How
do we explain a government regulatory agency gone wild, turning
viciously on its subject and seeking to destroy or impair it, regardless
of the harm done to the general public?
Some tough-minded economists some years ago developed a realistic description of political behavior called "public choice theory." Under this view, everyone in the political process -- voters, politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the special interest groups who hire those lobbyists -- are motivated primarily by self-interest.
However, the theory continues, the degree of interest varies, and so the amount of knowledge about the process varies. For example, if a $300-million bridge to nowhere is proposed as an earmarked provision to a defense spending bill, the average taxpayer stands to lose only a few dollars, while the building contractor stands to gain millions of dollars. So the contractor will follow closely the progress of the pork-barrel spending as it works its way through Congress, while the taxpayer will not. Economists say of the taxpayers that they are "rationally ignorant" -- since they stand to lose only a few dollars, it is more rational for them to focus on their daily lives, where they have more to lose.
Politicians, who are not spending their own resources, are motivated not to spend said resources for the general good, but instead to spend them to maximize their own preferences (re-election, typically) -- and so they will push the pork to get the campaign cash from the special interests while relying on the rational ignorance of the voters.
Some tough-minded economists some years ago developed a realistic description of political behavior called "public choice theory." Under this view, everyone in the political process -- voters, politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the special interest groups who hire those lobbyists -- are motivated primarily by self-interest.
However, the theory continues, the degree of interest varies, and so the amount of knowledge about the process varies. For example, if a $300-million bridge to nowhere is proposed as an earmarked provision to a defense spending bill, the average taxpayer stands to lose only a few dollars, while the building contractor stands to gain millions of dollars. So the contractor will follow closely the progress of the pork-barrel spending as it works its way through Congress, while the taxpayer will not. Economists say of the taxpayers that they are "rationally ignorant" -- since they stand to lose only a few dollars, it is more rational for them to focus on their daily lives, where they have more to lose.
Politicians, who are not spending their own resources, are motivated not to spend said resources for the general good, but instead to spend them to maximize their own preferences (re-election, typically) -- and so they will push the pork to get the campaign cash from the special interests while relying on the rational ignorance of the voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment