My GMU econ colleague Garett Jones has a book coming out in February: 10% Less Democracy: Why You Should Trust Elites a Little More and the Masses a Little Less. I just read it, and found it so engaging that I’ll respond now, even though Jones’ publisher surely prefers book publicity nearer its publication date.
Jones appears to be mistaking (second paragraph not withstanding) electing representatives as democratic, when isn't this the fundamental distinction between republics and democracies? Apparently, at least in part, he has a problem with republicanism.
I'm glad Adreng brought up Switzerland, as Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden are my go to arguments in favor of local direct democracy.
Hiring a skilled employee and delegating power to them is one thing (democracy may be preferred because it is the best compromise between freedom of decision and managing imposed externalities [limits on freedom], in which case the democrat wouldn't have a problem granting freedom to their employee). A managed society of elites is quite another thing: https://www.ecosophia.net/t...
Re: futarchyI'd like to see a psychological model of those who typically participate in betting markets vis-a-vis the general populace. I'd also like to see analyses of how much 'means' (implementation) matters versus 'ends' for people on various public policy initiatives. I could imagine a futarchy that starts out with democratically determined goals, but becomes more and more about democratically determined means as people come to realize that they're unhappy with implementation (goals shift, after all).
I think people are misconceiving more and less democracy. They believe less democracy mean fewer less knowledgeable people voting while instead it means less knowledgeable people having greater say in the decision process. Perhaps it is natural to believe everything would be better if they were king, but better for them doesn't mean better for others.
I think you're maligning the military, at least relative to congress. My understanding is that recently, the military brass has been asking that less money be spent on fancy new gadgets, and that they're more in favor of right-sizing the basing structure. Congress insists on continuing to spend exorbitant amounts on new airplanes or ships that the military says are unnecessary, and congress has to tie its own hands in order to get any bases closed. The defense industry makes sure to have some production in every influential politician's district, but that's to woo congress, not because the generals and admirals (or the defense secretary) cares.
I think it is difficult to generalize the effect of more or less democracy. In Switzerland, there is more direct democracy than in most other countries, and, in general, there are indicators like balanced budgets according to which Switzerland is governed relatively well according to common criteria. Of course, there could be reasons for this that have little to do with direct democracy. However, in different Swiss cantons, there are differences as to how much about the budget is decided in popular votes, how many signatures are required for voting about cantonal and local expenses and about when there are mandatory referendums. This offers a basis for comparisons. The general result of such investigations is that more direct democracy in matters related to the budget leads to less expenses although the size of the effect is relatively small (see e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.... Of course, there may be different opinions as to whether limiting expenses is a good thing, but many people seem to thing that the tendency of too much public spending is a bigger danger than too little public spending.I think such evidence-based research is good for dispelling some non-evidence-based myths about alleged effects of direct democracy (e.g. that citizens allegedly prefer more public spending and lower taxes, research about Swiss cantons does not confirm this, more direct democracy has a small effect of facilitating balanced budgets).I think many arguments against direct democracy are not as strong as they seem at first sight. Of course, most citizens don't have enough knowledge about all the aspects of laws and budget proposals. But in the lead up to referendums, people take into account opinions of experts (just like members of parliaments do). There are further arguments. For instance, for members of parliaments and officials related to political parties, the sunk cost fallacy can play an important role for sticking with projects even if they turn out to be less effective than it was thought when planning was started. In a system with referendums, it is easier to cancel them.
Exactly.
I would say that all life is in a long-term struggle for continued existence. Everybody maximizes their interests at the expense of everybody else.
corrected URL (the end parenthesis mangles the URL):https://onlinelibrary.wiley...
Jones appears to be mistaking (second paragraph not withstanding) electing representatives as democratic, when isn't this the fundamental distinction between republics and democracies? Apparently, at least in part, he has a problem with republicanism.
I'm glad Adreng brought up Switzerland, as Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden are my go to arguments in favor of local direct democracy.
Hiring a skilled employee and delegating power to them is one thing (democracy may be preferred because it is the best compromise between freedom of decision and managing imposed externalities [limits on freedom], in which case the democrat wouldn't have a problem granting freedom to their employee). A managed society of elites is quite another thing: https://www.ecosophia.net/t...
Re: futarchyI'd like to see a psychological model of those who typically participate in betting markets vis-a-vis the general populace. I'd also like to see analyses of how much 'means' (implementation) matters versus 'ends' for people on various public policy initiatives. I could imagine a futarchy that starts out with democratically determined goals, but becomes more and more about democratically determined means as people come to realize that they're unhappy with implementation (goals shift, after all).
I think people are misconceiving more and less democracy. They believe less democracy mean fewer less knowledgeable people voting while instead it means less knowledgeable people having greater say in the decision process. Perhaps it is natural to believe everything would be better if they were king, but better for them doesn't mean better for others.
Oh, I agree politicians do mess up the military; I was referring to other effects I'd heard of.
Interesting review. Thanks, Robin.
I think you're maligning the military, at least relative to congress. My understanding is that recently, the military brass has been asking that less money be spent on fancy new gadgets, and that they're more in favor of right-sizing the basing structure. Congress insists on continuing to spend exorbitant amounts on new airplanes or ships that the military says are unnecessary, and congress has to tie its own hands in order to get any bases closed. The defense industry makes sure to have some production in every influential politician's district, but that's to woo congress, not because the generals and admirals (or the defense secretary) cares.
I think it is difficult to generalize the effect of more or less democracy. In Switzerland, there is more direct democracy than in most other countries, and, in general, there are indicators like balanced budgets according to which Switzerland is governed relatively well according to common criteria. Of course, there could be reasons for this that have little to do with direct democracy. However, in different Swiss cantons, there are differences as to how much about the budget is decided in popular votes, how many signatures are required for voting about cantonal and local expenses and about when there are mandatory referendums. This offers a basis for comparisons. The general result of such investigations is that more direct democracy in matters related to the budget leads to less expenses although the size of the effect is relatively small (see e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.... Of course, there may be different opinions as to whether limiting expenses is a good thing, but many people seem to thing that the tendency of too much public spending is a bigger danger than too little public spending.I think such evidence-based research is good for dispelling some non-evidence-based myths about alleged effects of direct democracy (e.g. that citizens allegedly prefer more public spending and lower taxes, research about Swiss cantons does not confirm this, more direct democracy has a small effect of facilitating balanced budgets).I think many arguments against direct democracy are not as strong as they seem at first sight. Of course, most citizens don't have enough knowledge about all the aspects of laws and budget proposals. But in the lead up to referendums, people take into account opinions of experts (just like members of parliaments do). There are further arguments. For instance, for members of parliaments and officials related to political parties, the sunk cost fallacy can play an important role for sticking with projects even if they turn out to be less effective than it was thought when planning was started. In a system with referendums, it is easier to cancel them.