So why haven’t politicians started using a better measure? Not for a lack of alternate measures, there are plenty. One explanation is rent-seeking. Changing the poverty measure results in winners and losers. A new poverty measure would mean a reallocation of benefits. So, if the new poverty measure reported a lower poverty rate for a certain group, then that group would get less benefits from the government. And so, that group would fight a change in the poverty measure. That group would rent seek. Since, as Mueller guesses, losers are (irrationally) more strongly motivated to fight against a policy change than winners are to fight for it, the losers dominate in their rent-seeking efforts.
However, taking a turn from typical rent-seeking groups, some of the biggest winners and losers are states and their state politicians. So, it’s likely that fewer resources would be spent rent-seeking since the federal politicians already have a pretty strong incentive to align with their home state’s interests, and thus don't need additional financial motivation. But, some states might be unaffected by a change in poverty measure, and so other states might put resources in fighting for the unaffected states’ federal representatives’ votes.
There are plenty of reasons outside of rent-seeking that the OPM still holds so much sway. For one, it's a partisan issue since with the OPM Republicans can claim that anti-poverty efforts aren't working and Democrats can claim we aren't doing enough. And, as previously discussed, this has a lot of elements of a politician-pursuing-votes issue. Still, rent-seeking is likely a fair part of it. And still, it's concerning that even something as supposedly impartial as government-reported statistics has a politics of its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment