In this article, we synthesize diverse literatures relevant to the role of economists in policymaking and identify productive questions for future research. Researchers in sociology, political science and science and technology studies agree on three conclusions. First, economists are most likely to be influential advisers in situations understood as technical, and in ill-defined situations where uncertainty forces policymakers to look for new solutions.
Second, the indirect influence of economics on policymaking is likely as important as the direct role of economists. The spread of economic discourse reshapes how non-economist policymakers understand a given issue. The spread of economists' technical tools determines the information available to policymakers and changes the process of decision-making. Third, meso-level social orders affect the political influence of economics.
Economists' actions in the political field must be understood in light of the dynamics of the semi-autonomous, globalizing professional field. Similarly, since the state itself is a collection of smaller organizations, organizational dynamics shape whether and how economists influence particular policy domains.
These insights provide the starting point for a new research agenda. We attempt to provide a general framework for answering this question. Our goal is not to explain why a particular set of economic arguments dominates in a particular time and place such as the late twentieth century victories of neoliberalism; see Mudge, ; Amable, , but to identify dynamics that mediate the ability of economists, their ideas and tools to influence policy in a variety of settings.
The patterns we identify are based primarily on empirical studies of the USA and western Europe in the twentieth century, but we also address more briefly the extent to which they may apply to other parts of the world.
While economics is an increasingly global profession Fourcade, , its effects will always be mediated by local political institutions, and may vary in countries with strong indigenous economic traditions, like China and the former Soviet Bloc, and in those not governed by bureaucratized democratic systems.
Our reformulation also takes seriously the problem of identifying what, exactly, we mean by economists. Here, we are less concerned with definitional debates around the profession itself Fourcade, than with the level of aggregation relevant for analyses of policymaking: is it individual economists, or ideologically unified networks of economists, or the profession as a whole?
Or do we want to examine the influence of economic ideas, economic data or economic models? Each of the literatures we review answers these questions differently, and we map these differences without fully resolving them. Our proposed agenda bifurcates the question. We identify three modes through which economists and economics can influence policy: professional authority, institutional position and cognitive infrastructure.
We then suggest an analytical division of the question. First, how are each of these achieved, and what role do economists play in the process? Second, once a change in professional authority, institutional position or cognitive infrastructure occurs, how does it then shape politics?
In the seventeenth century, there were no professional economists and no chairs of political economy at universities.
By the mid-twentieth century, economics had become a prestigious and well-funded field of study, with departments at every major university, and was seen as possessing a useful and rigorous set of intellectual tools. The professional authority of economics conditions the possibility of successful interventions in myriad ways. Here, the distinction between economists and policymakers collapses, and economists may be making policy decisions directly as well as giving advice to others.
Economists' institutional position at the helm of central banks in many countries, for example, means that they often have relatively free rein to determine monetary policy. At the transnational level, economists run organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which set the scope conditions within which national governments act Babb, ; Chwieroth, At a more local scale, a wide range of government agencies have some formal office devoted to economic analysis, which ensures the voice of economists is at least heard if not heeded.
Styles of reasoning Hacking, are similar to the core principles and ways of approaching problems that Reay identifies among US economists. While Reay focuses on economics PhDs, a soft version of the economic style of reasoning is widespread among policymakers, many of whom are exposed to it at law or policy schools Allison, ; Teles, The economic style can shape how policymakers approach problems, even if they ignore the specific recommendations of trained economists.
Economic policy devices cf. Muniesa et al. These include devices that produce information that helps us see the economic world, such as GDP, the inflation rate or the unemployment rate; and techniques that help with the process of making policy decisions, such as cost—benefit analysis, procedures for auctioning off the electromagnetic spectrum or guidelines for assessing when mergers are economically efficient. Policy devices have received relatively little attention from scholars.
Political scientists and sociologists have focused more on debates over prominent issues than the incorporation of tools into bureaucracies; science and technology studies STS scholars, on the other hand, have looked at how economists' devices affect markets rather than policy.
We review several literatures relevant to explaining how economists affect policy. From political science, we survey the ideas and politics literature and the epistemic community literature; from sociology, we examine the professions and expertise literature; and we look at multiple strands of research in STS. We build upon these to suggest that economists and economics can exercise policy influence by increasing their professional authority, acquiring positions of institutional power or reshaping the cognitive infrastructure of policymaking with their styles of reasoning or policy devices.
Since the s, political scientists and political sociologists have increasingly theorized the role of ideas in politics. This movement emerged out of the state-centred approach, which argued that state elites have an independent role in policy formation and are not simply mediators of class conflict Block, ; Evans et al.
If state elites have interests and capacities independent of their class allies, then what those elites believe is causally relevant in explaining policy Weir and Skocpol, This literature emphasized the complexity and uncertainty of policymaking, and thus the need for ideas that could pare this down into a limited set of policy alternatives Kingdon, ; Hall, ; Blyth, Since then, much work has established that ideas matter, while remaining conflicted about exactly what ideas are and precisely how they matter Mehta, As Vivien Schmidt frames it, in some sense all policies are based on ideas.
While analysis often focuses on the interest group or professional community promoting a particular idea, the actor in this literature is really the idea itself Weir, ; Berman, ; Parsons, The point is to show, for example, how Keynesianism became dominant, not how Keynesians advanced their agenda.
Much work in this area has focused on how particular sets of ideas play out differently under local political, economic and social circumstances. Not only did Keynesianism have different degrees of influence in different countries to continue the example , but entirely different elements of it were implemented in, for example, Sweden when compared with Britain Hall, Later work on the global impact of neoliberal economic ideas has similarly emphasized the extent to which their adoption is shaped by national conditions Babb, ; Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb, ; Ban and Blyth, This argument finds its culmination, perhaps, in Campbell and Pedersen's recent argument that the production of such ideas, as well as their impact, is nationally specific, and that paradigms more often evolve and co-exist rather than switching dramatically see also Schneiberg, Beyond its focus on the intersection of ideas, institutions and politics, this literature emphasizes three factors affecting when and how economists' ideas affect policy.
First, they matter because they construct political interests, which only make sense in light of individuals' ideas about how the world works Dobbin and Dowd, ; Blyth, ; Anderson, Second, the importance of economists' ideas fluctuates with the stability of the political situation.
During times of relative stability, ideas recede into the background. In times of crisis, uncertainty about the connection between a proposed policy and its likely outcome, and even the range of options available, opens up space for ideas to make a difference Blyth, Third, the factors affecting the success of economists' ideas vary at different levels of analysis.
Work by Hall and others Campbell, ; Lindvall, has suggested that changes in technical ideas—which policy instruments to use and at what settings—are more likely to be decided by experts, while shifts in policy paradigms are more likely to be determined by electoral politics. Epistemic communities are networks of experts who share some set of beliefs.
They have more ideological unity than a whole profession, and thus can strategically promote policies consistent with their beliefs. The literature is organized around identifying conditions under which epistemic communities are able to exert such influence. While this literature does not focus specifically on epistemic communities of economists though see Ikenberry, , several of its findings seem likely to apply.
Understanding neoliberalism, or any other set of beliefs shared by some subset of economists, as underlying an epistemic community, rather than representing an economic paradigm, offers a different route to tracing its policy influence.
As is true for any interest group, the capability of an epistemic community to achieve policy change is a function of its resources, including support from other powerful actors e.
Thus, we should expect the policy influence of networks of economists holding shared beliefs to depend on what set of resources they are able to command. Epistemic communities are also more likely to be successful when advocating policies regarding issues around which policymakers have little knowledge and weak opinions.
Thus economists should have less direct influence on well-defined, highly public and partisan issues Ikenberry, , like, for example, tax policy Feldstein, And consistent with the ideas and politics literature, epistemic communities are more likely to have effects on the choice of policy instruments and their settings, and less likely to affect the actual objectives of policy Anderson, ; Lindvall, Both the ideas and politics and the epistemic community literature suggest that economists brandishing particular sets of ideas are best understood as just another interest group, though one that benefits from the resource of professional or scientific authority.
Economists' success will be determined by their ability to ally with powerful, resource-rich actors and by the favourability of political institutions and the historical moment to the ideas they are trying to advance. While this approach may be quite productive for explaining the role of ideas in shaping specific political outcomes, treating economists as just another interest group promoting one set of ideas or another tells us less about their distinctiveness from other such groups.
Although the literature on professions and expertise is based in sociology, not political science, it shares with the epistemic community literature a focus on particular groups organized around a shared body of knowledge. Since the s it has emphasized the question of how professionals gain and maintain control of the market for a particular set of tasks based on abstract knowledge Larson, ; Freidson, ; Abbott, More recently, a resurgence of scholarship on experts Eyal, ; Fourcade, ; Medvetz, ; Eyal, ; Stampnitzky, has also examined how professions produce knowledge, and to what effect.
The professions literature looks only tangentially at how experts influence policy. Steven Brint called in for analysis of the conditions under which professionals have more or less policy influence, but his call was not taken up systematically.
Our observations about how the professions influence policy are therefore inductive, rather than reflecting a clear consensus. We nevertheless identify several findings that seem likely to apply to the policy influence of economists as professionals. The Federal Reserve or the International Monetary Fund may spring to mind most quickly as examples of economists' policy influence. But research on the professions suggests that economists' greatest political effects might occur through indirect means and informal channels, rather than advisory positions and formal policy roles Brint, , p.
Experts are more important in defining problems and setting agendas O'Connor, ; Eyal et al. Economists are also likely to have the greatest level of influence when they can define some policy question as essentially technical Brint, , pp. This may allow them to convert technical authority into moral authority Kevles, ; Halliday, ; Bernstein, , or provide room for normative choices that remain invisible to non-experts, because they appear to be purely technical Jacob, ; O'Connor, ; Steensland, Conversely, and in line with the political science literature, the more overtly politicized an issue is, the less likely economists will independently influence policy outcomes, since incentives to challenge expert recommendations will be high Bernstein, Economists' actions in the policy domain must also be understood with reference to their professional domain, since the two are partially independent, but linked, ecologies Abbott, or fields Bourdieu, with their own rules and rewards.
Economists in the policy field may simultaneously be acting in the professional field, and their policy actions are likely to reflect the position of the professional field regarding what constitutes core, high-status or legitimate knowledge Breslau, ; Babb, ; Mudge and Vauchez, ; Reay, Finally, world polity theory Meyer et al.
Despite persistent national differences Fourcade, , the American model of economics has disseminated broadly, often displacing local forms of expertise Babb, ; Dezalay and Garth, ; Fourcade, Yet at the same time, this process often produces new, hybrid forms of knowledge Bockman and Eyal, ; Bockman, , particularly in countries with strong endogenous economic traditions, and its policy effects vary cross-nationally Dezalay and Garth, ; Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb, ; Montecinos and Markoff, ; Ban and Blyth, A fourth approach, however, examines the role of sociotechnical tools.
Under the broad label of science studies, we include literature on performativity and the social studies of finance Callon, b ; Beunza and Stark, ; MacKenzie, , sociological literature on technical processes such as quantification, accounting and market design Carruthers and Espeland, ; Espeland and Stevens, ; Lampland, ; MacKenzie, ; Breslau, , and anthropological literature on expert discourses and their governance effects Ferguson, ; Miller and Rose, ; Scott, These share an interest in how sociotechnical tools—methods, measures and technical practices for producing knowledge—are assembled, stabilized, and have effects.
The science studies approaches assume that one cannot understand the effects of people or knowledge independently. Instead, stable patterns of relations among heterogeneous objects—people, knowledge, and the material world—constitute the actor with the potential to affect policy.
Riffing off of Callon et al. The effects of economists' tools are likely to be complex and unpredictable. The manager could:. In a democracy, elected officials are held accountable to the electorate by a similar set of strategies:. This is how democracies solve the principal—agent problem of making elected officials accountable to the public. But it comes with a downside: the fact that officials, like employees, are subject to periodic review gives them an incentive to undertake projects whose objectives will become visible before the next election.
This is called short-termism. Governments, for example, sometimes introduce expansionary fiscal policies cutting taxes or expanding spending in the run-up to elections, so that disposable incomes will be rising and unemployment falling when people vote.
Attempts to push employment above the long-run sustainable level recall the labour market model will eventually lead to unsustainable inflationary pressures. But these unwanted consequences would occur only after the election.
Because future elections are an incentive for short-term thinking by political leaders, a partial solution is to remove some policymaking from the hands of elected officials. This is the argument for an independent not elected judicial system, and for the political autonomy of the central bank. For example, the governors of the US Federal Reserve system are appointed by the president for year terms which are staggered, so that it is unlikely that a president will appoint many of them while in office.
This was a signal of a greater degree of autonomy of central bank decision making. Also in the US, presidential appointments to the Supreme Court are for life. Policymaking in a democracy is also sometimes biased in favour of smaller groups. Here is the reason. Consider a policy, such as a reduction in tariffs on imports of clothing, which will make less-expensive clothing available to the population but reduce the employment and income of workers in the domestic clothing industry.
Now consider the challenges facing those seeking to organize campaigns against and for the policy:. But it also applies to how democracies work in practice. All citizens are legally equal in their rights, but some have much more power to influence government policy than others.
This concerns the second question at the beginning of this section: when persuading elected officials to favour one policy over another, citizens are far from equal. Wealthy citizens in particular may have a disproportionate voice in a democracy because:.
The result is that economic inequality feeds political inequality, which in turn feeds economic inequality. For evidence on how political contributions as well as special interests influenced US housing market policy prior to the crisis, read: Atif Mian, Amir Sufi, and Francesco Trebbi. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8: pp. For example, the relationship between economic inequality and political inequality affects gender outcomes. In many countries, women participate much less in political life and leadership than men.
In India, the reservation of positions for women to head village councils has been shown to increase public spending on the public services that women prefer, like wells, so that they do not have to carry water so far. It also reduces receipts of bribes by those in power and was found to transform stereotypes. Men in villages that were randomly reserved for women leaders subconsciously perceived women more positively as leaders, as compared with viewing them solely in domestic roles.
Many are concerned that it talks particularly loudly when it comes to politics. To some, it is obvious that when a candidate for political office receives a large contribution for his electoral campaign from a business, or a trade union with an economic interest at stake, the candidate will be more likely to take the side of the contributor when it comes to using political power to influence policy.
We might ask if the members of congress who received contributions from those with investments in the oil industry tended to favour the interests of those firms afterwards.
The answer in both cases would be that they did. But this does not demonstrate that donor contributions purchased influence over the legislator. Trade union members will donate money to those who already support the interests of trade unions. Simply showing a correlation between the source of the funding and the policies supported by the legislator does not show that the contributions caused the legislator to act differently.
They reasoned that citizens could influence legislators by meeting with them and expressing their views. Members of Congress are busy people, so gaining access to them for a meeting is something that groups compete for. They wanted to find out if those who gave money to a congress member were more likely to be granted a meeting. With the cooperation of a real interest group Credo Action , they contacted members of congress to ask for a meeting.
The treatment group also identified themselves as donors. All callers in both groups read from a script, so the requests for a meeting were otherwise identical. Among those not identified as donors, 2. For those identified as donors, The vast majority of Americans who cannot afford to contribute to campaigns in meaningful amounts are at a disadvantage when attempting to express their concerns to policy makers.
What happened after the election of Allende in Chile in tells a story not only of economic limits to feasible policies, but also of political limits. Amid faltering economic performance, due in part to potential investors holding back on investment in Chile, opposition to Allende mounted, some of it supported in secret by the US government. In , the Chilean armed forces attacked the presidential palace, defeating troops loyal to Allende. They took over the government, ending democracy and replacing Allende with the unelected General Augusto Pinochet.
Time zero is the first trading day on the Santiago stock market following the military takeover. The wealthy anticipated that Pinochet would introduce pro-business policies, so stock prices rose again Figure The Pinochet dictatorship would remain until a constitutional referendum in demanded a return to democracy, which the armed forces respected. Once again, a sharp change in behaviour of the wealthy is recorded in the stock market prices on the day following the referendum.
Time zero is the first trading day on the Santiago stock market following the referendum. And it also must be favoured by a governing elite with the authority and capacity to implement it political and administrative feasibility. The limits posed by special interests, as well as economic and administrative feasibility, explain why governments often do not successfully address the problems of market failure and unfairness that we have encountered throughout this course.
Looking at the different economies of the world, however, you see substantial differences in the extent to which these problems are effectively addressed. As a result, the limits posed by economic, political, and administrative feasibility differ substantially among countries.
To see this, return to the problem of climate change and Figure Sweden, Australia and the US have roughly the same per capita income. If they all faced similar constraints of economic, policy, and political feasibility in adopting policies to limit greenhouse gas impacts on climate, then we would expect to see their similarity in income matched by similarity in CO 2 emissions per capita. But this is not at all what we see in the figure.
The US and Australia emit about three times as much per capita as Sweden. It seems likely that what is economically feasible may not differ very much in these three countries, as all share the same knowledge about technologies, and their citizens are likely to respond in similar ways to incentives to adopt cleaner energy sources.
The government information and capacities in the three countries are also similar: all have well-informed and capable governments. As we saw in Figure Although carbon dioxide emissions are affected by industrial structure and trade specialization, they are also affected by what is desired by the elites, who have political influence. Policies to address climate change are more likely to have political support in Sweden than in Australia and the US.
One reason for this difference is the importance in US and Australian politics of lobbies representing the natural resource industries, including the gas, oil, and coal producers. A similar contrast appears when we look at inequality, shown in Figure Germany and the US have both experienced about the same rate of growth in GDP per capita over the past four decades, but they differ markedly in inequality of living standards, as can be seen by the much higher Gini coefficient for disposable income in the US.
The comparison for the measure of intergenerational inequality is similar. Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are more equal by this measure than even Germany. Many things could account for these differences. They are, at least in part, due to the greater political influence in Germany than in the US, of those who value sustaining a higher living standard for the least well-off. One lesson, if we wish to address problems like climate change and unfair inequalities in living standards, is that for most countries it is possible to do a lot more than is currently being done.
The fundamental forces contributing to inequality in the high-income countries—new technologies and growing imports from China, for example that make the skills of low-paid workers redundant—do not differ much among the high-income countries in Figure The differences appear to be a matter of choices among the similar set of policies that are economically and administratively feasible, some countries opting for policies that sustain high levels of inequality, and others pursuing the goal of greater equality.
We also have a lot to learn from the top performers in these and similar figures, by studying the policies and institutions that appear to account for their success in addressing market failures and unfairness.
Not all policies and institutions that are effective in one country can be transferred to another. The comparison between the innovation systems in Silicon Valley and in Germany in Section Neither would be easily adopted in the other country, or in a country like Brazil or Portugal.
Some countries have school systems that teach much more effectively than others. Because educational policies differ greatly among countries, we can get some idea of the importance of good policy by looking at differences among nations in performance on a mathematics test administered to year-old students around the world. James Heckman explores the question of how schooling and preschool experience affects inequality. Economic research has explored the question of how schooling and preschool experience affects inequality.
You may also want to read his book Giving kids a fair chance. The accident of birth is a principal source of inequality in America today. American society is dividing into skilled and unskilled … birth is becoming fate. Policies of the kind advocated by Heckman are being implemented in countries including Colombia, Jamaica, Chile, and in the state of Orissa in India. Teams of economists and experts in child development are rigorously evaluating them for their longer-term effects and to assess the feasibility of scaling them up from small pilot interventions.
So we know that the kids of poor parents often grow up to be poor. We now also know that this has little to do with genetics, and more to do with the socio-emotional behaviour associated with growing up poor. We now know of, and govenments can implement, effective policy remedies to break this cycle of poverty. Harold Lasswell, a prominent mid-twentieth-century American political scientist, is best known for his book Politics: Who gets what, when and how. Politics is all about:.
The reason is that political processes determine the rules of the game—the basic institutions that govern how we interact in the economy and other arenas of our society. But politics is not simply about dividing up a pie, with the powerful getting the larger slice and the struggle for power sometimes resulting in a smaller pie. Well-designed government policies are also able to increase the size of the pie, improving living standards for the vast majority of people. Examples that you have already seen include the economic policies of the government of China, which since the s resulted in the most rapid eradication of large-scale poverty ever witnessed in human history.
Another example was the clean water and sanitation policies that were behind the global reduction in child mortality. Economics is an essential tool to understanding how government policies can both increase the size of the pie and ensure its fair division. The Economy has given you a way of understanding the manner in which we interact with each other, and with our natural environments in producing our livelihoods. Our economy is all about people and what we do as buyers and sellers, borrowers and lenders, employees and employers, voters and government officials.
We learn a lot about this economy by seeing actors as doing the best that they can under a given set of circumstances, while also seeking to change their circumstances, often through political movements and governments.
Economics can help to adequately address the problems of inefficiency and unfairness in our economies, by designing policies that are both economically and administratively feasible. Economics can also play a role in making good policies politically possible: economic reasoning can have a powerful effect on public understanding of what can be done in the economy, and even on what ought to be done.
The capitalist revolution with which we began in Unit 1 and the democratic revolutions—extending the vote to all adults—with which we have concluded here have together produced the distinctive economic and political system under which most readers of The Economy now live.
Capitalism and democracy continue to change, and to change the world. Economics will help you understand how capitalism and democracy together are changing your circumstances, and how you—with others—in turn might participate in this process of change. Angus Deaton. The Great Escape: health, wealth, and the origins of inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Peter Lindert. Berkeley: University of California Press. Andrei Shleifer. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 4 : pp.
The Federalist. Middletown, Ct. Monica Martinez-Bravo, Gerard P. Kenneth J. Dissent 25 4 : pp. Steven Durlauf. Updated 8 April Thomas Fujiwara. Econometrica 83 2 : pp. Harold Hotelling. Economic Journal 39, pp. Albert O. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Alfred Plummer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A condensed version is also available.
Freedom House. Washington, DC. Grant Miller. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 3 : pp. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 3 pp. Timothy Besley and Torsten Persson. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 4 : pp. Imran Rasul and Daniel Rogger. Kenneth Scheve and Daniel Stasavage. International Organization 64 04 : pp. American Political Science Review 01 : pp. Taxing the rich: A history of fiscal fairness in the United States and Europe. Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Joshua L.
Kalla and David E. American Journal of Political Science 60 3 : pp. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Perspectives on politics 12 03 : pp. James Heckman. Daron Acemoglu and James A. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 2 : pp. This ebook is developed by the CORE project. More information and additional resources for learning and teaching can be found at www.
The Economy. Unit 22 Economics, politics, and public policy As an economic actor, a democratic government in a capitalist economy can promote improved living standards, with gains fairly shared. Often, though, this does not happen In this unit, we look at how institutions and policies are chosen. Why are some institutions and policies adopted, and not others? Like firms and families, the government of a nation is an important economic actor whose actions can be understood by studying the preferences of government leaders, and the constraints under which they operate.
