The first words uttered in my first lecture in applied welfare economics by Bob Rutherford were ‘this course starts with an explicit political position – that of liberalism’. I never forgot that.
This leads us to Robert and Zeckhauser’s taxonomy of disagreement:
Positive disagreements can be over questions of:
1. Scope: what elements of the world one is trying to understand?
2. Model: what mechanisms explain the behaviour of the world?
3. Estimate: what estimates of the model’s parameters are thought to obtain in particular contexts?
Values disagreements can be over questions of:
1. Standing: who counts?
2. Criteria: what counts?
3. Weights: how much different individuals and criteria count?
Any positive analysis tends to include elements of scope, model, and estimation, though often these elements intertwine; they frequently feature in debates in an implicit or undifferentiated manner. Likewise, normative analysis will also include elements of standing, criteria, and weights, whether or not these distinctions are recognised.
The origin of political disagreement is a broad church indeed in a liberal democracy. Those you disagree with are not evil, they just disagree with you. As Karl Popper observed:
There are many difficulties impeding the rapid spread of reasonableness. One of the main difficulties is that it always takes two to make a discussion reasonable. Each of the parties must be ready to learn from the other.
Expulsions of Jews across Europe during the Medieval & Early Modern periods. http://t.co/4HKGlNCjou— History Facts 247 (@historyfacts247) July 08, 2015
Rob Salmond has written a great blog this week on the ideological spectrum of New Zealand voters based on the New Zealand Election Study.
In the course of his blog he drove a tremendously big stake through the heart of the old left fantasy that if Labour or Greens goes left, a large block of voters not voting for them now or not voting at all (the missing million voters) will shake lose its false consciousness and follow you:
But “pulling the centre back towards the left” is massively, massively hard.
You win those people over by being relevant to them as they are, not by telling them they’re worldview needs a rethink. It is just basic psychology. Tell people they were right all along; they like you. Tell people they were wrong all along; they don’t.
And if you win a majority of centrists, you win. The New Zealand Election Study series records six MMP elections in New Zealand – the three where Labour did best among centrists were the three Labour won.
That’s another message from the academic study I quoted above – in Germany, Sweden, and the UK, the elections where the left did best among centrists were the elections where they took power. As their popularity among centrists declined, so did their seat share.
What is more disturbing for the old left fantasy of the missing million is voting for the Labour Party or Greens is correlated with ignorance rather than knowledge.
Furthermore, the more people know about economics, the less likely they are to vote for the left as Eric Crampton explains:
When they get to the polls, the ignorant are significantly more likely to support the Labour Party (4% increase in predicted probability for a standard deviation increase in ignorance) and significantly less likely to support the Green party (1% decrease in predicted probability) and United Future (0.5% decrease in predicted probability).
Understanding economics strongly predicted supporting National in 2005, which comes as little surprise: the National Party leader was former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. A standard deviation increase in our “economic thinking” index correlates with a 5.7% increased probability of voting National, a 1.5% decreased probability of voting NZ First, and a slight decrease in the probability of voting United Future and Maori.
To make matters worse, Crampton found that joining political organisations does little to cure ignorance of politics or otherwise lead to a political awakening. Sometimes active political affiliation reduces ignorance, other times such organisational membership intensifies ignorance.
Jeremy Corbyn had 30 years to split from the Labour Party, which he voted against 25% of the time, establish his own party and receive the same reception presumably he would have got without needing to have to run for leader of the Labour Party.
The reasoning Corbyn never split from the Labour Party, and the reason why the left never splits from the Labour Party, is the left knows that it would get far fewer votes on its own rather than piggybacking on the right wing of that party.
The right split from the British Labour Party in the early 1980s to form the Social Democratic party. The right-wing split from the Australian Labor Party at least four times over its history.
The fair-trade, ethically-sourced drugs don't work. You doubt me? Here's the latest Green Party political broadcasthttps://t.co/4Kwc8eb7aL
The left is never split from the New Zealand Labour Party because it knows that it could never get anywhere even under proportional representation without the image of being part of the traditional Labour Party, centre-left, social democratic, not socialist. Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of the left of British Labour are practising mild mannered entryism. By stealing the brand of the Labour Party, the left obtains far more power than it ever could standing on its own two feet as true believers.
Labour would win many more votes because the offer of a genuine socialist alternative would shake voters loose of their false consciousness.
The left of the Labour Party never went out on its own to test that hypothesis because they knew in their hearts be lucky to not to lose their deposits.
This is despite the strong rise in third parties in British politics despite first past the post.
The remnants of the communist parties do well at elections in countries such as France, Germany (Linke or Left Party) and Japan and are in government in Greece.
The Trots regularly get 4% in French presidential elections while the British SWP is still in the same league as the monster raving loony party.
The right wing of the Labour Party was willing to take its chances under first past the post voting in the House of Commons because it knew that a large part the electorate would vote for it in preference to the remnant of a left-wing run Labour Party.
The combination of these splitters from the British Labour Party and the Liberal party won 25% of the vote, two percentage points behind the British Labour Party.
As I recall, most unemployed have been unemployed longer than 12 months in Sweden have to go on a labour market program. When they returned to unemployment after the program, the clock starts again. They are deemed to be freshly unemployed rather than adding to the previous spell with an interlude on a make work program. This makes Swedish long-term unemployment data rather unintelligible.
Source: OECD StatExtract.
Finland was recovering from its worst depression since the 1930s and the early 1990s when its data on long-term unemployment started to be continuous. This makes Finnish unemployment data rather difficult to interpret. Norway’s data for the long-term unemployed goes up and down a bit too much to be trustworthy without a background policy narrative.
Nearly eleven months after holding the State of Washington in contempt for failing to provide an adequate funding plan for financing primary education in the state, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order fining the state $100,000.00 per day until the legislature satisfies the Court’s judgement in its landmark McCleary decision.
After three special sessions, the Legislature failed to provide a clear and fully funded plan. The Court acted, much to the chagrin of many of the state legislators. A few of which had some rather interesting solutions to address their failures to act.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”
Recent Comments