Job finding rates under work for the dole when there is involuntary unemployment
03 Aug 2014 6 Comments
in business cycles, job search and matching, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, welfare reform Tags: Active labour market programs, Jeff Borland, mandatory work requirements, search and matching, welfare reform, work for the dole
Jeff Borland is a critic of work for the dole. He points out that they do not improve the job finding rates of participants and in fact reduce the amount of job search because work for the Dole participants are busy undertaking work for the dole requirements:
The main reason is that participation in the program diverts participants from job seeking activity towards Work for the Dole activity. Research on similar programs internationally has come up with comparable findings.
This made me wonder. If unemployment is caused by deficient aggregate demand, and otherwise is involuntary, how can work for the dole increase unemployment or reduce the rate at which people exit unemployment?
‘Involuntary’ unemployment occurs when all those willing and able to work at the given real wage but no job is available, i.e. the economy is below full employment. A worker is ‘involuntary’ unemployment if he or she would accept a job at the given real wage. Keynesians believe money wages are slow to adjust (e.g. due to money illusion, fixed contracts or because employers and employees want long run money wage stability), and so the real wage may no adjust to clear the labour market: there can be ‘involuntary’ unemployment.
Under the deficient aggregate demand theory of unemployment, people have no control over why they are unemployed – that’s why their unemployment is involuntary.
Sticky wages are no less sticky when work for the dole is introduced and people search more intensively for jobs. Deficient demand unemployment is no less deficient when there is an increase in job search intensity.
Work for the dole must be carefully defined, of course, to differentiate it from the failed active labour market programs of the past that attempted to improve the employability of the unemployed. By work for the dole, I simply mean mandatory work requirements simply make it more of an ordeal to be on unemployment and thereby encourage people to find a job.
Mandatory work requirements simply tax leisure. By taxing leisure, mandatory work requirements change the work leisure trade-off between unemployment and seeking a job with greater zeal and a lower asking wage more attractive option. More applicants asking for lower wages will mean employers can fill jobs faster and at lower wages, which means our create more jobs in the first place.
The probability of finding a job for an unemployed worker depends on how hard this individual searches and how many jobs are available: Chance of Finding Job = Search Effort x Job Availability
Both the search effort of the unemployed and job creation decisions by employers are potentially affected by unemployment benefit generosity and mandatory work for welfare benefits requirements.
Modern theory of the labour market, based on Mortensen and Pissarides provides that more generous unemployment benefits put upward pressure on wages the unemployed seek. If wages go up, holding worker productivity constant, the amount left to cover the cost of job creation by firms declines, leading to a decline in job creation.
Everything else equal under the labour macroeconomics workhorse search and matching model of the labour market, reducing the rewards of being unemployed exerts downward pressure on the equilibrium wage. This fall in asking wages increases the profits employers receive from filled jobs, leading to more vacancy creation. More vacancies imply a higher finding rate for workers, which leads to less unemployment. The vacancy creation decision is based on comparing the cost of creating a job to the profits the firm expects to obtain from hiring the worker.
When unemployment benefits are less generous or more onerous work requirements are attached, some of the unemployed will become less choosey about the jobs they seek in the wages they will accept. a number of people at the margin between working or not. An example is commuting distance to jobs. A number of people turn down a job because is just that little too far to commute. A small change in the cost of accepting that job would have resulted in them moving from being unemployed to fully employed.
Unemployment is easy to explain in modern labour macroeconomics: it takes time for a job seeker to find a suitable job with a firm that wishes to hire him or her; it takes time for a firm to fill a vacancy. Search is required on both sides of the labour market – there are always would-be workers searching for jobs, and firms searching for workers to fill vacancies.
In a recession, a large number of jobs are destroyed at the same time. It takes time for these unemployed workers to be reallocated new jobs. It takes time for firms to find where it is profitable to create new jobs and find workers suitable to fill these new jobs.
Recessions are reorganisations. Unemployed workers look for jobs, and firms open vacancies to maximize their profits. Matching unemployed workers with new firms firms is a time-consuming and costly process.
Calmfor’s Iron Law of Active Labour Market Policy.
31 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, fiscal policy, job search and matching, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, welfare reform Tags: Active labour market programs, Lars Calmfors, welfare reform, work for the dole, workfare
Lars Calmfors is a Swedish economist whose main interest is labour makets.
His iron law of Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) refers to a characteristic of make work schemes, like the WPA that operated in the United States in the 1930s.
The characteristic or problem with these schemes is that if people are attracted to these schemes by generous pay or conditions, their motive to search for regular work is necessarily reduced.
Assuming unemployment is anywhere near NAIRU, the effect of this reduced aggregate labour supply will be inflationary, which means that demand will have to be reduced, which in turn means that the jobs created by the make work scheme will be, at least to some extent, at the expense of regular jobs.
Alternatively, if people are coerced into joining make work schemes because of what might be called a “workfare” sanction, their job search efforts are not reduced, thus the jobs created by the make work scheme have a better chance of not being at the expense of normal jobs.
via RALPHONOMICS: Calmfor’s Iron Law of Active Labour Market Policy..
How flexible is the New Zealand labour market
31 Jul 2014 1 Comment
in economics of regulation, labour economics, politics - New Zealand, unemployment, welfare reform Tags: 90 day trials, employment law, employment probation periods, employment protection, labour market regulation
The first chart below shows that NZ is the 4th most deregulated labour market for individual dismissals.
Source: OECD employment protection index
The next figure below shows that NZ is top of the world for deregulation of lay-offs and redundancies.
![clip_image002[7]](https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/clip_image0027.jpg "clip_image002[7]")
Source: OECD employment protection index
The chart below shows that New Zealand is far more flexible than in Western Europe and is pretty near the USA in terms of people moving in and out of the unemployment pool every month with great ease.
Source: Elsby, Hobijn and Şahin (2013).
There are very high outflow rates from unemployment among the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic economies. The economies of Continental Europe stand in stark contrast. Unemployment outflow rates in these economies lie below 10% at a monthly frequency.
A major labour market reform in recent years in New Zealand was introduction of the option of a 90 day trial for new employees, initially in small businesses and then in all businesses.
The UK recently extended its trial period from one-year to two-years. Trial periods are common in OECD member countries.
There is plenty of evidence to back-up the notion that increased job security leads to less employee effort and more absenteeism. Some examples are:
· Sick leave spiking straight after probation periods ended;
· Teacher absenteeism increasing after getting tenure after 5-years; and
· Academic productivity declining after winning tenure.
The MBIE research into the actual operation of 90-day trials was highly favourable in terms of increased employment, the hiring of riskier applicants and lower costs of ending bad job matches (about 15-20% of trials did not work out). These outcomes are the usual importance of a test drive argument for employment trial periods.
Interestingly, the MBIE research also found that some employers hired new employees on 90-day trials for positions about which these employers were uncertain might be profitable. But for the option of the trial period, these jobs never would have existed.
This suggests that in some firms, 90-day trials are a decisively cheaper alternative to hiring an employee and perhaps making them redundant later if the new position does not pay for itself. No one’s fault: the market just did not sustain the expansion in staff as expected.
The MBIE research shows that winners from 90-day trials are new labour force entrants, the unemployed and beneficiaries, migrants and labour force re-entrants such as mothers.
I kept note of an interesting press report adding to this where Hospitality New Zealand Wellington president Jeremy Smith said he had hired dozens of staff he would not otherwise have considered. Because of the transient nature of the hospitality industry, it was often difficult to check references so a trial period “levelled the playing field”.
Lessons from field trials with work mandates
30 Jul 2014 2 Comments
in human capital, labour economics, labour supply, welfare reform Tags: 1996 US welfare reforms, labour supply, mandatory work requirements, policy trade-offs, welfare reforms, work for the dole
One of the most controversial aspect of the U.S. program changes are the negative incentives – time limits, sanctions, and diversion – that are built into their structure.
All of these policies limit the entitlement to cash public assistance, by either enforcing behavioural requirements (such as work search) or limiting the availability of assistance.
As Besley and Coate (1992) pointed out, linking such requirements with public assistance payments can help deter welfare participation among those who could find a job on their own.
The majority of evaluations of mandatory welfare-to-work programs show significant increases in labour supply and reduced welfare dependency. The drawback is the increase in wage income is greatly offset by the decline in benefit income. In–work tax credits played a major role in making work pay in 1996 U.S. welfare reform
The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) was implemented in 1994 and provided a strong earnings threshold, allowing women to receive some cash assistance until their earnings reached about 140 per cent of the U.S. poverty line. It also required participation in mandatory job search programs.
A randomly assigned control group remained in AFDC without work requirements or substantial earnings thresholds. MFIP involved both strong negative and positive work incentives. A subset of the treatment group (also randomly assigned) was provided with the earnings thresholds but not the mandatory work requirements.
The MFIP results allow the separate and joint effects of mandatory job search and earnings thresholds to be explored. When only positive work incentives are provided through an expanded earnings threshold, this has little effect on labour supply, consistent with earlier results. The additional income provided by these higher thresholds had strong income-increasing and poverty-reducing effects. Once mandatory work requirements are added to MFIP, then labour supply increases as well, but there is little further effect on income or poverty.
The evaluations of MFIP suggest that the stick of work requirements increases labour supply, but has little effect on overall income as increases in earnings are offset by reduced benefits.
The carrot of greater earnings thresholds provides an income enhancing effect. When used together, there is increased work and higher earnings, along with reduced poverty.
The relatively strong measures to mandate work participation can be effective. Work mandates with sanctions are more effective at inducing work than are more financial incentives. Strict work requirements by themselves may have little income-enhancing effects if they are not combined with some form of wage support for the low-skilled.
Education and training programs do not seem any more effective in promoting labour force attachment and increased earnings than work experience programs. In various welfare reform experiments in the U.S. during the 1990s, states tested training programs – human capital development programs — against work first programs – labour force attachment programs.
The work-first programs increased earnings and decreased welfare usage faster, while human capital development programs cost more, particularly in the first year when women were training rather than working.
But even three years out, after women from human capital development programs had been in the labour market two years, human capital development participants still did not outperform labour force attachment participants.
This may suggest that the gains to experience among women who have been out of the labour market may be larger than the gains to formal education and training. Employment outcomes did not seem significantly worse among less skilled participants or participants with identifiable barriers to work, such as child care or health problems. Learning by doing and job match and job search capital are major sources of hard-to-measure post-school human capital and wages growth even for less skilled workers. Work-first programmes suggest that the reward from working which is human capital as well as wages are greater than an investment in time away from working to train.
The dual emphasis in the U.S. welfare reforms on positive work incentives and more punitive work mandates seems to have been important.
Work mandates (mandatory welfare-to-work programs, backed by sanctions and time limits) forced more people into work faster than would have naturally left welfare even strong economic environments. With low wages and (often) part-time hours, many welfare leavers would have gained little in income without subsidies to low-wage work. Reduced earnings thresholds, the expanded EITC, and subsidies to assist with child care or other work related expenses, all helped make work pay.
Diagrams HT: rand.org Conflicting Benefits Trade-Offs in Welfare Reform by Jeffrey Grogger, Lynn A. Karoly, and Jacob Alex Klerman (2002).
Will work-for-the-dole work in Australia?
29 Jul 2014 12 Comments
in labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, unemployment, welfare reform Tags: benefit exhaustion spike, search and matching, unemployment insurance, US welfare reforms, welfare reform
One of the strongest empirical findings of modern labour economics is the benefit exhaustion spike. This is the large increase, shown in the diagram, in the probability of finding a job on the eve of exhausting unemployment benefits or unemployment insurance eligibility.
This benefit exhaustion spike is mobile: when unemployment insurance eligibility is lengthened, the benefit exhaustion spike moves out to the new benefit exhaustion date. For example, from 26 weeks, then to 39 weeks, then 52 weeks and then to 99 weeks. There is also a benefit exhaustion spike where the generosity of unemployment or other insurance decreases after a certain time. The alleged decay in the human capital of the long-term unemployed does not seem to affect this benefit exhaustion spike.
In addition, in the EU, the job finding probability of unemployment insurance recipients eligible for other welfare schemes are less sensitive to changes in the level and duration of their unemployment benefits benefits.
The benefit exhaustion spike shows that job seekers have much more control over their re-employment prospects than is commonly granted even in the worst of economic conditions such as in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s in a major recession and when US manufacturing industry industry was in a long-term decline.
The individual’s reservation wage (i.e. the lowest wage wage at which individuals will accept a job offer) decreases whilst search intensity increases as they approach unemployment benefit eligibility exhaustion.
This reduction in reservation wages or the asking wages of job seekers increases the incentives for employers to post new vacancies because they can fill them at a lower cost. Both more intensive job search and more vacancies will see jobs filled faster, and more jobs created and filled.
