Posts Tagged ‘policy’
“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”*…
The world is a turbulent and sometimes dangerous place. No one knew that better than Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led Allied Forces in Europe during World War II and later served as President…
As President of the United States for two terms, Eisenhower had slowed the push for increased defense spending despite pressure to build more military equipment during the Cold War’s arms race. Nonetheless, the American military services and the defense industry had expanded a great deal in the 1950s. Eisenhower thought this growth was needed to counter the Soviet Union, but it confounded him. Though he did not say so explicitly, his standing as a military leader helped give him the credibility to stand up to the pressures of this new, powerful interest group. He eventually described it as a necessary evil.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
As Samuel Geddes argues, the dilemma has only ripened. Western defense giants tout cutting-edge tech, but their “state-of-the-art” systems often fall short in asymmetrical warfare. From faulty missile defense systems to overpriced carriers, the only thing that consistently works is the profit machine…
The ineffectiveness of “cutting-edge” military technology shown in Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the spillover conflicts undermines the notion that the military-industrial complex aims to win wars. Instead, it reveals its true objective: profiting from ongoing conflicts.
Since its crushing victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, one of Israel’s primary functions as a US-European client state has been that of a weapons laboratory. Throughout eight decades of repressing, invading, and annexing the territory of regional countries, it has served as a proving ground for arms manufacturers.
This continuous opportunity for such demonstration has enabled Israel, starting in the 1980s, to develop its own highly globalized military-industrial complex. From tanks to drones, “Israel” became a byword for the technical superiority and unbeatable effectiveness of western hard power over those on its receiving end.
Since the turn of the millennium, however, and especially since the Hamas-led Palestinian offensive against Israel on October 7, the region has become a weapons lab of a very different kind. It now showcases the armaments of its enemies and their ability, for a fraction of the cost and technical complexity, to render its space-age technology uneconomical and, by extension, obsolete.
The spread of cheap, cost-effective arms among asymmetric opponents of the West has significantly blunted the power of conventional weapons systems. The rational thing to do is accept this and redirect these hundreds of billions of wasted dollars to social programs and infrastructure. Almost anything would be more defensible than the status quo…
[Geddes unpacks the history of the last several decades and examines a number of troubled defense programs…]
… The most notorious example of wastefulness in military spending is undoubtedly the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet. From the program’s inception in 2006 to the present, the F-35 was projected to cost over $1.7 trillion over its lifetime. Persistent cost overruns and development woes have angered even the Pentagon itself, which opened the program up to competitive bidding in 2012. More than a decade later, the rapid spread of drone technology has made it possible for unmanned craft, sometimes referred to as “loitering munitions,” to perform many of the tasks traditionally handled by fighter jets — with little overengineering and none of the risk to an actual pilot. That the total budget of this program could eradicate all American student loan debt or cover half the cost of a national health system only adds to the obscenity of it all.
It is well-known that the military-industrial economy is dependent on public subsidy. The technology in mobile phones, computers, and the internet — essential to modern life —was not “invented” by figures like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, but was instead developed by public investment. The initial funding came from decades of American taxpayer dollars.
Capitalism is not designed to be ethically consistent, but if it were, companies whose business model depends on state supports would be paying out dividends to every single American as a return on their initial investment.
In 2024, the US military budget reached an incredible $841 billion. If even a fraction of these funds were to be spent on restoring the education system to a level befitting the richest country on earth, canceling university tuition debt, or creating a national health system, it would achieve far greater benefits. While $1 trillion might not result in effective missile shields, it is very likely capable of creating a functioning health or educational system…
“The Incompetence of Masters of War,” from @SamuelGeddes in @jacobin.
Further to his point on the effectiveness of U.S. defense spending, see “America is not ready for a major war, says a bipartisan commission” and “The US might lose a war with China.”
And for more on the arguments for alternatives, see “The military-industrial complex as a variety of capitalism and threat to democracy: rethinking the political economy of guns versus butter.”
* Dwight D. Eisenhower
###
As we contemplate conflict, we might pause to contrast the rigorously serious with the frivolously venal: it was on this date in 1835 that the New York Sun began a series of six articles detailing the discovery of civilized life on the moon; circulation soared. Now known as “The Great Moon Hoax,” the articles attributed the “discovery” to Sir John Herschel (who figured in last Monday’s post), the greatest living astronomer of the day. Herschel was initially amused, wryly noting that his own real observations could never be as exciting. But ultimately he tired of having to answer questioners who believed the story. The series was not discovered to be a hoax for several weeks after its publication and, even then, while the paper did admit (on September 16, 1835) that the whole thing was a “satire,” it never issued a retraction (and didn’t suffer a drop in sales).
“A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought”*…
Opinion polls are a key accelerant in the inflamed civil discourse of our time. And, as Teresa Carr explain, that’s a problem…
Last December, a joint survey by the Economist and the polling organization YouGov claimed to reveal a striking antisemitic streak among America’s youth. One in five young Americans thinks the Holocaust is a myth, according to the poll. And 28 percent think Jews in America have too much power.
“Our new poll makes alarming reading,” declared the Economist. The results inflamed discourse over the Israel-Hamas war on social media and made international news.
There was one problem: The survey was almost certainly wrong. The Economist/YouGov poll was a so-called opt-in poll, in which pollsters often pay people they’ve recruited online to take surveys. According to a recent analysis from the nonprofit Pew Research Center, such polls are plagued by “bogus respondents” who answer questions disingenuously for fun, or to get through the survey as quickly as possible to earn their reward.
In the case of the antisemitism poll, Pew’s analysis suggested that the Economist/YouGov team’s methods had yielded wildly inflated numbers. In a more rigorous poll posing some of the same questions, Pew found that only 3 percent of young Americans agreed with the statement “the Holocaust is myth.”
These are strange times for survey science. Traditional polling, which relies on responses from a randomly selected group that represents the entire population, remains the gold standard for gauging public opinion, said Stanford political scientist Jon Krosnick. But as it’s become harder to reach people on the phone, response rates have plummeted, and those surveys have grown exponentially more expensive to run. Meanwhile, cheaper, less-accurate online polls have proliferated.
“Unfortunately, the world is seeing much more of the nonscientific methods that are put forth as if they’re scientific,” said Krosnick…
…
… headlines as outrageous as they are implausible continue to proliferate: 7 percent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows; 10 percent of college graduates think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court; and 4 percent of American adults (about 10 million people) drank or gargled bleach to prevent Covid-19. And although YouGov is one of the more respected opt-in pollsters, some of its findings — one third of young millennials aren’t sure the Earth is round, for example — strain credulity.
Amidst a sea of surveys, it’s hard to distinguish solid findings from those that dissolve under scrutiny. And that confusion, some experts say, reflects deep-seated problems with new methods in the field — developed in response to a modern era in which a representative sample of the public no longer picks up the phone.
The fractious evolution in polling science is likely to receive fresh attention as the 2024 elections heat up, not least because the consequences of failed or misleading surveys can go well beyond social science. Such “survey clickbait” erodes society’s self-esteem, said Duke University political scientist Sunshine Hillygus: It “undermines people’s trust that the American public is capable of self-governance.”
Veteran pollster Gary Langer compares traditional randomized polling methods, known as probability polling, to dipping a ladle into a well-stirred pot of minestrone soup. “We can look in and see some cannellini beans, little escarole, chunks of tomato,” he said. “We get a good representation of what’s in the soup.”
It doesn’t matter if the pot is the size of Yankee Stadium, he said. If the contents are thoroughly mixed, one ladle is enough to determine what’s in it. That’s why probability surveys of 1,000 people can, in theory, represent what the entire country thinks.
The problem is that getting a truly representative sample is virtually impossible, said YouGov’s Douglas Rivers, who pointed out that these days a good response rate to a randomized poll is 2 percent…
…
… with the appropriate guardrails against fraud, YouGov chief scientist Rivers said, such methods offer a practical alternative to conventional probability sampling, where the costs are too high, and the response rates are too low. In some sense, he suggested, most polling is now nonprobability polling: When only 2 out of 100 people respond to a survey, it’s much harder to claim that those views are representative, said Rivers. “Sprinkling a little bit of randomness at the initial stage does not make it a probability sample.”
“Our approach has been: Let us assemble a sample systematically based on characteristics,” said Rivers. “It’s not comparable to what the census does in the current population survey, but it’s performed very well in election polling.” Rivers pointed to YouGov’s high ranking on the website FiveThirtyEight, which rates polling firms based on their track record in predicting election results and willingness to show their methods.
Gary Langer was not particularly impressed by high marks from FiveThirtyEight. (His own firm, Langer Research Associates, also gets a top grade for political polling they conduct on behalf of the partnership between ABC News and The Washington Post.) “Pre-election polls, while they get so much attention, are the flea on the elephant of the enterprise of public opinion research,” he said. The vast majority of surveys are concerned with other topics. They form the basis of federal data on jobs and housing, for example, and can reflect the public’s views on education, climate change, and other issues. “Survey data,” he said, “surrounds us, informs our lives, informs the choices we make.”
Given the stakes, Langer relies exclusively on probability polling. Research shows that opt-in polls just don’t produce the same kind of consistent, verifiable results, said Langer…
Research suggests that widely used nonprobability methods, in particular online opt-in polls such as the Economist/YouGov survey, have inherent vulnerabilities.
The prospect of cash or rewards can incentivize some people to complete surveys quickly and with as little effort as possible. “They’re giving you data and answers that just can’t possibly be true,” said Kennedy.
For example, in one test of opt-in polling, 12 percent of U.S. adults younger than 30 claimed that they were licensed to operate a nuclear submarine. The true figure, of course, is approximately 0 percent…
…
… Media consumers should be skeptical of implausible findings, said Krosnick. So should reporters, said Langer, who spent three decades as a journalist, and who said news outlets have a responsibility to vet the polls they report on: “Every newsroom in the country — in the world — should have someone on their team evaluate surveys and survey methodologies.”
In the end, people need to realize that survey research involves some degree of uncertainty, said Joshua Clinton, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University, who noted that polls leading up to the 2024 election are bound to get something wrong. “My concern is what that means about the larger inferences that people make about not only polling, but also science in general,” he said. People may just dismiss results as a predictable scientific failure: “‘Oh, the egghead screwed up again.’” Clinton said he wants people to recognize the difficulty of doing social science research, rather than to delegitimize the field outright.
Even Rivers, whose firm produced the Economist poll that made headlines, acknowledged that readers should be cautious with eye-catching headlines. “We’re in a challenging environment for conducting surveys,” he said. That means that people need to take survey results — especially those that are provocative — with a grain of salt.
“The tendency is to overreport polls,” said Rivers. “The polls that get reported are the ones that are outliers.”…
It’s very difficult to get anyone to answer a phone call—and that’s skewing data on everything from chocolate milk to antisemitism: “We’re in a New Era of Survey Science,” from @TeresaRCarr in @undark via @Slate. Eminently worth reading in full.
* Warren Buffett
###
As we take it with a grain of salt, we might recall that it was on this date in 1941 that Tom and Jerry first appeared on screen with those names in the MGM cartoon “The Midnight Snack,” though it was in fact their second screen appearance.
In 1940, MGM had produced “Puss Gets the Boot,” based on Hanna’s and Barbera’s pitch for a story rooted in two “equal characters who were always in conflict with each other.” It was the first collaboration between William Hanna and Joseph Barbera (founding a partnership that would last over 50 years and yield such treasures as The Flintstones, Huckleberry Hound, The Jetsons, Scooby-Doo, Top Cat, and Yogi Bear); at over nine minutes in length, it’s the longest T&J ever produced– and the first of three T&J essays (with “Puss n’ Toots” and “Puss ‘n’ Boats”) to pun it’s title on the fairy tale “Puss in Boots.” “Puss Gets the Boot” was nominated for an Academy Award– the first of Hanna and Barbera’s many Oscar nominations.
The cat in “Puss Gets the Boot” was actually named “Jasper”; the mouse, “Jinx.” But when the pilot got the go-ahead to become a series, animator John Carr won a studio-wide naming contest with his suggestion: “Tom and Jerry.” The cat’s owner, “Mammy Two-Shoes,” was voiced by June Foray— who later earned immortality as the voice of Rocky J. Squirrel.
“Why does a public discussion of economic policy so often show the abysmal ignorance of the participants?”*…
… It could, Walt Frick suggests, have to do with the way in which economics has been taught for decades, centering zombie ideas from before economics began to become an empirical disciple. Happily, he suggests, that may be changing…
What happens to the job market when the government raises the minimum wage? For decades, higher education in the United States has taught economics students to answer this question by reasoning from first principles. When the price of something rises, people tend to buy less of it. Therefore, if the price of labour rises, businesses will choose to ‘buy’ less of it – meaning they’ll hire fewer people. Students learn that a higher minimum wage means fewer jobs.
But there’s another way to answer the question, and in the early 1990s the economists David Card and Alan Krueger tried it: they went out and looked. Card and Krueger collected data on fast-food jobs along the border between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, before and after New Jersey’s minimum wage increase. The fast-food restaurants on the New Jersey side of the border were similar to the ones on the Pennsylvania side in nearly every respect, except that they now had to pay higher wages. Would they hire fewer workers in response?
