Category Archives: Politics and Economics

Technocrats and Visionaries – Part II

The technocrat  is often perceived as  uninspired, narrow-minded, overly focused on details,  a competent underling.  The opposing meme is that of the visionary: charismatic, impassioned, focused on the Big Picture, confident of his vision, a leader.

These stereotypes are exaggerations of individual differences in cognitive processing styles. Some people are systematic in their approach to action decisions; they are analytical and methodical, careful to gather sufficient information before reaching a decision. At the other extreme are the heuristic processors who use less effortful strategies, relying more on pre-existing beliefs and a few rules of thumb to guide their decision-making.

Of course, these individual differences aren’t absolute – they’re more like tendencies each of us possesses to a greater or lesser degree. Our moods also influence which processing style takes control at any given moment: negative moods trigger more systematic processing; positive moods trigger heuristic processing. Since emotions are sources of information about our environment, this makes perfect sense.  Tiptoe carefully when in danger; take carefree leaps when safe.

We need leaders who are able to navigate the range of processing styles, who can switch from seeing the forest to seeing the trees, and back again.  Leaders who are both technocrats and visionaries, whatever is needed in the historical moment. Who can think big and think small.

Or, at the very least, leaders who are good listeners and willing to learn from people who think differently than they do.

Technocrats and Visionaries – Part I

Technocrat: “a technological expert, especially one concerned with management or administration” Dictionary.com

“To do this may be to be a mere technocrat, rather than a complete human being concerned with the moral implications of what I say and the greatest good of society…” (Solomon M. Fulero and Lawrence S. Wrightsman-2008: Forensic Psychology)

“…to reduce the statesman to what we would today call a mere ‘technocrat’ – a manager of political details.” (Eric Gander-1999: The Last Conceptual Revolution: A Critique of Richard Rorty’s Political Philosophy)

“A few weeks ago he was the premier everyone loved to hate, a mere technocrat holding power only as long as it took the politicians to sort out their squabbles and fix new elections. Now he has been thrust into the role of political superstar, and everyone is anxious to woo him on to their side.” (Andrew Gumbel-1995:  Technocrat Dini becomes the Toast of Italy).

“The objective of curriculum design is to groom a mechanical engineer with a broader outlook, adaptability to any circumstances and made him/her a full flagged human being rather than mere technocrat.” (Description of Mechanical Engineering program at the IILM Academy of Higher Learning in India-2016).

“Why do some progressives tend to dismiss him as a mere technocrat who doesn’t inspire? (Michael Hirsh- 2015: Can Martin O’Malley Take Flight?)

The takeaway here is that technocrats aren’t fully human, don’t inspire and are narrow-minded, overly focused on details, and ill-suited to be leaders. The opposite of a technocrat is the visionary: charismatic, impassioned, focused on the Big Picture and confident of his vision.

(Stereotypes partly grounded in reality.)

Social Status, Health, and Happiness

There’s this cool measure called the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. It was developed to capture self-perceived social status by means of a pictorial  9-rung ladder. The Scale asks individuals to place an “X” on the rung on which they feel they stand. There are two versions of the ladder: one instructs respondents to mark, relative to others in their country, where they currently stand in terms of income, education, and occupation; the other asks respondents to mark their status, relative to other members of their community.

Research participants choose their own definitions of community. In one study, significantly more African-American than European-Americans defined community as neighborhood (80% to 33.3%). Otherwise, there were no gender or race differences in definitions, which included: city or town (37%), religious groups (22%), social supporters (20%), workplace (18%), family (18%), friends (12%), people with similar interests (12%), their region (12%), and the nation or world (10%), plus a bunch of idiosyncratic categories. So cogitate on that and come back to me.

Across several studies encompassing a wide range of countries, subjective social status (SSS) has been a better predictor of health and happiness than objective indicators of status. For instance, in a large longitudinal study of English civil servants, SSS predicted health outcomes better than civil service employment grade. The authors speculated that subjective status is based on a wider range of information than single global measures of objective status and is more likely to incorporate relevant circumstances that influence health trajectories.

However, most studies use multiple indicators of objective social status, with the same basic findings: when it comes to physical and psychological well-being, perceptions of status matter more than the reality.

References

Adler, N.E., Singh-Manoux, A., Schwartz, J.E., Stewart, J., Matthews, K. & Marmot, M.G. Social status and health: A comparison of British civil servants in Whitehall II with European- and African-Americans in CARDIA. Social Science and Medicine. 2008 Mar;66(5):1034-45. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.031.

Scott KM, Al-Hamzawi AO, Andrade LH, Borges G, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Fiestas F, et al. Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV mental disorders: results from the World Mental Health surveys. JAMA Psychiatry 2014; 71: 1400–8

Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, Adler NE. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosom Med 67: 855–861, 2005

Status Equality as a Policy Objective: When is Enough Enough?

For the sake of argument, I’m reducing the value of social status to its effect on widening the “field of eligibles” – that is, increasing the quality and quantity of potential mates.  When in mate-seeking mode, we look around to see who’s available and who we think we can attract. Social comparison is the game. Inequality of mating opportunities is built into this game.   Even if everyone were more or less the same on wide range of characteristics, the participants in the game would find ways to make finer discriminations. So there will status hierarchies.

(No, this isn’t a justification of extreme income or wealth inequality.)

I’m  leading to questions about what should we want of society and government.  If there’s a solid safety net (basic security for all: housing, nutrition, health care, and education), is that good enough? Or should government policy seek to promote a flatter status hierarchy, where status differences are smaller in society at large?

The guaranteed goods and services  would be pretty much the same under either policy objective: housing, nutrition, healthcare, and education. The difference would be in determining how much is enough.  Given the propensity of humans to sort themselves by status,  I  suspect that serious policies to minimize status differences would  be defeated by more intense status competition within the collectivity and a continual raising of the status bar.

 

 

 

Status and Being Better Off than Our Parents

Should every generation be “better off” than the previous generation? What does “better off” mean?

Looking only at the middle class and above, I’m assuming recent generations have been able to meet their core needs (sufficient housing, nutrition, healthcare, and education), so what should the current middle class be getting to reflect that they’re doing better than their parents? What I would classify as cool stuff:  things like bigger houses, fancier gadgets, more exciting vacations.   In other words, goods, services, and experiences that serve as markers of status.

Simplifying a bit, the point of status is to attract and keep mates. Higher status gives you more to choose from and greater commitment from those who have chosen you. When it comes to competition for mates, being better off than your parents isn’t much of a draw –  being better than the current competition is.

 

 

When the Criminal is a Victim

I would imagine that many people who commit criminal acts are victims of abusive caregiving, awful environments, or at least genetically-influenced traits that facilitate criminal behavior (e.g., impulsiveness, mental illness, substance abuse, cognitive impairments). As victims, should these offenders get special treatment in the criminal justice system?  Specifically, should they be able to avoid incarceration, or at the very least receive much reduced sentences?

The answer depends on what we’re trying to achieve through incarceration. Glad you asked:

  1. Deter criminal behavior
  2. Protect society through temporary incapacitation of criminal offenders
  3. Discourage recidivism

It’s well established that the certainty of being caught is a much bigger crime deterrent than the severity of punishment.  Crime rates do go down when incarceration rates go up, but that’s because fewer criminals are on the street, not because would-be criminals are afraid of lengthy sentences.  Across numerous studies, there has been no correlation found between crime rates and median time served.

This isn’t to say that incarceration has no value as deterrence –being caught would lose its sting if it weren’t accompanied by some sort of punishment. While the stigma of imprisonment varies across groups and individuals, and some criminals are just “incorrigible” (repeat offenders inattentive to legal threats), removal from society for a while may persuade others to reconsider a life of crime.   And since most criminals do not reoffend after release from prison (at least within 3 years), it does appear that incarceration discourages recidivism to some extent.

Whether some groups of offenders should be treated leniently depends on how this special treatment would influence crime and recidivism rates in general and how it would affect the behavior of the individuals in question.  If leniency for “criminal victims” encourages more crime, then no.

Of course, there will be cases where leniency is called for – but that would mainly be for individuals who are at low-risk for reoffending anyway and whose extenuating circumstances are sufficiently extreme or unusual that others are unlikely to consider them relevant to their own decisions whether or not to break the law.

References

Daniel Nagin, “Deterrence in the 21st Century,” in Crime and Justice in America: 1975-2025 (ed. Michael Tonry, University of Chicago Press, 2013).

Impact of Prison Experience on Recidivism http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/prison-experience.aspx Accessed 9/10/2016

National Institute of Justice: Five Things about Deterrence; July 2014.

 

Reconsidering the Basic Income Guarantee

In several posts I have supported a modest Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), with the proviso that it be sufficiently miserly not to disincentivize work or add to the federal budget.  My thought was that a BIG of about $700/mo would do the trick.

But we all know that a guaranteed income of $700 a month would provide an incentive for some people to work less or not at all. Especially young people with no children or with children but other sources of income. So it would be inevitable that labor market participation would decrease to some extent, even with a modest BIG.  And as with labor market participation, so with tax receipts.

But the issue isn’t just with declining tax receipts. The longer you’re out of the job market, the harder it is to get back in. Skills get rusty. Employers get doubtful. The law of inertia sets in.

Self-efficacy predicts goal setting and goal persistence. Mastery experiences feed self-efficacy. The most important source of mastery experiences is successful performance.  Lack of successful experiences – opportunities to perform –  zaps self-efficacy.

Bottom line: the longer you’re out of it, the harder it is to get back in.

Many European countries had generous  long-term unemployment benefits  in the late 20th century.  Just about all have tightened conditions and shortened these benefits because they  led to decreased labor market participation. These benefits,  in which people had expectations of being able to collect benefits for several years,  are a better proxy for if BIG were a real thing, country-wide, than the example of the few small scale BIG experiments in developed countries, where participants know they’re in a study and have no such expectations).

So,  I’m no longer in favor of even a modest BIG.Instead, I’d focus on benefits for targeted groups: single parents,  limited English speakers, the poorly educated and low-skilled.  lunches, etc.).

