Yesterday, the World Trade Organization ruled in favor of the United States on claims that India had violated trade rules by prohibiting imports of US poultry, meat, eggs, and live pigs on “phytosanitary” (i.e., food safety) grounds. The WTO ruling is available here.
US farmer organizations were predictably thrilled by the ruling, since it may force India to open up it’s market to the tune of $300 million a year. I was particularly taken by this quote in the Des Moines Register by David Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation:
“Iowa and U.S. farmers want a level playing field for international trade and we are confident that the WTO dispute resolution process provides an avenue for that to happen.”
I can only assume, then, that the Iowa Farm Bureau will also support removing the protectionist US sugar program, which restricts sugar imports and causes the price of sugar in the US to be 2 to 3 times higher than the world price of sugar. A recent study by Beghin and Elobeid published in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy suggests that eliminating the sugar quota would make US consumers better off to the tune of $2.9 to $3.5 billion per year and create as many as 20,000 new jobs.
Of course, that would come at a cost to Iowa corn farmers, who benefit greatly from inflated sugar prices that create a market opportunity for high-fructose corn syrup. Or perhaps what Mr. Miller meant is that Iowa and US farmers want a level playing field for international trade, as long as it tilts in their favor.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) surprised even veteran court watchers this week by refusing to hear a set of cases involving state-level bans (and reversals of those bans) of same-sex marriage. One lawyer offers a pretty convincing argument on why the Court decided not to weigh in on an issue that has such important consequences for large groups of people (and employers). At its heart, it’s all about individual justices’ incentives and the cost-benefit calculation justices had to make in the face of an uncertain outcome:
So why is the Roberts Court, not normally shy in jumping into controversial issues such as affirmative action or campaign finance law, ducking this one?
The answer may lie in the incentives facing the individual Justices rather than the approach of the Court as a whole. When you look at the choices available from the three different perspectives on this issue – liberals, swing votes, and conservatives – it becomes much easier to see why there weren’t the four votes required (out of the nine Justices) to hear this issue now. With no camp assured of victory if the court decided to hear the cases, the uncertainty may hold the key to the Justices’ thinking.
You can read the full blog post with the details of the explanation here. Regardless your position on the issue, this analysis of the justices’ likely reasoning in passing on the opportunity to settle the issue (at least for a period of time) illustrates how understanding individuals’ incentives helps to explain the expected–and not-so-expected–outcomes that shape the laws and institutions that help structure society at-large.
Let’s just put this up front: Excessive consumption of alcohol and alcohol addiction are bad. It’s even more bad when those involved are underage college students (or even younger). Okay? Okay.
Now, we can debate what the threshold of “underage” is (currently, 21 years in the United States) versus what it could be (18 in most of the rest of the world). If we adopted the global standard, there would be very few US college students who are underage. Problem solved, right? I doubt college administrators would agree (but maybe they should…see below).
While drinking is a hallmark of the US college experience, it is a problem–whether students are underage or not. According to a recent survey of students here at the University of Missouri (MU), 86% drink alcohol regularly; 38% of underage drinkers drink to get drunk, and 68% of Greek students binge drink (ban the Greeks! no, not those Greeks). Binge drinking is defined as 5+ drinks in two hours for men, 4+ for women. Despite these numbers, fewer than 1% of students were arrested for a DUI and almost no students ran afoul of campus administration. But the numbers reflect a lot of irresponsible and illegal drinking, so the University has launched an effort to reduce the incidence of underage drinking and high-risk drinking.
One of the proposals, which has been embraced by other universities, is to increase the number of Friday morning classes. A 2007 study showed MU students with no Friday morning classes drank twice as much on Thursdays as those who had classes. Now, this fact doesn’t take into account the self-selection by students to take Friday morning courses–presumably, those who are less worried about drinking are more likely to choose the Friday courses. But if we take it at face value (as the administration would have us do), it means students are drinking responsibly when they have incentive to do so. Students rationally respond to the expected consequences of getting hammered on Thursday morning and having to be up early (and hung over) for classes on Friday.
I believe the proposal for Friday classes, while it might have some effect, is actually a pretty bad idea. And it’s not because I prefer to teach Tuesday/Thursdays so that I have longer weekends (though it is nice to have the flexibility for traveling and not missing class). Continue reading “Getting Drunk Rationally–College Life Edition”
One of the most fundamental concepts in modern economics is the idea of marginal analysis. If the marginal benefit of doing something (i.e., the benefit you couldn’t otherwise obtain) is greater than the marginal cost of doing it, then a rational maximizer should do it.
A related idea is that those who benefit (the most) from something should be the ones to pay (the most) for it. Obviously, if you value something less than I do, then my marginal benefits of having or using it are greater and the marginal cost I’m willing to pay are likewise greater.
Herein lies the economic principles behind Missouri’s Amendment 7, which would impose a “temporary” 3/4-cent sales tax to fund road construction: Who should pay for road and transportation infrastructure? Those who drive on the roads (as has been traditionally the case) or consumers who purchase non-food consumables? The economic logic is pretty clear: those who directly benefit from the transportation infrastructure.
Not only does it make sense from a simple benefit perspective, but taxing those who use the roads for road improvements creates more efficient incentives throughout the entire economy. Here’s why:
If you simply slap on a sales tax, then end-consumers are stuck paying those taxes whether the products they purchased used the roads extensively, or just a little bit. Opponents will also argue that the sales tax is more regressive. While that’s true, it’s also a pretty weak argument–even if you care about regressivity. If the cost of driving products to the store goes up, the costs to consumers will go up–and it will still be regressive.
However, this is where taxing the transportation directly is critically important. Taxing road-intensive transportation more for road improvements will change the relative cost of transporting by roads. Higher road transportation costs will encourage shippers to seek alternate, more fuel-efficient means of transportation. Competition at the transportation stage will limit how much of the cost increase gets passed onto consumers, making the cost less regressive. It would also reward consumers (and producers) who choose less road-intensive products.
Taxing consumers at the point of sale does nothing to encourage more efficient use of our transportation system and it eliminates any competitive pressure between modes of transportation that would reduce the costs consumers pay for all the products they consumer. Little wonder the trucking industry is behind this proposal.
But the amendment is even more devious than that. It would prohibit any increases in fuel taxes for the duration of this “temporary tax” and would also prohibit any attempt to move toward toll-roads in the State. Ultimately, toll roads are the most efficient funding mechanism for road construction and improvements, since the road is paid for by the people who actually use it. Prohibiting even an experiment of toll-funded roads anywhere in the state for an indefinite length of time (sure, call it 10 years if you believe it will end then) is cutting off even the chance of a more efficient future that would benefit everyone–except the heavy roads users.
The construction industry (all those “stimulus” jobs!) and the emergency first responders (“we’ll be able to save you better with this tax”) would benefit the same from road construction no matter the funding source. Ultimately, this amendment is a little more than a special interest bone for the trucking industry. If we’re serious about funding roads responsibly, we should demand better of our State legislature than Amendment 7.
When I taught my first agricultural economics class, it happened to be at the peak of the 1998-99 hog industry crisis. I told my students, “Your parents don’t have a Constitutional right to raise hogs.” It was true then, is now, and should continue to be. But largely not for the reasons opponents of Missouri Amendment 1 claim.
You see, a Constitutional right implies an obligation, either positive or negative or both, on the government. For instance, the right to vote requires the government to make it possible for every adult to vote (a positive obligation) and prohibits the government from doing things that impede persons’ rights to vote (a negative obligation). The US Constitution’s 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom, free speech, etc., and the 2nd Amendment are expressed in the Constitution as negative obligations; e.g., “Congress shall make no law…,” or “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But ultimately, the role of the Constitution is to put limits on what the government can, can’t–and must–do.
The text of Constitutional Amendment 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri. – See more at: http://www.mofb.org/KeepMissouriFarming.aspx#sthash.fca5gKo6.dpuf
The first problem with Missouri Amendment 1 is that it is not clear what obligations it imposes on the government, whether positive or negative. Opponents have argued, with rather disingenuous scare tactics, that the Amendment creates a negative obligation that would prohibit the State from regulating the agriculture industry in any way, leaving agricultural producers with free rein to abuse the animals they produce and the land and watersheds they work. Not only is that a grossly unfair and inaccurate characterization of the agriculture industry, it is also clearly not true. As with any other Constitutional right, the ability to exercise those rights is balanced against the public welfare interests of the State. Yes, the standard is higher in considering what limits are appropriate, but the State clearly would still have a role in prohibiting the Armageddon-like outcomes opponents warn against.
What has not been asked is what positive obligations Amendment 1 creates. If farmers and ranchers have a Constitutional right to engage in farming and ranching practices, what is the obligation of the State to affirmatively protect that right? Does it mean the State must further subsidize farmers and the farm industry, which is already one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the US? Does it mean the State must guarantee that farmers can continue to be farmers no matter what economic conditions might dictate? Does it mean contracts to foreclose on farming operations would become unconstitutional? Is it an individual right entitling each specific farmer to be a farmer forever, or is it a group right that protects farming as a productive operation. The language of the amendment itself provides no clear answer.
And what would be the consequences of the kinds of protections possible under the proposed amendment? Opponents have focused on anti-corporate bigotry and xenophobic scare tactics. However, more meaningful questions could be raised about the consequences for innovation in agricultural practices that improve food quality and supply but that might disrupt or challenge current practices and threaten to displace some producers. Or about the incentive for the agriculture industry to be innovative in its environmental practices and technologies—not in the sense that waterways would become toxic, like opponents suggest, but that there may be less incentive to developing new technologies and practices that do an even better job than current practices. Or about the incentive of the agriculture industry—and individual producers—to be sensitive and responsive to neighbors’ (and voters’) interests and concerns.
Finally, does it make sense to single out one profession or one sector of the economy as being worthy of Constitutional protection? Especially when there are already laws that provide the kinds of protections proponents of Amendment 1 want? Why is farming special compared to nursing, teaching, childcare, or any number of “socially valuable” industries (as if other professions are any less meritorious)? Proponents of Amendment 1 will rightly argue that agriculture has been under attack by special interest groups that take advantage of a voting public that lives in romanticized ignorance of the industry that produces their beloved burgers and bacon. However, the solution to that problem is not to further insulate the industry from the voting public, but to be more vigilant in educating the public and State officials in the face of anti-farming interests.
The Missouri Constitution is not the place for industries or professions to hide from competitive pressures—whether economic or ideological.
Last week I posted at Truth On The Market about an attempt by some Missouri legislators and the Missouri Auto Dealers Association to sneak by language in an unrelated bill to effectively ban Tesla Motors from selling their cars directly to Missouri consumers. Never mind that Tesla already invested in a service facility in St. Louis and claims to have plans for one in Kansas City, creating at least a couple dozen jobs or so. Using the standard Missouri legislature economic multiplier, and that’s got to be worth at least another 1,000 jobs created! (just kidding)
In my post, I wrote that the auto dealers’ ploy “is classic rent-seeking regulation at its finest”. A reporter from Law360.com asked me what I meant by rent-seeking. There are various definitions, but it all boils down to seeking or taking advantage of political privilege or regulatory favoritism to generate extra profits (typically at the expense of disadvantaged competitors or consumers). In this case, it’s seeking regulations that would eliminate competition from automakers selling directly to consumers, thereby forcing the automakers to use independent dealers who could then take their cut from the sale of the vehicle…and, in all likelihood, increase the cost of new cars (and therefore, used cars as well) to consumers.
But the costs of rent-seeking go beyond just the increased cost to consumers due to reduced competition. It has a much more pernicious effect. When policy makers (legislators or bureaucrats) dole out rent-creating laws and regulations, it creates even more demand from other companies or industries that want their own political perks, tax breaks, subsidies, and other such regulatory favoritism. In other words, it creates a whole culture of crony capitalism–where policy makers sell and businesses buy laws and regulations that tilt the capitalist playing field to benefit the favorites, rather than letting market forces sort out the most efficient, most productive, and most desired by consumers.
As political humorist P.J. O’Rourke quipped, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
Regarding Tesla, my colleague from the MU Law School and fellow TOTM blogger, Thom Lambert, and I published an op-ed in the Kansas City Star this week calling out the Republican-dominated Missouri legislature to live up to their claims to support innovation and entrepreneurship in the state and to put a stop to the rent-seeking crony capitalism. Check it out.
Xuepeng Lui and Emanual Ornelas have a rather interesting paper in the current issue of American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (Vol 6, No 2) examining the relation between participation in free trade agreements (FTAs) and the sustainability of democracy. Using hazard and duration models, and accounting for endogeneity of the dynamics, they find that participation in FTAs is positively related to democratic stability. The authors’ findings suggest the bi-lateral nature of FTAs, rather than just a unilateral free-trade regime, make credible the rent-dissipating effects of free trade and reduce incentives to subvert the democratic regime. The authors further show that the adoption of FTAs does not appear to be influenced by how democratic trading partners are, but FTAs do appear to be used as defensive measures by less stable democracies. It’s a thoughtfully done piece that illustrates the interactions of socio-political and economic institutions. The abstract follows:
We study the relationship between participation in free trade agreements (FTAs) and the sustainability of democracy. Our model shows that FTAs can critically reduce the incentive of authoritarian groups to seek power by destroying protectionist rents, thus making democracies last longer. This gives governments in unstable democracies an extra motive to form FTAs. Hence, greater democratic instability induces governments to boost their FTA commitments. In a dataset with 116 countries over 1960-2007, we find robust support for these predictions. They help to rationalize the rapid simultaneous growth of regionalism and of worldwide democratization since the late 1980s.
