tiebout's model, where moving is costless, people in Eastern Henrico could just move, but they may just end up in another county where public goods are provided unevenly, and in reality moving would be extremely costly.  Maybe in this case the problem is that the county's funds are not being used for purely public goods, but either way it would seem that there is some kind of failure here.