Assignment
Economics of Political Action
GWARTNEY – STROUP – SOBEL – MACPHERSON
To Accompany: “Economics: Private and Public Choice, 15th ed.”
James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, Russell Sobel, & David Macpherson
Slides authored and animated by: James Gwartney & Charles Skipton
Full Length Text —
Micro Only Text —
Part: 2
Part: 2
Chapter: 6
Chapter: 6
Macro Only Text —
Part: 2
Chapter: 6
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Size and Growth of the U.S. Government
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Government Spending as a Share of the U.S. Economy: 1930 - 2012
The following slide shows total government spending (federal, state, and local) as a share of the US economy.
Total government spending accounted for only 9.4% of GDP in 1930; only one third of this spending was at the federal level.
Government spending, particularly at the federal level, soared from 1930 to 1980. Total government spending rose from 9.4% of GDP in 1930 to 32.8% in 1980 (more than 3 times its 1930 level).
After remaining fairly constant between 1980 and 2000, the size of the US government has increased dramatically since (increasing to 38% of the U.S. economy in 2012).
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Size of the US Government: 1930-2012
Federal
State & local
Government Expenditures as a Share (%) of GDP
1930
1940
1950
1970
1980
1990
2000
3.0
6.5
9.4
8.4
15.7
7.3
1960
24.1
16.5
7.6
30.2
19.4
10.9
32.8
21.0
11.8
34.2
21.6
12.6
31.9
19.0
12.9
21.1
14.7
6.3
2010
39.7
25.4
14.3
2012
38.0
24.0
14.0
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
How the Federal Government Spends, 2011
Source: Economic Report of the President, 2013.
Defense 19.6%
Net Interest 6.4%
Transportation 2.6%
Other 10.8%
Social
Security 20.3%
Income
Security 16.6%
Medicare and health 23.8%
Federal Spending (2011) = $3,603 Billion
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
ss in sec medicare other trans net int def 20.5 18 23.8 9.2000000000000011 2.7 5.7 20.100000000000001
How State and Local Governments Spend, 2010
Education 29.1%
Insurance trusts 8.2%
Public welfare & Health 17.7%
Police & Fire Protection 4.5%
Transportation 5.4%
Administration & other 24.7%
Interest on debt 3.4%
Utilities & liquor stores 7.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, State and Local Finances, 2010.
State and Local Spending (2010) = $3,115 Billion
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
27.6 15.8 3.4 6.8 6 6.8 22.1 11.6
The Growth of Government Transfer Payments
Transfer payments tax income from some and transfer it to others.
As is illustrated here, government transfer payments have grown rapidly since 1930.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov.
Transfer Payments as a % of National Income
1960
5.9%
1970
8.3%
1980
11.6%
1990
11.7%
2000
12.0%
2010
18.0%
1930
1.1%
1940
2.6%
1950
6.4%
17.4%
2012
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Similarities and Differences Between Political and Market Allocation
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Differences and Similarities Between Government and Markets
Competitive behavior is present in both the market and public sectors.
Public sector organization can break the individual consumption-payment link.
Scarcity imposes the aggregate consumption-payment link in both sectors.
Private sector action is based on mutual agreement; public sector (when democratic) is based on majority rule.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When collective decisions are made legislatively, voters must choose among candidates who represent a bundle of positions on issues.
Income and influence are distributed differently in the two sectors.
Differences and Similarities Between Government and Markets
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Political Decision Making: An Overview
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Public Choice Analysis
Public Choice analysis – applies the tools of economics to the political process in order to provide insight concerning how the process works.
Self-interested behavior is present in both market and political sectors.
The political process can be viewed as a complex interaction among three groups:
voter-taxpayers
politicians
bureaucrats
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Voter-Consumer:
Voters will tend to support those candidates who they believe will provide them with the most government services and transfer benefits, net of personal costs.
Rational Ignorance Effect: Recognizing their vote is unlikely to be decisive, most voters have little incentive to obtain information on issues and alternative candidates.
Because of the rational ignorance effect, voters will be uninformed on many issues; such issues will not enter into their decision-making process.
The Voter-Consumer
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Politician-Supplier:
Political officials are interested in winning elections.
Just as profits are the lifeblood of the market entrepreneur, votes are the lifeblood of the politician.
Rationally uninformed voters often must be convinced to “want” a candidate.
Legislative bodies, like a Board of Directors:
establishes the general direction of policy,
appoints and supervises bureaucrats who carryout the day-to-day operations of government, and,
sets the budgets of agencies and bureaus.
The Politician-Supplier
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Civil servants (government bureaucrats) as political participants:
Bureaucrats (persons that handle day-to-day operations of government) seek promotions, job security, power, etc.
The interests of bureaucrats are often complementary with those of the interest groups they serve.
Larger budgets and program expansion generally serve the interests of both bureaucrats and their constituent groups.
Government Bureaucrats
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When the Political Process Works Well
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Distribution of Benefits and Costs Among Voters
Consider how the 4 possible distributions of benefits and costs among voters affect the operation of representative government.
When benefits or costs are either both widespread or concentrated (type 1 or type 3), representative government tends to undertake projects that are productive and reject those that are unproductive.
Type 1
Type 4
Widespread
Concentrated
Widespread
Concentrated
Distribution of costs among voters
Distribution of benefits among voters
Type 2
Type 3
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When benefits are concentrated and costs widespread (type 2), representative government is biased towards the adoption of counterproductive (inefficient) activity.
Last, when benefits are widespread but the costs are concentrated (type 4), the political process often rejects productive projects.
Type 1
Type 4
Widespread
Concentrated
Widespread
Concentrated
Distribution of costs among voters
Distribution of benefits among voters
Type 2
Type 3
Distribution of Benefits and Costs Among Voters
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When Voting Works Well
Other things constant, legislators will have a strong incentive to support political actions that provide voters with large total benefits relative to costs.
If a government project is productive, it will be possible to allocate the project’s cost so that all voters will gain.
When voters pay in proportion to benefits received, all voters will gain if the government action is productive (and all will lose if it is unproductive). Under these circumstances, there is a harmony between good politics and economic efficiency.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Benefits Derived by Voters from Hypothetical Road Project
Consider this government program. The total benefits ($40) exceed the tax cost ($25). It is, therefore, an efficient program.
Under plan A, the tax cost ($5)imposed on each voter is the same. If decided by majority vote, the project would be rejected by a 3 to 2 margin.
Under plan B each voter pays in proportion to benefits received. In this case, all voters gain and the program would pass unanimously.
This example shows that harmony between politics and economic efficiency exist when costs are allocated in proportion to benefits.
Voter
Adams
Chan
Green
Lee
Diaz
Total
Tax payment
Benefits received
$ 20
12
4
2
2
$40
Plan A
$ 5
5
5
5
5
$25
Plan B
$ 12.50
7.50
2.50
1.25
1.25
$25.00
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
"The average person is more likely to make an informed choice when he or she purchases a laptop computer than when he/she votes for a congressional candidate." -- Evaluate this statement.
Does the motivation for political action differ from market action? Are people more greedy when they make market choices than when they make political choices?
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
3. “Government action is based on majority rule, whereas market action is based on mutual consent.”
Is this statement true or false? Is this point important? Why or why not?
4. Will efficient projects necessarily be favored by a majority of voters? Why or why not?
5. When the cost of a project is allocated among voters in direct proportion to the benefits derived, will democratic political decision making tend to accept projects that are efficient? Will it tend to reject projects that are inefficient? Discuss.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
6. (True or false) Market allocation and political process differ in that:
(a) Competition is present in markets, but not in the political sector.
(b) Scarcity is a constraint in markets but not in the political sector.
(c) There is a one-to-one link between payment for and receipt of a good in markets, but this is not always true in the political sector.
(d) Voter-consumers are generally well informed, but market decision makers are not.
(e) Money influences market outcomes, but not political outcomes.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When the Political Process Works Poorly
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Special Interest Effect
A special interest issue generates large personal benefit for a small number of constituents while imposing a small individual cost on a large number of others.
Interest group members feel strongly about issues that provide them with substantial personal benefits. Such issues will dominate their political choices.
In contrast, voters bearing the cost of such legislation often are uninformed on the issue because it exerts only a small impact on their personal welfare and because of the rational ignorance effect.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Special Interest Effect
Politicians have a strong incentive to favor the views of special interests even if the action is inefficient.
Logrolling and pork-barrel legislation strengthen the special interest effect.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Trading Votes and Passing Counterproductive Legislation
Consider a bill in Congress that would put a post office in district A, dredge a harbor in B, & build a military base in district C.
Benefits to A, B, & C voters vary by project.
With this bill, there are no benefits to voters in D and E; further, the sum of benefits & costs for all voters together is negative.
+
$4
+
$4
+
$4
-
$9
-
$9
-
$6
Total
-
$03
-
$03
+
$10
-
$03
-
$03
in C
-
$02
Dredging
harbor
in B
-
$03
+
$10
-
$03
-
$03
-
$03
-
$02
New
Post Office
in A
+
$10
-
$03
-
$03
-
$03
-
$03
-
$02
Voters of
district
*
A
B
C
D
E
Total
*
Assume the districts are of equal size.
–– Net Benefits (+) or Costs (-) to Voters in Respective District ––
New
military base
In total, voters in A, B, and C districts come out ahead despite the costs of paying taxes for activities in other districts – if they agree to vote together.
With majority rule, representatives from districts A, B, and C, can, and often will, pass counterproductive legislation.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When Voting Conflicts with Economic Efficiency
Shortsightedness Effect: Issues that yield clearly defined current benefits at the expense of future costs that are difficult to identify.
The political process is biased toward the adoption of such proposals even when they are inefficient.
The shortsightedness effect explains why politicians will find debt financing and unfunded promises attractive -- they make it possible for politicians to provide current benefits to voters without levying an equivalent amount of taxes (to pay for them).
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
When Voting Conflicts with Economic Efficiency
Rent Seeking: Actions by individuals and interest groups designed to restructure public policy in a manner that will either directly or indirectly redistribute more income to themselves.
Widespread use of the taxing, spending, and regulatory powers of government that favor some at the expense of others will encourage rent seeking.
Rent seeking diverts resources away from productive activities. The output of economies with substantial amounts of rent seeking will fall below their potential.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Income Transfers and Rent Seeking
Income transfers are a large and growing part of the U.S. economy.
There are three major reasons why large-scale redistribution will reduce the size of the economic pie:
When taxes take larger shares of one’s income, reward derived from work is reduced.
As public policy redistributes a larger share of income, more resources flow into rent-seeking.
Higher taxes to finance income transfers induce tax payers to focus less on income-generating activities and more on actions to protect their own income.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Economic Inefficiency and Government Operated Firms
The structure of incentives and the efficiency of government operated firms and agencies
In the public sector, the absence of the profit motive reduces the incentive of producers to keep costs low. Neither is there a bankruptcy process capable of weeding out inefficient producers.
Public-sector managers are seldom in a position to gain personally from measures that reduce costs.
Because public officials and bureau managers spend other people’s money, they have less incentive to be cost-conscious.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Political Favoritism, Crony Capitalism, and Government Failure
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Political Favoritism, Crony Capitalism, and Government Failure
As government spending, subsidies, income transfers, financial bailouts, and regulatory favors grow, businesses and other well-organized groups will expend more resources seeking to obtain government favors.
As a result, crony capitalism grows relative to market allocation.
Crony capitalism is the situation where the allocation of resources is determined by political favors rather than by consumer preferences translated through the market profit and loss system.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Political Favoritism, Crony Capitalism, and Government Failure
Under crony capitalism, rather than providing equal treatment of individuals and businesses under the law, government uses spending, subsidies, and regulations to favor those most willing to provide political decision-makers with campaign contributions and other forms of political support.
Economic inefficiency is the result.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
“Bootleggers and Baptists”
Crony Capitalism is often driven by the bootlegger–Baptist strategy: greedy action packaged as moral behavior.
Opportunistic rent-seekers often frame their programs in a manner designed to attract support from naïve idealists.
They argue their programs will enhance child safety, promote energy independence, save family farms, or some other widely supported goal.
But when one looks below the surface, one discovers that these programs are about government favoritism providing handsome profits to the well organized special interest groups.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
“Bootleggers and Baptists”
Bootlegger—Baptist examples include:
Mattel incorporating costly testing procedures into the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
The action increased the costs of rivals and drove used toy sellers like Goodwill out of the market.
General Electric partners with environmentalists to advocate subsidies and tax breaks for alternative energy sources.
This government favoritism increased demand for GE turbine engines, solar panels, and wind farms.
Result: GE earned $15 billion in 2010 and paid zero corporate income taxes.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Market Entrepreneurs versus Crony Capitalists
Market entrepreneurs get ahead by providing consumers with products that are more highly valued than the resources required for their production.
Crony capitalists get ahead by providing political players with campaign contributions and other political resources in exchange for government contracts, subsidies, tax benefits, and other forms of political favoritism.
Projects of crony capitalists will often be counterproductive
Crony capitalism reflects govt. failure and undermines the legitimacy of the democratic political process.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Economic Way of Thinking About Markets and Government
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Economic Way of Thinking About Markets and Government
Two key points about government:
Protective function of government: When government protects private property, enforces contracts evenhandedly, maintains monetary stability, and refrains from regulations that restrict entry into markets, it provides the foundation for the smooth operation of markets.
Government failure: Both political and market organization have shortcomings.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Economic Way of Thinking About Markets and Government
Public choice analysis shows that there is sometimes a conflict between winning elections and following sound policies.
For some types of activities, there is reason to believe that the political action that will help one get elected will, at the same time, encourage counter-productive activities that reduce income levels.
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
The Economic Way of Thinking About Markets and Government
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of both sectors is important if we are going to improve our current economic institutions.
The following factors often result in market failure:
Lack of competition
Externalities
Public goods
Poor information
The following factors often result in government failure:
The special-interest effect
The shortsightedness effect
Rent-seeking
Weak incentives for operational efficiency
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
“Political officials will be led as if by an invisible hand to support legislation that provides concentrated benefits to interest groups at the expense of disorganized groups such as taxpayers and consumers.” – Is this statement true or false? Why?
What is the shortsightedness effect? How does the shortsightedness effect influence the efficiency of public sector action?
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
3. Why does representative democracy often tax some people in order to provide benefits to others? When governments become heavily involved in tax-transfer activities, how will this involvement affect the size of the economic pie? Explain.
4. What is rent seeking? What types of government activities encourage rent seeking?
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
Questions for Thought:
5. "Since government-operated firms do not have to make a profit, they can usually produce at a lower cost and charge a lower price than privately owned enterprises." – Evaluate this view.
6. The US imposes highly restrictive sugar import quotas that result in a domestic price of sugar often two or three times the world price. The quotas benefit sugar growers at the expense of consumers. Given there are far more sugar consumers than growers, why are the quotas not abolished? Do the sugar quotas improve American living standards? Why/why not?
15th
edition
Gwartney-Stroup
Sobel-Macpherson
Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part.
End of
Chapter 6