Following class discussion of the Tiebout model, I searched online for real-world examples of "voting with your feet." In this 2019 article, The Economist discusses present-day Venezuela and explores migration through the lens of accelerating reform in nations like South Africa and India. In recent years, under the regime of brutal dictator Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has lost a seventh of its population; millions fled the country due to overwhelming inflation, violence, and corruption. Some who had the means, such as the grandmother of a high school classmate, crossed the Colombian border for years whenever they needed groceries, because stacks of Venezuelan currency (Bolivars) could not purchase even basic essentials at home.
This morning's criticism of Tiebout's model pointed out the impossibility of unencumbered mobility among consumer-voters. While The Economist acknowledges that opportunities to "vote with your feet" are limited, the magazine raises a separate concern: if all dissidents flee Venezuela, for instance, who will oust Maduro? On the other hand, the piece states that "if taxpayers can move, governments must govern better to avoid losing them." With millions seeking refuge in Colombia and the eyes of the international community upon him, Maduro could be forced toward change. He might be famous for rigging his elections, but he has not been able to stop widespread "foot-voting." Tiebout might suggest that Venezuelans read "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," in which policy implications include promoting residential mobility and an increase in common knowledge about government spending.
(I'm not sure that Maduro would approve; most authoritarian dictators aren't keen on transparency).
1 comment:
This is a really interesting take on the political situation in Venezuela. I would take your argument one step further. It is generally incredibly hard to escape one's home and family. Venezuelans must sacrifice an incredibly large amount in order to relocate, and a lot of times, this may not seem to be worth the effort. Therefore, a lot of people who would be otherwise better off leaving the country end up staying. If escaping Venezuela is the "good" of interest here, there may be an underprovision of the good. The government and its authoritarian practices are forcing an underprovision of the ability to leave Venezuela, and this may be exacerbating the economic and political problems of the country. After all, Tiebout argues that local governments should decide the bundle of public goods offered at each location, and then consumers decide where to live. Here, less federal governmental intervention may be needed in order to make that a reality. But, as you said, this is unlikely to happen under a dictatorship.
Post a Comment