Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

The Costs of Rejecting Reality

Thanks to the information environment we inhabit, we Americans increasingly inhabit alternate “realities.” I’ve put quotation marks around the term “realities,” because it has become very clear that the universe in which too many Americans have chosen to reside is at odds with–indeed, incompatible with–empirical reality. The amount of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and other varieties of mis- and dis-information readily available online greatly facilitates the very human desire to indulge in confirmation bias–and the failure of civic and scientific education has facilitated widespread acceptance of “realities” wildly at odds with fact and credible evidence.

It seems pertinent, therefore, to ask: what happens when people choose to deny empirical evidence and facts they find inconvenient or annoying? What, for example, might we expect from RFK, Jr’s refusal to understand the science of vaccines, or the demonstrable benefits of a fluoridated water supply?

History is instructive. I did some (very superficial) research, and found fascinating (and depressing) evidence of humanity’s past experience with the denial of science and empirical inquiry.

Before acceptance of germ theory, for example, many people believed diseases like cholera were caused by the presence of  “miasma” (bad air). As a result, governments took no effective measures to control cholera outbreaks–and doctors who warned about the dangers of contaminated water were ignored. The result was thousands of unnecessary deaths.

The tendency to ignore and reject scientific evidence hasn’t been confined to America. In Russia, in the early 20th Century, a Soviet agricultural scientist named Lysenko rejected the science of genetics in favor of pseudoscientific ideas like Lamarckian inheritance (the belief that physical changes made to an organism during its lifetime would be  passed on–inherited by the organism’s offspring.) Stalin’s government embraced Lysenko’s theories, suppressed the scientists who supported Mendelian genetics, and based its agricultural policies on Lysenkoism. The result was widespread crop failures and famines that caused millions of deaths.

I found plenty of other historical examples: delays in accepting the science of plate tectonics that hindered advancements in understanding earthquakes, volcanic activity, and geological hazards. Initial medical responses to the HIV/AIDS crisis that were hampered by widespread stigma and misinformation. Vaccine disinformation (especially the consistently debunked claim that vaccines cause autism) has led to reduced vaccination rates, and the resurgence of diseases like measles, polio, and whooping cough that medical science had virtually eradicated.

Numerous studies have confirmed that the MAGA movement’s resistance to masks and vaccines during the COVID pandemic cost the U.S. thousands of lives–a far greater percentage of American citizens died than the percentage of people living in countries where the population had more respect for medical science. Delays in lockdowns, resistance to public health measures, and vaccine rejection caused millions of preventable deaths and significant economic damage.

And I don’t even want to theorize about the likely consequences of climate change denial…

Ironically, MAGA’s stubborn resistance to empiricism and fact flies in the face of what actually made America great.

America’s founders were students of the Enlightenment, especially the philosophy of John Locke, often considered the father of empiricism. The Founders committed themselves to unleashing the power of reason to advance knowledge and to build an effective and responsive government. They believed that science and democracy worked together, and often expressed their intent to base government policy on the best available data and the most up-to-date, empirical understanding of the world.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in 2012, “science and democracy, working hand in hand, have proved a powerful combination that has helped our nation to prosper and thrive throughout our history.”

That partnership of science and government is what enabled America’s economic “greatness.” The country’s economic growth  has significantly depended on empiricism and technological innovation; advances in industries like aerospace, computing, and biotechnology have all been dependant upon rigorous science and empirical evidence. Respect for science and empiricism has also been crucial to the development of the military defense technologies that have made the U.S. a world power. (Think radar, GPS, and nuclear energy.)

Trump and the MAGA movement are the absolute antithesis of the respect for science, evidence and expertise that is actually at the base of America’s global preeminence. The collection of clowns, buffoons, and know-nothings that Trump has nominated for his cabinet make a mockery of MAGA’s promise to return America to greatness.

What is that famous Santayana quote? Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

Welcome to Lysenkoism.

Comments

About Those Grocery Prices….

Lately, grocery prices have figured significantly in America’s political argumentation. A number of Trump voters cited them as justifications for their votes, for example. (Excuse my skeptical belief that this “reason” was generally given to mask the racism/misogyny that actually prompted those votes.)

Biden had little to do with grocery prices, but those prices are legitimately relevant to arguments about Trump’s moronic devotion to tariffs, and his threat to impose them on pretty much every country from which the U.S. imports. Every economist who has weighed in has pointed out that tariffs tax American consumers, not the countries exporting to us. And it’s hard to ignore the inevitable effect of his fixation on mass deportations, which–if successful–would leave crops rotting in American fields and set prices soaring.

Prices aren’t the only grocery problem. There’s also maldistribution– the growing incidence of America’s food deserts. A friend recently shared an Atlantic article that shed light on both issues. Titled “The Great Grocery Squeeze,” it highlighted the importance of government policy–very much including the enforcement of policy.