A mechanism for reducing welfare programme entry rate while increasing welfare benefit exits is mandatory minimum job search and mandatory work requirements such as those proposed this week for Australia. These minimum hours can be spent working part time, in study and training, work preparation and job search assistance or volunteering. A work requirement is a screening device that removes any advantage of moving on to welfare in terms of more leisure time.
The proposals announced this week in Australia are most job seekers will be required to look for up to 40 jobs per month and work for the dole will be mandatory for all jobseekers younger than 50. Job seekers younger than 30 would have to work 25 hours a week under the expanded programme, while those between 30 and 49 will be asked to do 15 hours work a week, and those aged 50-60, 15 hours a week.
At least 13 OECD member countries require at least monthly visits to a local employment office by unemployment beneficiaries to present job-search evidence and also perhaps to receive advice and even referrals to specific job openings.
Reforms in a range of overseas countries that introduced more intensive monitoring of job search and stronger sanctions on benefits for non-compliance significantly reduced unemployment spells.
One of the surprising results of more intensive monitoring of job search and a requirement to sign on regularly at the local employment office or Social Security office is the sheer horror of having to sign-on and talk to caseworker for five minutes encourages 5 to 10% of unemployed beneficiaries to find a job. When unemployment and sickness beneficiaries are required to undergo a full reassessment of their eligibility, it is common for up to 30% of them simply to not reapply.
The stronger monitoring of job search and the real prospect of stiffer sanctions for non-compliance encourages all benefit claimants, current and future, and not just those actually sanctioned to search harder for jobs. This anticipation of stricter monitoring and more frequent eligibility reviews has a much larger effect of welfare dependency than the actual sanctioning of the non-complaint. People review their options and marshalled their resources to find or stay in work.
The welfare exit effect and welfare entry deterrence arises from mandatory work requirements from the relative non-financial rewards of working and not working having changed in favour of staying in full-time and semi-work for persistent workers temporarily on a welfare benefit.
Persistent workers gain from anticipating the onerous nature of work requirements and searching more intensively for jobs which are more stable and enduring. These job seekers may reduce their asking wage to win a lower paid but steadier job.
Seasonal and temporary jobs will be less attractive if there are work requirements. The incentive to cycle between the benefit and part-time and full-time work including seasonal and temporary jobs are reduce because work requirements make welfare receipt more onerous. Those job seekers with fewer outside of the workforce obligations such as young children are the most likely to move to (stable) full-time work because of work requirements.
A work requirement as a condition for a welfare benefit receive unambiguously increases net labour supply and reduces the number of people relying on the welfare system now and into the future.
The number of people working increase and some leave welfare rather than comply with the mandatory work programmes. Work requirements make welfare receipt unambiguously less attractive and will close the gap between earning full-time wages and the net rewards of not working or part-time work and partial benefit receipt.
There was a more than 60% reduction in welfare caseloads after the 1996 federal welfare reform in the USA that introduced work requirement and five year lifetime federal welfare eligibility time limits on a national basis. In the four decades preceding the 1996 welfare reform, the number of Americans on welfare had never significantly decreased.
The gains in U.S. employment after the 1996 Federal welfare reform were largest among the single mothers previously thought to be most disadvantaged: young (ages 18-29), mothers with children aged under seven, high school drop-outs, and black and Hispanic mothers. These low-skilled single mothers in the USA were thought to face the greatest barriers to employment.
The U.S. literature has many competing estimates of the relative effects of work requirements, lifetime time limits and a far more generous earned income tax credit (EITC). It is agreed that work requirements and time limits reduced entry into welfare caseloads. The relative importance of time limits, work mandates and greater EITC generosity for exits is more disputed.
The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) had a more complex experimental design that allowed separate evaluation of the mandatory welfare-to-work program and the lower benefit reduction rate. The results indicated that the lower benefit abatement rates appear to have had little labour supply effect. The increase in labour supply seems to have come almost entirely from the mandatory welfare-to-work program and its associated sanctions.
Much was initially made in the US empirical literature of the strong state of the American economy in the 1990s as an explanation for part of the drop in welfare caseloads. The relevance of this faded when welfare caseloads did not increase again when the economy deteriorated after 2007 in the USA.
From The Economist’s 1963 review of Capitalism and Freedom
20 Jul 2014 1 Comment
in labour economics, Milton Friedman, welfare reform Tags: capitalism and freedom, earned income tax credit, family tax credits, guaranteed minimum income, negative income tax
Curiously, a family tax credit or earned income tax credit is the most successful anti-poverty tool in the late 20th century. Furthermore, those on the Left are relatively convinced that the sole cause of poverty is a lack of money, and the solution is to give the poor more money.
Friedman, Hayek in the Constitution of Liberty, and George Stigler in his great paper on the minimum wage in 1946 all supported a guaranteed minimum income.
Healthier, living longer but many more workers on disability benefits
07 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in health and safety, health economics, labour economics, labour supply, welfare reform Tags: disability benefits, moral hazard
In the past three decades, the number of people who are on disability benefit has skyrocketed.
There is no compelling evidence that the incidence of disabling health conditions among the working age population is rising. Autor (2006) found that disability rolls in the USA expanded because:
- congressional reforms to disability screening in 1984 that enabled workers with low mortality disorders such as back pain, arthritis and mental illness to more readily qualify for benefits;
- a rise in the after-tax income replacement rate, which strengthened the incentives for lower-skilled workers to seek benefits; (3) and
- a rapid increase in female labour force participation that expanded the pool of insured workers.
Autor found that the aging of the baby boom generation has contributed little to the growth of disability benefit numbers to date.
David Autor and Mark Duggan (2003) found that low-skills and a poor education is predictor of disability: in the USA in 2004, nearly one in five male high school dropouts between ages 55 and 64 were in the disability program; that was more than double that of high school graduates of the same age and more than five times higher than the 3.7 % of college graduates of that age who collect disability. Unemployment is another driver of disability.
The proportion of working-age people receiving a Sickness Benefit, an Invalid’s Benefit or Accident Compensation weekly compensation in New Zealand rose from around 1% in the 1970s to 5% in June 2002.
Figure 1 The Number of People Receiving Benefit as a Primary Recipient, All Age Groups, 1975–2005
Source: DSW Annual Reports or Statistical Information Reports and MSD SWIFFT data from Dwyer and McLeod (2006).
Most other OECD countries also experienced a rise in the proportion of the working-age population claiming incapacity benefits over this period. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was common for around 4–6.5% of the working-age population to receive such benefits. Some European countries have up to 10% of their working age population on disability or sickness benefit!
When the UK undertook reassessments of those on its disability and sickness benefit, fewer than one in 10 people assessed for the new sickness benefit has been deemed too ill to carry out any work.
More than a third of the 1.3million people who applied for Employment and Support Allowance were found to be fully capable of working; a similar proportion abandoned their claims while they were still being processed. Moral hazard seems to be the main explanation of the rise in disability roles.
Before 15 July 1980, a victim of a workplace accident in the state of Kentucky received a payment proportional to his or her wage with an upper limit of $131 per week. On 15 July 1980, the limit was raised to $217 per week. This increase made a considerable difference to the best-paid workers: their periods of convalescence grew 20% longer (Cahuc and Zylberberg 2006).
Did the 1996 U.S. Welfare Reforms Work?
19 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, labour economics, welfare reform Tags: U.S. 1996 welfare reforms
At the same time as major changes in program structure occurred during the 1990s, there were also stunning changes in behaviour. Strong adjectives are appropriate to describe these behavioural changes.
Nobody – of any political persuasion – predicted or would have believed possible the magnitude of change that occurred in the behaviour of low-income single-parent families over this decade.
The subsequent declines in welfare participation rates and gains in employment were largest among the single mothers previously thought to be most disadvantaged: young (ages 18-29), mothers with children aged under seven, high school drop-outs, and black and Hispanic mothers. These low-skilled single mothers who were thought to face the greatest barriers to employment.
Percentage of the New Zealand population on a welfare benefit since 1970
17 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in labour economics, labour supply, welfare reform Tags: welfare dependency, welfare reform
But a different story in the USA
Robert Doar on 10 welfare reform lessons
26 Apr 2014 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, labour economics, welfare reform Tags: 1996 federal welfare reforms, Rebecca Blank, Robert Doar
In the National Review, Robert Doar set-out these from his time as commissioner of the New York City social service agency between 2007 and 2013:
- Always promote personal responsibility.
