A third problem with the national interest is that the homogenization of individual preferences carries costs for the nationals themselves or for a large number of them, even if state propaganda tries to hide these costs. Diversified preferences, at least within a certain range, carry information and promote experimentation and innovation, from which wealth and individual flourishing spring. Hazony suggests that the diversity among national states compensates for this flaw. Although this is partly true, the benefits of international diversity are hard to capture for people who don’t travel much, don’t speak foreign languages, or don’t spend time living in different countries. In the United States, such people are a large majority.
This is from Pierre Lemieux, “The Tyranny of the National Interest,” the Econlib Feature Article for September.
As evidence for his last statement in the above paragraph, note the following:
Still, only 36 percent of Americans hold a valid passport, according to the State Department, compared to 60 percent of passport-holding Canadians and 75 percent for Brits and Aussies. That means almost 70 percent of us are unqualified for international travel. And in actuality, only one in five Americans travels abroad with regularity, according to a recent survey.
Read the whole thing.
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Sep 3 2018 at 10:59am
I think this proves too much. I think it is valid to criticize a policy that is in the interest of a narrow segment of the population — protection or regressive taxation, for example — and opposed to policy whose benefits are widely shared among most residents of a nation.
Alan Goldhammer
Sep 3 2018 at 11:03am
Regarding the passport issue. A fair number of Canadians come down to the US during various times during the winter hence the need for passports. IMO the low number of passports in the US is more a sign of lack of inquisitiveness than anything else particularly since one now needs a passport for even travel to Mexico or Canada.
Robert EV
Sep 3 2018 at 1:17pm
I have no idea to what extent this is an apples to oranges comparison, but:
As many as 78 percent of American full time workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck and it is taking its toll on our health.
Nearly half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque
There’s a huge difference between not quite half and over three quarters. A difference that can easily make up for the Canada-to-US and US-to-Canada travel deficit.
Robert EV
Sep 3 2018 at 1:19pm
Spam filter caught my earlier response with URLs. It had two links with articles claiming that ~78% of US workers live paycheck to paycheck, versus not quite half of Canadians. This is theoretically more than enough to make up for the US-to-Canada and Canada-to-US travel deficit.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 4 2018 at 12:54am
An American certainly needs a passport to travel to Canada (and, I suppose, to Mexico). Passports have been theoretically required since the 1990s and strictly required since 9/11.
Philo
Sep 3 2018 at 12:22pm
Contrary to Lemieux, the national interest, or the interest of any collection of people, is well defined provided individuals have (cardinal) utilities: the collective utility is just the sum of the utilities of the individuals who make up the collection, and an action or policy is in the collective interest just in case it maximizes this collective utility.
Jon Murphy
Sep 3 2018 at 12:32pm
Why are we assuming cardinal utilities and that they are known and well-defined?
That’s all well and good in theory, but in reality it’s impossible (not to mention contrary to evidence)
Philo
Sep 3 2018 at 1:34pm
Well, I’m not here *assuming* it, but Lemieux has not *refuted* it. (In fact, I see no sound theoretical objection to cardinal utilities, though admittedly they are hard to measure accurately.)
Jon Murphy
Sep 3 2018 at 2:07pm
No particular theoretical reason to reject cardinal utilities. But, if we’re going for a model that represents, in some fashion, reality then there’s no particular reason to use them, either.
Philo
Sep 4 2018 at 12:12am
To repeat: Lemieux’s claim presupposes that there are no interpersonally comparable cardinal utilities, but he gave no basis for this premise; so his case was ineffectively made.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 4 2018 at 1:00am
Philo: Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem does not require ordinal utility. It is totally general as to the forms of utility functions. See his Social Choice and Individual Values (1951, 1963). If you think it can be interpreted differently, I would be very interested to hear you on that.
Mark Brady
Sep 3 2018 at 1:14pm
The fact that far fewer U.S. citizens hold a passport than do Canadian or British citizens is not surprising, given the size of the U.S. and the range of geographical locations within the country. You don’t need to travel outside of the U.S. to enjoy sunshine, skiing, whatever. And if you want to visit family members, it’s more likely that they are located within the U.S. This is basic economics of location.
David Henderson
Sep 3 2018 at 5:22pm
True, but irrelevant to my point. Notice the point Pierre makes that I’m backing up with this fact.
Mark Brady
Sep 3 2018 at 8:35pm
But my observation about the size and range of locations within the U.S. would also help explain why only one in five Americans travels abroad with regularity.
David Henderson
Sep 4 2018 at 1:18am
I know. Still irrelevant with respect to the point that Pierre is making.
Comments are closed.