The concept of the food desert has been around long enough that it feels almost like a fact of nature. Tens of millions of Americans live in low-income communities with no easy access to fresh groceries, and the general consensus is that these places just don’t have what it takes to attract and sustain a supermarket. They’re either too poor or too sparsely populated to generate sufficient spending on groceries, or they can’t overcome a racist pattern of corporate redlining.

But these explanations fail to contend with a key fact: Although poverty and ruralness have been with us forever, food deserts arrived only around the late 1980s. Prior to that, small towns and poor neighborhoods could generally count on having a grocery store, perhaps even several. (The term food desert was coined in 1995 by a task force studying what was then a relatively new phenomenon.)

Affluent folks tend to think of food deserts as a feature of low-income, primarily Black neighborhoods, but it’s also a problem in very White places like North Dakota. In 1980s, almost every small town in North Dakota had a grocery store, and many had two. Now, nearly half of North Dakota’s rural residents live in a food desert.

Food deserts are not an inevitable consequence of poverty or low population density, and they didn’t materialize around the country for no reason. Something happened. That something was a specific federal policy change in the 1980s. It was supposed to reward the biggest retail chains for their efficiency. Instead, it devastated poor and rural communities by pushing out grocery stores and inflating the cost of food.

In 1936 Congress had passed the Robinson-Patman Act, essentially banning price discrimination in the industry.

During the decades when Robinson-Patman was enforced—part of the broader mid-century regime of vigorous antitrust—the grocery sector was highly competitive, with a wide range of stores vying for shoppers and a roughly equal balance of chains and independents. In 1954, the eight largest supermarket chains captured 25 percent of grocery sales. That statistic was virtually identical in 1982, although the specific companies on top had changed. As they had for decades, Americans in the early 1980s did more than half their grocery shopping at independent stores, including both single-location businesses and small, locally owned chains. Local grocers thrived alongside large, publicly traded companies such as Kroger and Safeway.

Studies tracking grocery prices while Robinson-Patman was being enforced found that large independent grocers were less than 1 percent more expensive than the big chains.

In the 1980s, convinced that tough antitrust enforcement was holding back American business, the Reagan administration set about dismantling it. The Robinson-Patman Act remained on the books, but the new regime saw it as an economically illiterate handout to inefficient small businesses. And so the government simply stopped enforcing it..That move tipped the retail market in favor of the largest chains, who could once again wield their leverage over suppliers.

Once independent stores closed, “the chains no longer had to invest in low-income areas. They could count on people to schlep across town to their other locations.”

It wasn’t only groceries–lack of anti-trust enforcement affected the entire retail sector. Between 1982 to 2017, the market share of independent retailers went from 53% to 22%.

The problem of food deserts will not be solved without the rediscovery of the Robinson-Patman Act. Requiring a level pricing playing field would restore local retailers’ ability to compete. This would provide immediate relief to entrepreneurs who have recently opened grocery stores in food deserts, only to find that their inability to buy on the same terms as Walmart and Dollar General makes survival difficult.

Policy matters. Just not in the way MAGA voters think.

Comments

Crony Capitalism–The Big Grift

Not to sound like some sort of weird Pollyanna, but despite the considerable downsides and probable suffering involved, perhaps the Trump administration’s coming destruction of America’s governing institutions is overdue. Maybe we need a thorough-going rethinking of the ways in which America’s current governing structures support and encourage some very destructive approaches–especially to our economic life.

As I have frequently asserted, I am a huge fan of market capitalism–properly understood. By “properly understood,” I mean a system that recognizes two essentials of a working market economy: the maintenance of a true level playing field, which requires rational, reasonable regulation; and proper recognition of the areas of the economy that are not suited to a market approach. Markets are marvelous devices for the production of all manner of goods and services–and absolutely inappropriate and damaging in other areas of our communal lives.

The basic definition of a market transaction is one in which a willing buyer and willing seller, both of whom are in possession of all information relevant to the transaction, enter into a sales agreement. Rather obviously, that definition excludes things like medical care, where the “buyer” is not in possession of the same information as the provider, and is generally in no position to bargain with the provider or to shop around for a better deal.

What about transactions where the “buyer” is government?

Take prisons. In a market economy, should government “purchase” incarceration services from entities competing for those government contracts? Or–as most of us might suspect–does the prospect of a “buyer” with virtually unlimited resources thanks to the taxing power invite would-be contractor/sellers to engage in a range of unethical behaviors–big donations to selected political figures in order to get the contracts, and/or failure to provide the services at an optimum (or even adequate) level in order to generate more profit?

Should prisons be privatized–i.e., considered part of the market economy? Or is the marketization of such essentially governmental services an invitation to corruption?

One recent report looked at the “industry” of immigrant detention. Titled “Revenue Over Refuge,” the report found the following:

  • Hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing from city and federal governments to private equity firms for goods and services used to detain immigrants.
  • 63 percent of federally-designated ICE facilities contract with private equity-owned companies for a range of services.
  • Private equity-owned companies are winning emergency contracts for managing migrant shelters in cities across the country.
  • Companies like Wellpath and G4S have faced investigations and lawsuits and paid out settlements for mistreating immigrants in their care.
  • Private equity firms and other alternative asset managers stand to profit from increased taxpayer-funded immigration detention, although alternatives to detention cost less.

Are we really surprised to find corporate America engaging in these profit-maximizing tactics? More fundamentally, are prisons the sort of consumer item we think of when we consider the merits of healthy market economies?

When I was still teaching, I required the graduate students in my Law and Public Policy classes to produce team projects on a  policy issue that the team would choose. Over the years, several of the teams investigated government contracting with the private prison industry. In every case, the teams’ conclusions were highly negative. Not only did they focus on the poor performance of the contractors–and the high potential for graft–but most teams addressed what I think is the underlying philosophical question: when should government contract out–and when shouldn’t it? When is it appropriate for government to be the “willing buyer” in a market transaction?

America is heading for a very ugly few years, as the MAGA movement tries to install a government that might have been appropriate for an 18th Century society–a government utterly insufficient for America’s contemporary culture and other realities of the 21st Century. The next few years will range from very unpleasant to devastating (those of us with documented citizenship, a measure of financial security and white skin will be spared the worst of it; others won’t be so lucky.) But when the fever subsides, when the current MAGA eruption of racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism and other assorted bigotries has run its course (at least this time), the rest of us must be ready to offer practical systemic and economic reforms.

Production of that reform agenda needs to be a central part of the Resistance.

Comments

The Big Sort

I have frequently cited a 2009 book by Bill Bishop, titled “The Big Sort.” Bishop pointed to a then-emerging trend of “voting with one’s feet”–the tendency of many Americans to relocate to places that they find philosophically and politically compatible. The consequences of such sorting can be troubling. What happens when most neighbors agree with your outlook and values, reducing the need to accommodate disagreement or defend your woldview?

I read “The Big Sort” when it first came out, but I still ponder many of the issues it raised. One issue that it didn’t raise, however–at least, I don’t recall Bishop paying attention to it–involved “macro” outcomes: what if the sorting led to very different economic and quality-of-life differences between what we’ve come to identify as “Red” and “Blue” parts of the country?

More than a decade after the book, we are seeing major differences emerge. A recent column by Michael Hicks focused directly on that outcome. As he writes,

Of the 20 richest states today, 19 are solidly Democratic. Of the poorest 20 states, 19 are solidly Republican. The GOP dominates in poor, slowly growing states, while the Democrats dominate politics of prosperous, faster-growing states.

Hicks notes that these differences are largely an outcome of the nationalization of our politics. In former times–in fact, up until the late 1990s– there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. But then, state parties began to align with national politics.

Even races for local municipal government tend to be nationalized. State and local issues are often ignored, or barely discussed in primary or general elections. The homogeneity of national politics will naturally cause parties to represent more similar places.

Hicks then echoes Bishop, finding household sorting by politics. “Though most sorting happens at the sub-state level” (presumably, rural and urban) “the nationalization of politics means that state borders now affect household location choice.” Voters are choosing the political landscapes they prefer.

Hicks notes that when he began researching state and local policy some quarter-century ago, state legislators focused more on local issues; now, many take their “legislative marching orders from national think tanks or national parties. Today, elected leaders from both parties are expected to advance similar legislation, typically written by think tanks, everywhere at once.” (That is certainly the case in Indiana, where our dreadful General Assembly obediently does ALEC’s bidding.)

Education, Hicks tells us, is the most consequential policy difference between thriving Blue states and struggling Red states like Indiana.

The most likely cause of divergence between rich and poor places is the fact that human capital — education, innovation and invention — replaced manufacturing and movement of goods as the primary source of prosperity. In other words, places that grow will collect more human capital. However, the educational policies pursued by both parties are vastly different.

The GOP has largely tried to adopt broad school choice, while cutting funding to both K-12 schools and higher education. The Democrats have largely eschewed school choice, but amply fund both K-12 and higher education. Today, 17 of the 20 states with high educational spending are Democratically controlled and 17 out of the 20 lowest funded states are GOP strongholds.

There’s more to education than spending. Still, higher educational spending, even if it means higher tax rates, is leading to enrollment and population growth. Educational attainment differences alone explain about three quarters of the difference in per capita income between states.

At the same time, school choice effects are smaller than almost anyone hoped or expected. Today, it’s clear that the average student in private school underperforms their public school counterparts (charter schools tend to out-perform both). So, if poor states spend less on education and rely more on school choice, they will become poorer than states spending more on public education.

Economists have been saying this for three decades, with little effect. The prognosis is simply that poor states like Indiana are going to get poorer for decades to come while rich states will grow richer.

Here in Indiana, incoming Governor Braun has made expansion of the state’s voucher program a key priority. He wants to make it “universal,” meaning the eradication of income limits. Indiana’s program is already disproportionately used by upper-middle-class parents; Braun’s proposed giveaway would allow participation by even more privileged families (So much for the pious assurances that vouchers would allow poor children to escape “failing” public schools.)

Vouchers don’t improve educational outcomes, and they drain critical resources from the public schools that continue to serve the overwhelming majority of Indiana children.

If Hicks is reading the data correctly–and I believe he is–states like Indiana will continue to decline, and educated citizens will choose to move elsewhere.

Continuing the “sort.”

Comments

Be Careful What You Wish For…Chevron Edition

Among the Supreme Court’s numerous retreats from what had long been considered “settled law” was a ruling that received relatively little publicity. The general public can be forgiven for failing to realize just how startling–and wrongheaded–the Court’s abandonment of something called “Chevron deference” really was, but the legal community certainly understood the decision as a monumental retreat from precedent and respect for expertise–not to mention an unwarranted increase in judicial power.

Chevron deference was shorthand for a judicial doctrine that has been applied for 40 years in over 18,000 decisions to situations where Congress sends ambiguous directions to executive agencies staffed with people who are experts in the particular area. That ambiguity is necessary; Congress isn’t equipped to determine the proper levels of contaminants in water or to identify carcinogenic chemicals–and even if such specifics were passed, they would be incredibly difficult to monitor and update as technical knowledge advances. 

Recognizing that practical reality, Courts have deferred to agency interpretations/clarifications of those ambiguities, recognizing that judges–like Congresspersons– generally lack the specific technical knowledge required.

The required deference could certainly be overcome. If a plaintiff challenging the agency’s interpretations provided evidence that agency interpretations were unreasonable, Courts could–and did–overrule them. Deference simply required the judicial branch to acknowledge–and respect– the existence of specialized subject-matter expertise, and to recognize that the possession of superior legal knowledge does not make the judicial branch all-knowing.

As an article from Pro Publica reported,

That doctrine, known as Chevron deference, was named after the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it emerged, and it offered an answer to a recurring question: What happens when Congress passes a law granting power to a federal agency but fails to precisely define the boundaries of that power?

In such situations, the doctrine of Chevron deference instructed federal judges to rely on the interpretations made by federal agencies, as long as those interpretations were reasonable, since agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges. The Loper Bright decision erased that, commanding federal judges to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Legal scholars condemned the Loper ruling as yet another departure from stare decisis–respect for precedent–and as an unwarranted departure from a reasonable balance between executive and judicial authority. Those intent upon reducing federal authority–and regulations–cheered it.

But it turns out that the Chevron decision might take its place alongside Dobbs, as a judicial overreach that ideologues may regret. (Dobbs was largely responsible for the non-appearance of the anticipated “Red wave” in 2022.)

A recent article from Stateline suggests that the ruling will allow Blue states to more effectively resist Trump Administration policies.

A major U.S. Supreme Court decision this summer was hailed as a conservative court’s broadside against a Democratic administration, giving red states more backing to delay or overturn policies they don’t like, such as transgender protections and clean energy goals.

But the ruling in the Loper Bright case, which granted courts more power to scrutinize federal rules, can go both ways. Experts say it will likely give blue states more leeway to attack any forthcoming policy changes from President-elect Donald Trump — ranging from immigration and the environment to Medicaid and civil rights.

Lawsuits already are being planned in many states. California is holding a special session to set aside money for legal fights, and Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York also are considering legal strategies

Democratic governors in Colorado and Illinois formed a coalition in November to “fortify essential democratic rights nationwide.”

In effect, the ruling opens more federal rules to those court challenges. Blue states now have a new weapon to fight conservative federal rules on issues such as immigration, climate change, abortion access and civil rights….

Most experts see the change as an obstacle to a new Republican administration looking to make sweeping changes but lacking enough support in Congress to pass large-scale legislation. Any proposals restricting access to abortion or attempting to dismantle the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid expansion will be more complicated, said Zachary Baron, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute.

Our fractious, gerrymandered Congress hasn’t approved a major immigration or environmental law for decades. That Congressional inability to legislate “has forced both Democratic and Republican administrations to change policy through either executive order or federal regulations that can now be more easily challenged by hostile states in the courts.”

The Loper decision hobbled some of the Biden Administration’s regulatory efforts. The linked article points to a number of ways in which it will also complicate–and prevent–measures threatened by the incoming Trump administration. 

Sauce for the goose……

Comments