The prediction from conventional economic theory is unambiguous,’ Card and Krueger wrote. It was also wrong. Fast-food restaurants in New Jersey didn’t hire fewer workers – instead, Card and Krueger found that employment slightly increased. Their paper set off a hunt for other ‘natural experiments’ that could rigorously test economic theory and – alongside other research agendas like behavioural economics – transformed the field.
Over the past 30 years, PhD-level education in economics has become more empirical, more psychological, and more attuned to the many ways that markets can fail. Introductory economics courses, however, are not so easy to transform. Big, synoptic textbooks are hard to put together and, once they are adopted as the foundation of introductory courses, professors and institutions are slow to abandon them. So introductory economics textbooks have continued to teach that a higher minimum wage leads to fewer people working – usually as an example of how useful and relevant the simple model of competitive markets could be. As a result of this lag between what economists know and how introductory economics is taught, a gulf developed between the way students first encounter economics and how most leading economists practice it. Students learned about the virtues of markets, deduced from a few seemingly simple assumptions. Economists and their graduate students, meanwhile, catalogued more and more ways those assumptions could go wrong.
Today, 30 years after Card and Krueger’s paper, economics curriculums around the world continue to challenge the facile view that students used to learn, in which unfettered markets work wonders. These changes – like spending more time studying market failures or emphasising individuals’ capacity for altruism, not just selfishness – have a political valence since conservatives often hide behind the laissez-faire logic of introductory economics. But the evolution of Econ 101 is not as subversive as it may sound. Instead, it reflects the direction the wider discipline has taken toward empiricism and more varied models of economic behaviour. Econ 101 is not changing to reflect a particular ideology; it is finally catching up to the field it purports to represent….
[Frick describes the recent evolution– or revolution– in curricula…]
… It’s tempting to judge [open-source text project] CORE and even Harvard’s [recently-overhauled introductory economics course] Ec10 in ideological terms – as an overdue response or countermeasure to a laissez-faire approach. But the evolution of Econ 101 is about more than politics. (Despite its focus on traditionally more progressive topics, CORE has been criticised for being insufficiently ‘heterodox’, according to Stevens.) By elevating empiricism and by teaching multiple models of the economy, students in these new curriculums are learning how social sciences actually work.
“A model is just an allegory,” says the economist David Autor in his intermediate microeconomics course at MIT. For decades, Econ 101 taught one major allegory, in which markets worked well of their own accord, and buyers and sellers all emerged better off. Government, when it was mentioned at all, was frequently portrayed as an overzealous maintenance man – able to solve some problems but also meddling in markets that were fine on their own.
That is not how most contemporary economists think. Instead, they see the competitive market as one model among many. ‘The multiplicity of models is economics’ strength,’ writes the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik in Economics Rules (2015). ‘[W]e have a menu to choose from and need an empirical method for making that choice.’ As the Econ 101 curriculum catches up, economics students are finally getting a taste of the variety that the field has to offer.
As much of an improvement as the new curriculums are, they raise a puzzle. The traditional Econ 101 course was, for all its flaws, coherent and memorable. Students came away with a clear framework for thinking about the world. What does the new Econ 101 leave students with, other than an appreciation that the world is complicated, and that data is important?
[UCL economist and CORE co-creator Wendy] Carlin’s answer is that “the workhorse [of Econ 101] is that actors make decisions.” Modelling those decisions remains a central part of economics. What’s changed is the way decision-makers are represented: they can be selfish, but they can also be altruistic. They can be rational, but they can also be biased or blinkered. They are social and strategic, and they interact with one another not just with the faceless market. Models help approximate the most salient features of these interactions, and students learn several different ones to guide their understanding. They also learn that models must fit the facts, and that a crucial part of economics is leaving the armchair and observing what is going on in the world…
On the importance of recognizing the mutability of models and re-emphasizing learning in an essential discipline: “Economics 101,” from @wfrick in @aeonmag.
* economist (and Nobel Laureate) Robert Solow
###
As we revise, we might recall that it was on this date in 1963 that President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. Aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex, the legislation was part of Kennedy’s New Frontier Program. On the one hand, since it’s enactment, the wage gap has narrowed; on the other, it is still large: in 1963, women were on average paid about 60% of a man’s income for the same job; today, that figure is roughly 80%.
