There’s a good reason to fear regulation even if you can imagine beneficial regulation. You may be suspicious of government agencies’ motives or competence to implement it. Giving power to an agent when we can’t rely on her to use it in a beneficial way is often a bad idea.
But the same kind of fear, viewed through a mirror, often argues in favor of regulation. Take for example financial regulation. We may understand that if investors, managers, or insurers could be assumed to act reliably in ways that are consistent with their self-interest then markets would work well and there would be no rationale for regulation.
But should we predicate laissez faire on the assumption that they don’t make mistakes, that they perfectly fathom the complex path to their self-interest? If we can’t be sure, then giving them the power to do damage is often a bad idea.
(Drawing: Negative Space from www.f1me.net)
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 25, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Team John L
I’m not sure that it actually looks that way in the mirror. The fear is not necessarily that people who opt for public sector jobs are inherently less competent, but that public sector workers have poorly aligned incentives.
Workers generally attempt to forward or protect his or her own career. In a for-profit company, that usually means generating more profits, either through greater revenues or greater operational efficiency.
In a non-profit, a worker with the same goal will frequently work to raise his budget, which puts more workers underneath him and forwards his career. However, since he has no profits to generate, he gains nothing by cutting costs or increasing efficiency. Paradoxically, he often does better by raising costs in order to justify an increased budget.
May 27, 2011 at 8:44 am
links for 2011-05-25-Economic Issue | Coffee At Joe's
[…] Arguments About Regulation – Cheap Talk […]
January 18, 2015 at 8:45 pm
fyymldf@gmail.com
belstaff fake websites for kids