In terms of evolution, the problem with foot voting is that it isn’t a very precise selective pressure. When you leave government A (GovA) for government B (GovB)… GovA doesn’t know why you exited and GovB doesn’t know why you entered. In economic terms… the bundles are huge. In programming terms… the mechanism is monolithic.
If neither GovA nor GovB knows whether you foot voted because you wanted to get away from your crazy ex or because you preferred GovB’s public school system… then the rate of evolution is going to be super slow. The selective pressure is way too vague.
Foot voting should always be an option, but if the goal is to improve governments sooner rather than later, then you need a mechanism which doesn’t force you to throw the baby (good traits) out with the bath water (bad traits). In economic terms… you need to unbundle government. In programming terms… government has to be more modular.
I’m not necessarily sure we can attribute the improvements of boycotted governments to mass exodus / brain drain. Many people left China when Mao Zedong took control. But after Deng Xiaoping took control and improved China… I’m not sure if it was because so many people left or because so many of the surrounding countries were prospering while China was suffering. Now that so many of the brains have returned to China… I can’t help but wonder how much this increases China’s chances of further improvements.
But even if you’re correct… my point still stands regarding the rate of improvement. Right now everybody in the world dislikes one or more of their government’s policies. So why doesn’t everybody leave? Clearly it’s because the benefits (ie their family, friends, favorite restaurant, etc.) outweigh the costs. As a result, the bad traits continue to persist. We’d improve at a much faster rate if it was easy for people to boycott/divest from the bad traits without having to boycott/divest from all the traits in the geographical area.
When I left cable for Netflix… I left one bundle of content for another bundle of content. Obviously I do not prefer the components of the bundles equally. Neither cable nor Netflix knows which of their components I prefer more and which I prefer less. In the absence of this important information… they have to make these uniformed guesses. Improvements can be made… but improvements would be made a lot faster if they had a lot more accurate information regarding my preferences and everybody else’s preferences.
Maybe rating movies on Netflix helps provide information regarding people’s preferences? Well… if rating is an effective mechanism for communicating preferences… then couldn’t we say the same thing about voting?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not claiming migration is the only thing that can make governments improve. In case of China there were certainly other reasons (though the successful examples of emigrant Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore may have played an important part).
couldn’t we say the same thing about voting?
There are several important differences.
1) When you choose to emigrate (or switch to Netflix) you make a personal choice and do not force other people to follow.
2) Emigrating would directly affect your life, so you are likely to consider it seriously. Voting does not (one vote never decided a major election), so you are free to make a purely emotional choice.
When I left cable for Netflix… I left one bundle of content for another bundle of content.
Imagine what would happen if only one cable company was allowed to operate in each country (just like the government). Regardless of how accurate is their information regarding your preferences, it is virtually certain that their services would deteriorate. This is an inevitable consequence of a monopoly system.
In terms of evolution, the problem with foot voting is that it isn’t a very precise selective pressure. When you leave government A (GovA) for government B (GovB)… GovA doesn’t know why you exited and GovB doesn’t know why you entered. In economic terms… the bundles are huge. In programming terms… the mechanism is monolithic.
If neither GovA nor GovB knows whether you foot voted because you wanted to get away from your crazy ex or because you preferred GovB’s public school system… then the rate of evolution is going to be super slow. The selective pressure is way too vague.
Foot voting should always be an option, but if the goal is to improve governments sooner rather than later, then you need a mechanism which doesn’t force you to throw the baby (good traits) out with the bath water (bad traits). In economic terms… you need to unbundle government. In programming terms… government has to be more modular.
“economy” already mentioned Tiebout model… Exit, Voice, and Loyalty is also relevant.
This is true for individual migrants. In case of large migration waves (e.g., East Germany to West Germany), the reasons are usually obvious.
I’m not necessarily sure we can attribute the improvements of boycotted governments to mass exodus / brain drain. Many people left China when Mao Zedong took control. But after Deng Xiaoping took control and improved China… I’m not sure if it was because so many people left or because so many of the surrounding countries were prospering while China was suffering. Now that so many of the brains have returned to China… I can’t help but wonder how much this increases China’s chances of further improvements.
But even if you’re correct… my point still stands regarding the rate of improvement. Right now everybody in the world dislikes one or more of their government’s policies. So why doesn’t everybody leave? Clearly it’s because the benefits (ie their family, friends, favorite restaurant, etc.) outweigh the costs. As a result, the bad traits continue to persist. We’d improve at a much faster rate if it was easy for people to boycott/divest from the bad traits without having to boycott/divest from all the traits in the geographical area.
When I left cable for Netflix… I left one bundle of content for another bundle of content. Obviously I do not prefer the components of the bundles equally. Neither cable nor Netflix knows which of their components I prefer more and which I prefer less. In the absence of this important information… they have to make these uniformed guesses. Improvements can be made… but improvements would be made a lot faster if they had a lot more accurate information regarding my preferences and everybody else’s preferences.
Maybe rating movies on Netflix helps provide information regarding people’s preferences? Well… if rating is an effective mechanism for communicating preferences… then couldn’t we say the same thing about voting?
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not claiming migration is the only thing that can make governments improve. In case of China there were certainly other reasons (though the successful examples of emigrant Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore may have played an important part).
There are several important differences.
1) When you choose to emigrate (or switch to Netflix) you make a personal choice and do not force other people to follow. 2) Emigrating would directly affect your life, so you are likely to consider it seriously. Voting does not (one vote never decided a major election), so you are free to make a purely emotional choice.
Imagine what would happen if only one cable company was allowed to operate in each country (just like the government). Regardless of how accurate is their information regarding your preferences, it is virtually certain that their services would deteriorate. This is an inevitable consequence of a monopoly system.
In several ways you’re really preaching to the choir. You might be interested in my recent post here… Is Pragmatarianism (Tax Choice) Less Wrong