Opponents of the Act (including, of course, many economists) suggested that higher wages for women would discourage employers from hiring them; in fact, female participation in the workforce has grown– the gap between their participation and that of prime-age men has shrunk to less than one-third of its previous size. Some of those critics also argued that higher wages for women would a drag on economy; to observe the obvious, the economy has, by myriad measures, grown materially over the period– indeed, beyond the “no EPA” projections of those opponents.
“I’m playing both sides, so that I always come out on top”*…
A new database shows 1,500 US lobbyists working for fossil-fuel firms while representing green groups and other with similarly contradictory concerns…
More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis, the Guardian can reveal.
Lobbyists for oil, gas and coal interests are also employed by a vast sweep of institutions, ranging from the city governments of Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia; tech giants such as Apple and Google; more than 150 universities; some of the country’s leading environmental groups – and even ski resorts seeing their snow melted by global heating.
The breadth of fossil fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a new database of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday.
It shows the reach of state-level fossil fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims…
Read on for chilling examples: “‘Double agents’: fossil-fuel lobbyists work for US groups trying to fight climate crisis,” from @olliemilman in @GuardianUS.
* “Mac,” It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
###
As we contemplate conflicts (and note that last Monday’s, then Tuesday’s “hottest day ever” records are sure to continue to be broken), we might spare a thought for Jacob Bjerknes; he died on this date in 1975. Son of Vilhelm Bjerknes, one of the pioneers of modern weather forecasting, Jacob is remembered for his seminal paper on the dynamics of the polar front, the mechanism for north-south heat transport, and for his contributions to the understanding of the weather phenomenon El Niño.
“The question isn’t ‘what can an economy produce today?’, but ‘what can it learn to produce?'”*…
… and how we do we create the conditions to encourage that learning? Industrial policy, one possible answer, is making a comeback. But as Henry Farrell explains, that raises another challenge…
… For decades, economists have argued that state policy makers lack the requisite knowledge to intervene appropriately in the economy. Accordingly, decisions over investments and innovation ought be taken by market actors. Now, the “market knows best” paradigm is in disrepair. It isn’t just that “hyperglobalization” has devoured its own preconditions, so that it is increasingly unsustainable. It is also that some goals of modern industrial policy are in principle impossible to solve through purely market mechanisms. To the extent, for example, that economics and national security have become interwoven, investment and innovation decisions involve tradeoffs that market actors are poorly equipped to resolve. There are good reasons why Adam Smith did not want to see defense policy handled through the market’s division of labor.
What we now face is a quite different kind of knowledge problem. We lack the kinds of expertise that we need to achieve key goals of industrial policy, or to evaluate the tradeoffs between them. This lack of knowledge is in large part a perverse by-product of the success of Chicago economists’ rhetoric. Decades of insistence that economic decisions be handed off from the state to markets has resulted in a remarkable lack of understanding among government policy makers about how markets, in fact, work. This has a variety of consequences. Policy mistakes are more likely. Market actors find it easier to manipulate the understanding of government policy makers, e.g. as to the extent and kind of subsidies required in particular sectors or for particular purposes.
One way to remedy this is to rethink the kinds of specialist education that public administrators receive, both to ensure that low and mid-level functionaries are better equipped to take the decisions they need to take, and to signal increased prestige for non-traditional forms of policy knowledge. As the sociological literature suggests, elite US policy schools such as the Harvard Kennedy School, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Georgetown University (to name three entirely random examples) play a key role not simply in directly imparting knowledge through education, but in disseminating norms about the kinds of knowledge that are considered to be appropriate for policy decisions. These schools have by and large converged on a framework derived from a watered down version of neoclassical [indeed. one might suggest, neoliberal] economics. I argue that new skills, including but not limited to network science, material science and engineering, and use of machine learning would be one useful contribution towards solving the new knowledge problem…
Assuring access to the right tools and techniques: “Industrial policy and the new knowledge problem,” from @henryfarrell in @crookedtimber.
* Joseph Stiglitz (@JosephEStiglitz)
###
As we retool, we might send thoughtfully calculated birthday greetings to Paul Collier; he was born on this date in 1949. An economist who specializes in development, he is a professor at Oxford and director of the International Growth Centre.
Collier is a specialist in the political, economic and developmental predicaments of low-income countries, and is probably best known for his 2007 book, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. His philosophy, developed there and in his 2010 The Plundered Planet, is encapsulated in his formulas:
- Nature – Technology + Regulation = Starvation
- Nature + Technology – Regulation = Plunder
- Nature + Technology + Regulation (good governance) = Prosperity
You must be logged in to post a comment.