For starters,  I’d eliminate all the federal grants and student loans and  provide a stipend (roughly $1000/mo) for up to 6 years total for all US adults enrolled at least half-time in post-high school education and training (including ESL, basic skills, pre-vocational, vocational, and college). The standard state grants and loans and fee waivers would still be available.  The stipend would not be means tested, so recipients could continue to work (part-time work not being a risk factor for school completion).

 

 

Global Population Growth and What to Do About It

Global population growth is not slowing down fast enough. The problem is Africa. Just about everywhere else, fertility rates are (roughly) at or below replacement levels. But Africans still want, and have, big families. This is partly a matter of the imperatives of rural farming (where children are important sources of labor), partly poverty (where you have to overshoot because most of the children will not be around to support you in old age) and partly cultural drag (where men rule and children are sources of status).

What to do???

Do everything we can to make universal access to contraception possible. Do everything we can to encourage urbanization. Do everything we can to help governments handle the challenges of urbanization (infrastructure, public health, sanitation, safety, education). Do everything we can to increase the education of women (so they have options other than submitting to the demands of men). Do everything we can do to encourage late marriage (since fertility falls precipitously after 30). Do everything we can to stimulate economic growth (since hope discourages youthful childbearing).

Then keep our fingers crossed. And keep trying.

 

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? The Question Phase – Part IV: Education

Ideal # 4: Everyone has a right to 16 years of education

Let the questions begin!

  1.  Is there an age limit to this right? For instance, 30, 50, 70?
  2. How is the “right” realized? Through free tuition?Through a stipend?
  3. Is there a course/training load required to activate the right?
  4. Are there performance requirements to maintain the right?
  5. How would training and classes be counted towards the time limit for the right? For instance, brief, intensive training, like coding “boot camps”, where the content is taught in only a few months but would have taken much longer to teach in a traditional institution, like a community college.
  6. What types of training or education would count as part of the right, and what types (if any) would be excluded? For instance, classes in flower design or public speaking.
  7. Will a documented labor market be required for the type of training, education, degree or certificate that is covered by the right?
  8. What establishments would count as providers of education and training covered by the right?
  9. Could the right be suspended in cases where beneficiaries abuse it?  For instance, enrolling to get a stipend, then dropping the classes later.
  10. What safeguards would be put into effect to minimize potentially harmful effects of the right? For instance, lower persistence/completion rates or lackadaisical campus culture.

The inspiration for question #10 came from a 2007 paper by Nancy Shulock and Colleen Moore about the unintended consequences of fee waivers at California Commu­nity Colleges. To quote: “Reflecting a priority on access, student fees are the lowest in the nation by far…. Student fee and aid policy encourages students to: 1) enroll in courses without much forethought, and 2) add and drop courses repeatedly without financial consequence [behaviors negatively correlated with completion]. Because access to the CCC (California Community Colleges) has been historically framed around low fees, financial aid policy has emphasized low fees and fee waivers, rather than overall college affordability. This gives students a false sense of opportunity since fees account for only 5% to 7% of the total cost of college attendance…” (Items like room, board, textbooks, childcare, and transportation are more significant than fees for most community college students in California.)

Shulock and Moore’s recommendations: “As part of the effort to give colleges more tools to manage their finances in the interest of student success, and to encourage successful student behaviors like timely enrollment, the prohibition against campus-based fees should be removed and college officials should be allowed to make those decisions locally.”  Basically they’re saying that adult students need to pay something to be more serious about their education.

As it turns out, the Shulock-Moore research actually influenced education policy in California. A 2016 report by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors notes that while California’s broadly used fee waiver program “can increase access for needy students, it may not be sufficient to encourage behaviors critical to student success.” Their recommendation that academic standards be stricter for fee waiver recipients is being implemented in late 2016.

Morale to the story: increasing access to college may undermine success in college if strict conditions are not attached.  Think about that when considering the right to 16 years of education.

References:

Shulock, N. and Moore, C. (2007, October). Invest in Success: How Finance Policy Can Increase Student Success at California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, CSUS.

Fisher, Stacy B.  The California Community Colleges Board of Governors Fee Waiver: A Comparison of State Aid Program January 19, 2016; California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? The Question Phase – Part III: Healthcare

Ideal # 3: Everyone has a right to healthcare

  1. Where does one draw the line between healthcare that is a right and healthcare that is not a right?
  2. Who decides which procedures and treatments will be provided as a right?
  3. How much is cost a factor in determining what is and is not a healthcare right?
  4. How much do other factors determine how much cost is a factor? For instance, how much does the probability of positive outcomes impact how much cost the right will bear? Or the seriousness of the condition?
  5. What kinds of positive outcomes are within the right? And what determines the degree of positive outcome that falls within the right? For instance, if pain relief – how much pain relief given cost and probability of effectiveness?  Or, if improved mental health, how much mental health is enough?
  6. If a condition is chronic and incurable but not terminal, how much treatment for that condition falls within the right?
  7. How much preventive healthcare falls within the right?

The questions here are mostly about where you draw the line. Moral to this story: there is always a line. Moral posturing is always easier than implementing policy.