I very much like this line of thinking, but I’m curious what you think are the reasons that these “uncontroversial” good laws haven’t been passed yet. Laws are somewhat similar to markets, in that they’re the visible result of competing hidden desires, and to some extent the Efficient Market Hypothesis applies to politics. If it’s easy and universally beneficial, it’s already done. (note: the objections to EMH still apply, too: it can take a long time, and there’s a LOT of irrationality and inefficient friction that opposes it).
Most of the proposals have some group who benefits from the “bad” current equilibrium. And they probably care about it more than you or the politician, so their donations on their specific topic outweigh your preference on that topic.
Thanks for the question. I like the EMH metaphor. I think that the “uncontroversially good” legislative opportunities can generally be viewed as the result of some inefficiency.
You bring up the case of diffuse harm and concentrated benefits. It seems widely acknowledged that lobbyists and interest groups have too much leverage. The inefficiency is that voters can’t keep track of all the small ways they’re being harmed and so donations do not track welfare impacts. But, as you say, these reforms would be controversial to someone, so perhaps I could improve my language. I want a pithy way to say: “Behind closed doors, most politicians would see this as utterly reasonable and good.”
While I’m on it, here are two other sources of inefficiency which I think could be relevant here:
Myopia. In the US, Social Security will be insolvent in 2033. But it seems like politicians (and voters) are not that excited about tackling this one. Pandemic preparedness is another example.
“Laboratories of democracy.” State and local governments should probably try more things than they’re selfishly incentivized to because their experience with the reforms becomes a public good that other governments can learn from and imitate.
Also, too, since about 1994 the leaders of the Republican party have taken the position that it is more important to win the next election than to pass “good” legislation. So, if there is a Democratic president and/or congress, there has been no legislation that is “uncontrovertial.” (The Republican leadership hasn’t been 100% successful over that span of time, because “good” bills often got enough crossover support to pass against the wishes of Leadership)
I very much like this line of thinking, but I’m curious what you think are the reasons that these “uncontroversial” good laws haven’t been passed yet. Laws are somewhat similar to markets, in that they’re the visible result of competing hidden desires, and to some extent the Efficient Market Hypothesis applies to politics. If it’s easy and universally beneficial, it’s already done. (note: the objections to EMH still apply, too: it can take a long time, and there’s a LOT of irrationality and inefficient friction that opposes it).
Most of the proposals have some group who benefits from the “bad” current equilibrium. And they probably care about it more than you or the politician, so their donations on their specific topic outweigh your preference on that topic.
Thanks for the question. I like the EMH metaphor. I think that the “uncontroversially good” legislative opportunities can generally be viewed as the result of some inefficiency.
You bring up the case of diffuse harm and concentrated benefits. It seems widely acknowledged that lobbyists and interest groups have too much leverage. The inefficiency is that voters can’t keep track of all the small ways they’re being harmed and so donations do not track welfare impacts. But, as you say, these reforms would be controversial to someone, so perhaps I could improve my language. I want a pithy way to say: “Behind closed doors, most politicians would see this as utterly reasonable and good.”
While I’m on it, here are two other sources of inefficiency which I think could be relevant here:
Myopia. In the US, Social Security will be insolvent in 2033. But it seems like politicians (and voters) are not that excited about tackling this one. Pandemic preparedness is another example.
“Laboratories of democracy.” State and local governments should probably try more things than they’re selfishly incentivized to because their experience with the reforms becomes a public good that other governments can learn from and imitate.
Also, too, since about 1994 the leaders of the Republican party have taken the position that it is more important to win the next election than to pass “good” legislation. So, if there is a Democratic president and/or congress, there has been no legislation that is “uncontrovertial.” (The Republican leadership hasn’t been 100% successful over that span of time, because “good” bills often got enough crossover support to pass against the wishes of Leadership)