- Employment is far better than training and education.
- Making work pay is welfare reform too.
- Be honest about the importance of married two-parent families.
- Caseworkers don’t cost much; benefits do.
- Medicaid is where the money is.
- Immigrants get welfare too.
- Welfare recipients (and workers too) will try to "get over." "To get over" is a very New York expression meaning to steal
- When it comes to the disabled, trust but verify.
- Always cheer for the economy.
Figure 1: WELFARE CASELOADS AND RECIPIENTS (AFDC AND TANF PROGRAMS), IN THOUSANDS
Source: Administration for Children and Families, TANF caseload data, 2011.
I should add that after the 1996 federal welfare reforms in the USA that time limited life-time federal welfare receipt to 5-years, the 2/3rd decline in welfare participation and the gains in employment were largest among the single mothers previously thought to be most disadvantaged: young (ages 18-29), mothers with children aged under seven, high school drop-outs, and black and Hispanic mothers. These low-skilled single mothers were thought to face the greatest barriers to employment. Blank (2002) found that:
nobody of any political persuasion predicted or would have believed possible the magnitude of change that occurred in the behaviour of low-income single-parent families.
Why only Nixon could go to China and Clinton finish the Reagan Revolution
24 Mar 2014 Leave a comment
in labour economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, war and peace, welfare reform Tags: Bill Clinton, Daniel Sutter, Jimmy Carter, Nixon paradox, Only Nixon could go to China, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Tyler Cowen
The secret of winning the swing vote is having policies slightly different from your opponent. Recall Tyler Cowen and Daniel Sutter’s Why Only Nixon Could Go to China in Public Choice.
Cowen and Sutter say that a policy could depend on information – on which policies or values everyone could potentially agree, or on which agreement is impossible.
Politicians, who value both re-election and policy outcomes, realise the nature of the issue better through inside and secret information and superior analytical skills (or access to those skills), whereas voters do not have access to such information base or skills.
Only a right-wing president can credibly signal the desirability of a left-wing course of action. A left-wing president’s rapprochement with China would be dismissed as a dovish sell-out. The Nixon paradox held because citizens could vote retrospectively on the issue.
Left-wing parties adopt right-wing policies because they are good ideas that will get them re-elected. Bob Hawke, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton were firmly camped over the middle-ground.
Only centre-left economic reformers can credibly signal the desirability of their economic reforms because of the brand name capital they invested in distributional concerns and protecting the poor.
Because of their proven record and brand name, they do not jeopardise their support or credibility by seemingly departing from their core values. They must have done so because it was the right thing to do given events and the long-term interests of the lower-income groups they represent.
Bill Clinton balanced the budget and introduced sweeping welfare reforms in 1996 after vetoing two earlier bills because this finally fulfilled his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”. As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act:
gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.
Jimmy Carter was a bigger deregulator than Reagan. Obama uses drones far more often than Bush did.
Major labour law reforms were passed in Germany under a left-wing government after decades of 10% unemployment rates and average German unemployment spells for about a year. The key part of these reforms came into play just before the global financial crisis hit and was a major reason for the unemployment rate in Germany falling despite the onset of GFC.
Why Only Nixon Could Go to China also explains why hawks such as Reagan and Begin and other right wing party leaders were able to negotiate peace treaties that eluded more dovish politicians who ran on ‘peace now’ slogans.
Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, walked with Gorbachev in Red Square and seriously offered complete mutual nuclear disarmament in Reykjavik in 1986. Any other American President who offered complete mutual nuclear disarmament would have been impeached.
Hawks also have the right negotiating stance. Robert Aumann argues that:
If you are ready for war, you will not need to fight. If you cry ‘peace, peace,’ you will end up fighting… What brings war is that you signal weakness and concessions.
Only then will both sides negotiate because they know that the other side is willing to walk away and perhaps not come back for a long time. Unless it gets reasonable offers that will be binding on both sides for a long time because both win more for honouring their promises rather than threatening war again soon.
Left-wing politicians can deliver economic reforms because they can deliver new voting blocs to the realignment of political coalitions. This new bloc of centre-left voters and some members of existing political and special interest groupings benefit from regrouping and joining new political coalitions that push through the reforms. An ageing society, budget deficits, technological innovations and shifts in production cost structures and in consumer demand can all make the existing political coalitions less rewarding than in the past.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments