{"id":375,"date":"2023-01-28T23:33:56","date_gmt":"2023-01-28T23:33:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milkyeggs.com\/?p=375"},"modified":"2023-10-30T22:53:48","modified_gmt":"2023-10-30T22:53:48","slug":"beware-of-gell-mann-amnesia-about-government-quality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milkyeggs.com\/society\/beware-of-gell-mann-amnesia-about-government-quality\/","title":{"rendered":"Beware of Gell-Mann amnesia about government quality"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Many people are amateur experts in some specific <\/em>domain of government regulation, such as land use zoning or immigration law, which they know for sure<\/em> is horribly inefficient and profoundly harmful to the nation. However, they often fail to appropriately generalize these observations to the quality of political governance at large: a form of Gell-Mann amnesia<\/a> applied to the quality of our rulers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Land use policy is obviously atrocious<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Let’s consider the nascent Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) movement in America, which has popped up in the last 10-15 years in response to housing shortages caused by a decades-long underbuilding of housing, which itself is perpetuated through the enforcement of strict zoning laws that prevent urban densification. This is quite clearly very harmful; for example, estimates by Hsieh and Moretti<\/a> show that the GDP of California would be nearly 40% higher by the end of the 2010s in the absence of exclusionary zoning policies! (My sincere apologies to non-American readers; the examples here will largely be ones drawn from my own fields of relative expertise!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a huge<\/em> effect and YIMBYs are right to see this as an outrageous act of self-sabotage. If you were installed as CEO of a large company and went around reviewing performance division-by-division, this would be grounds for simply terminating the entire division on the spot.<\/em> Arguably, the numbers enormously understate the potential benefits; while economic growth is nice, living in safe, walkable, transit-friendly cities is enjoyable in a way that is hard to quantify. Why else do Asian cities like Tokyo and Taipei hold so much sway over Western visitors all while boasting much lower GDPs per capita?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notice, however, that it’s particularly easy to understand the effect of poor regulation here for several reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n We all understand that in this one domain, <\/em>the quality of government is downright atrocious.<\/em> Let’s set aside the question of why and how<\/em> it came to be this way\u30fcof course, our democracy is “of the people, by the people, for the people,”<\/a> and it’s not as though government policies arise in a vacuum. There are specific reasons one might hypothesize to be responsible for this end outcome, such as poor voter quality, excessive weight given to hyper-local governance, intrinsic failures of democratic mechanisms, and so on.<\/a> Regardless of what choice of root causes one prefers to believe in, however, it is undeniable that the actual end outcome<\/em> is very poor: we have ended up with inept bureaucrats handcrafting thousands of Byzantine rules that stifle the natural growth and development of America’s urban environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rest of government policy is just as bad<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I want to advance a modest proposal: this dismal level of governmental quality is not limited to land use regulations. It is, instead, characteristic of government at large.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Psychologically, it’s very easy to treat each and every individual instance of governmental failure as an isolated incident, while still possessing some baseline level of trust in the essential competence of the system as a whole. As the whole is inherently composed of its constituent systems, however, one can only take such optimistic reasoning so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Housing policy is, of course, one of the most easily understandable forms of policy failure. If we look in other domains, how easy is it for us to identify failures of comparable severity? Here, I mean severity<\/em> as an assessment of the overall competence of the actors involved and the quality<\/em> of the regulatory regime, rather than the absolute impact of government intervention in that domain. If we were to consider only absolute impacts, after all, we expect noticeable, “big-ticket” items like housing policy to dominate; however, we would like to argue here that even in domains with less absolute<\/em> importance, the relative<\/em> quality of governance is no better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In any case, if our hypothesis is true, there should be plenty of low-quality governance to go around, should we merely decide to actually look for it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n …and so on and so forth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Notably, I’ve tried to not cherry-pick examples of niche, arcane, out-of-the-way instances of government incompetence. Instead, these can all be argued to be related to the core purposes of those departments. Ensuring the inflow of high-skilled labor is perhaps the most important function of the entire national immigration apparatus, especially in an era of declining birthrates. The provisioning of cheap and reliable energy is the fundamental raison d’\u00eatre<\/em> of the national electrical grid, and the failure to adequately tap into nuclear plants as an abundance source of that energy is one of the greatest missteps of the last several decades. We devote millions of dollars and thousands of personnel to the task of “pandemic prevention and response,” but when one happens, the entire process is transparently co-opted by competing groups to advance their own interests. Licensure, permitting, and other forms of “red tape” are, pure and simple, forms of state capture by interest groups working against the interests of the people\u30fcexactly the sort of accrual of rot that any effective process of governance is supposed to avoid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I don’t mean to belabor the point too much. It is not difficult to extend this list down as far as one wants, if one is willing to put in the necessary effort. Notice, though, how the examples that most naturally come to mind are ones that are readily comprehensible by the ordinary man, because they damage our daily lives in ways that are, if not immediately perceptible, then at least imaginable. It is not too much of a stretch to say that these are outcomes more characteristic of a failed state,<\/em> plodding by on its last legs, than of a sensible process of governance overseen by intelligent adults working toward a common goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state of affairs is probably very dismal indeed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n These considerations lead us to a very natural question: why do we expect the other,<\/em> less visible, parts of the American government, whether federal, state, or local, to be any better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I imagine that most readers of this post will think to themselves: “Well, I don’t have an amazing opinion of government of general. Aren’t you assuming that my view of the government is more favorable than it is?” Perhaps you may in fact have some general sentiment against “red tape” or “excessive bureaucracy” (note that these are terms that are definitionally undesirable!). But do you view, say, the FDA, the Department of Education, or the USPTO as verging on being criminally incompetent<\/em> with the same vitriol that you rage against NIMBY policies online? I suspect not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is the crux of my argument. If you look closely enough at any particular function of the government and with enough domain-level expertise, the flaws in that particular domain<\/em> are incredibly obvious! But we do not extrapolate this fully to the rest of government. Even if we might have generally pessimistic views about the quality of American governance as a whole, we assume that the parts that catch our attention are uniquely worse than others,<\/em> an assumption which appears generally unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n