A government is distinct from other actors in society in that it can require citizens to abide by its decisions, using force if necessary for example, police powers. Governments also have obligations that they owe to their citizens as a matter of right.
As a result, they use tax funds to provide goods and services such as police protection or basic schooling , which are usually free of charge. Ideally, democracy empowers citizens by extending voting rights in competitive elections to everyone, and limits what governments can do by ensuring individual rights of speech and association. Ideally, governments should adopt policies to ensure that possibilities for mutual gains for example through exchange are realized, and that economic outcomes are fair.
Even in a democracy, inefficient or unfair economic outcomes occur because there are limits to what public policy can accomplish. Even when public policies are economically feasible, they may still not be implemented because powerful groups oppose them, or governments do not have the capacity to implement them.
View the latest data at OWiD. Question A self-interested dictator will maximize the annual tax revenue they collect. Moving from A to B in the diagram is a Pareto improvement, improving outcomes for both citizens and the dictator. Dictators use some tax revenues to provide essential public services. It improves outcomes for the dictator. However, outcomes will be worse for the citizens, who will have to pay higher taxes with no improvement in public services or increase in public service provision.
Further increases in tax rates will decrease total expected rent because the decrease in expected duration will outweigh the increase in annual rent. Dictators cannot appropriate all of the tax revenue as rent, but must spend at least C to provide essential public services rule of law, defence etc.
Increased competition will always improve outcomes for the governing elite. Increased competition would make the elite worse off if they did not reduce tax rates in response. Citizens benefit from both lower tax rates and longer expected durations assuming that regime change is costly for citizens. The elite increases its total expected rent.
In this example, the total expected rent of the elite increases. But in other situations, such as that shown in Figure The substitution effect caused by the flattening of the duration curve will cause an elite to charge lower tax rates. The Nash equilibrium would change if all of the customers to the far right of the beach moved halfway towards B n. Beachgoers that never buy ice cream have no effect on the position of the stalls.
Bob is the closest stall for more than half of the customers. April will attract all of the customers to the right of their position, which is clearly more than half of the total customers.
Both April and Bob will still be the closest stall for exactly half of the customers. If they move anywhere else, they will reduce the number of customers they attract. View this data at OWiD. Other video options Bilibili Download View transcript.
Stanford Business. The College of New Jersey. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for Investopedia. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice.
Popular Courses. What Is a Political Economy? Key Takeaways The field of political economy is the study of how economic theories such as capitalism or communism play out in the real world. Those who study political economy seek to understand how history, culture, and customs impact an economic system. Global political economy studies how political forces shape global economic interactions. Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work.
These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate. You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear.
Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. The Brexit vote was about what it means to be British. For the cosmopolitan Remainers, it was obvious that this meant being European. For the Leavers, it did not. It is widely assumed that it will be bad news if London loses some of its pre-eminence as a financial center, with banks moving operations across the Channel. It may be, in terms of simple economics. But the dislike of the Brits for Brussels bureaucracy is surpassed by their loathing of the banks, post-crisis.
Ordinary citizens may then be less sorry to see some of them go, no matter what the economic models show. These are challenges for the political class as a whole, rather than for left or right. The populism fueling Trump, Sanders, and Brexit challenges the political consensus that has stretched from Paul Ryan to Hillary Clinton for many decades. Parties of the left, especially the Democrats in the U. Politics moved on to issues of personal identity, social policy reforms, and multilateralism.
Economics became a matter of mathematical science rather than political art. Politicians still argued about economics, but within a tiny space between largely agreed parameters. With the end of the Cold War, economics seemed freed of ideological baggage, and then almost of political significance, too. But now economics is deeply political again, and vice versa. But the skills of politicians in the field of economic persuasion have eroded in recent decades.
Most were drawn to politics by social, rather than economic, issues.
0コメント