Democrazy

On similar lines to Nick's post below. During an election year, this is about the time when the blogosphere starts beating the old drum of democratic policy inefficiency. The argument, as made famous recently by Bryan Caplan, is that voters are biased against rational or efficient policies. Even Tom Friedman has been getting in on the act lately, lamenting the fact that the US cannot be China for “just one day” (i.e., an authoritarian government) to fix its ailing climate/energy policy. The implication, of course, is that democratic governments take too long to settle on the “right” policy when it’s controversial.

I must admit that when I first read Dr. Caplan’s book, I was seduced by the argument, if not his punitive policy prescriptions. But upon consideration, it seems like a moot point to me. No one is arguing that democracy is more efficient than authoritarianism, but that’s sort of the point. It’s inefficient by design. It’s an exercise in consensus building, in which you essentially let everyone air their opinions before you govern. Undoubtedly, this will sometimes produce bad policies, although there is convincing evidence that democracies actually produce better policy outcomes than would be expected. But crucially, democracy confers legitimacy upon government, which in turn confers long-term stability. We would do well to remember that for every enlightened despot, there are 100 brutal dictators. Both types can be enormously efficient.

Policy inefficiency is the hefty price we pay for living in a free society. So please, for democracy’s sake, go vote next Tuesday. Get your uneducated friends to vote, too. Take pleasure in the fact that the whole exercise is deliciously inefficient. Try to cut out of work early if you can.

(Sorry for the sporadic posting of late, folks. Explanations forthcoming.)