
Long-time readers know that I believe that people underrate the importance of procedural issues. Too many people focus on “outcomes”, not the structure of decision-making.
To take a recent example, consider the case of TikTok. At first glance, it may appear that I have the same view as President Trump. In fact, our views are radically different. AFAIK, Trump’s view can be described roughly as follows: TikTok should be shut down when it’s in Trump’s interest to shut it down, and should be allowed to operate when it’s in Trump’s interest to let it operate.
And here’s my view: The government should not arbitrarily shut down social media apps.
Those seem like radically different policy views, not the same view.
Consider the recent case of wind energy regulation:
Given the high costs associated with building a wind project, and the likelihood of tariffs making that situation worse, the uncertainty produced by a potential halt to permits may also be enough to cause developers to pull the plug on projects – because even if the order itself winds up tossed out in court, that could take years. . . .
But the idea that you would have a pro-business administration trying to stop private companies from taking economically appropriate action on private land is just so out of step with the role of government that we’re expecting they’re going to clarify their intent.”
Trump’s executive order is so far-reaching because wind projects regularly need federal permits and other authorizations, even if they’re sited on private or state lands.
A commonly cited federal nexus is endangered species. Opponents of wind energy have long criticized turbines for being a potential threat to birds, but it is the case that many wind projects are collocated within or near areas for rare bird migration. Cultural heritage impacts can often also be a difficulty.
At first glance, it might seem like President Trump’s view of regulation is very different from President Biden’s view. Trump likes coal and Biden likes wind energy. But from a procedural perspective, I see lots of similarities. Both presidents could be described as having the following view:
The construction of new energy projects should be hampered by tariffs that boost the cost of construction. Furthermore, any project that the president does not like should be tied up by costly regulation involving things like endangered species and cultural preservation.
The most important ideological difference in public policy is not which particular industry is favored; rather it is whether government has any legitimate in role favoring one industry over another.
READER COMMENTS
Jose Pablo
Jan 25 2025 at 8:23am
The most important ideological difference in public policy is not which particular industry is favored; rather it is whether government has any legitimate in role favoring one industry over another.
This is very good stuff, but why not taking it one step further. The most important ideological difference is whether any kind of public policy is required or not.
any legitimate in role favoring one industry over another.
The only possible role of government (by design) is favoring one set of individuals/industries at the expense of others. On this see De Jasay’s The State, which critiques the premise that government action can ever be truly neutral.
And what if favoring one industry over another has a so called “positive net effect” (which doesn’t mean anything to me but seems to have a meaning to you).
For instance, as per your own recount governments should “favor” the renewable industry at the expense of the oil industry by, for instance, introducing a pigovian tax on CO2 emissions. Because this way of proceeding would increase “global utility” (an abstract concept conveniently difficult to calculate).
Should we properly read your statement as: “the government doesn’t have any legitimate role in favoring one industry over another, except when proffessor Scott deems such actions to enhance “global utility“?
Scott Sumner
Jan 25 2025 at 12:13pm
Price externalities is not the same thing as favoring one industry over another.
Jose Pablo
Jan 25 2025 at 8:32pm
Of course, of course it is not.
At the fair price (which obviously can be calculated following “neutral non- discriminatory scientific methods”) pricing this externality would not be discriminatory.
But, what if the tax is arbitrarily settled at a different level from this so-called “fair price of this externality”? Say above or below it. Wouldn’t that make it arbitrarily discriminatory?
And what if there is no way of calculating a “fair price” for this externality? What if such a concept does not even exists?
Government arbitrariness cannot be avoided, even when externalities are priced under the guise of “scientifically fair non-discriminatory methods” (even more, particularly so under that guise).
Mactoul
Jan 26 2025 at 12:06am
That government exists only to secure enjoyment of private property is a particular theory and not an universal truth.
This theory is contradicted by the actual behavior of all actual governments, present and past.
Indeed, what do you expect public policy to do if not make discriminations — if global warming is an imminent threat then the state would inevitably take measures, irrespective of Locke. And if there is no such threat, the measures need to be reversed.
Jose Pablo
Jan 26 2025 at 3:11pm
what do you expect public policy to do if not make discriminations
Exactly that, arbitrary discrimination.
if global warming is an imminent threat
How much “real” well-being are you willing to give up today in exchange for an imprecisely estimated amount of future well-being, which is all that global warming is about, is a question that can only be individually answered.
All governments can do is favor some individuals’ future expectations and discount rates over those of others.
How you leap from that to the belief that this is “solving an imminent threat” is beyond me. It’s a mystery—just a matter of faith. Your faith.
Mactoul
Jan 26 2025 at 8:20pm
How many individuals are equipped to ask this question, never mind answer it?
Jose Pablo
Jan 27 2025 at 1:09pm
They are no less equipped to answer that question than they are to decide “who should be President.”
And yet, it is widely regarded as a great advancement to pose that question to them.
Warren Platts
Jan 29 2025 at 1:45pm
Personally, I’d rather have rare birds than wind turbines, even if that entails a little more global warming (that most likely will enhance global net welfare anyways). The only reason wind in the U.S. is as big as it is is because of U.S. industrial policy that subsidizes wind projects & Chinese industrial policy (that is itself a transparent attempt to dictate U.S. industrial policy) that subsidizes constructing wind turbine parts. Moreover, Chinese turbines are manufactured using the most carbon intensive processes on the Planet, entirely defeating the avowed purpose of wind energy. All Trump is doing is ending U.S. government malinvestment, and tariffing Chinese turbines is merely a Pigouvian (carbon) tax correcting a price externality.
Comments are closed.