RE: Republican Reversal
There is some political science on this question. Perhaps the leading article in Dynamic Representation by James Stimson and his colleagues, American Political Science Review, 1995. They argue policy follows public opinion closely. John Samples Washington, DC -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wed 6/26/2002 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Republican Reversal These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I'd say democracy reflects general trend in voter opinion pretty well, although some policies may be way out of whack. For example, who would argue that either Bush or Gore is very far from the median voter (except on abortion)? Or that conservative states like Idaho tend to have more conservative policies? Fabio winmail.dat Description: application/ms-tnef
RE: Republican Reversal
I always thought the Republican challenge was given voice by an elderly woman in USA Today who said, when asked about the government shutdown, They can close the whole thing down as far as I'm concerned as long as they get the Social Security checks out. John Samples Washington, DC -Original Message- From: Carl Close [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tue 6/25/2002 8:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Alex asks whether the Radical Republicans that were swept into the House in '94 were co-opted by institutions (Hypothesis #1), or co-opted by their constituents' softer views (Hypothesis #2)? I am inclined to hold Hypothesis #2. Why? Two reasons: First, if the Republican politicians softened while their constituents remained hardliners, then in the next elections they would have lost to challengers who castigated them for selling out. Second, the Radical Repubican Revolution didn't run deep in the electorate. Much of the Radical Republican strategy and image was forged by Newt Gingrich, who convinced many freshman Republicans to sign the so-called Contract with America. Gingrich saw the public's anger with Clinton (re: tax hikes, health care, and don't ask, don't tell) as an opportunity to shoot for a radical Republican agenda, but apparently misread the public, or at least misread its support for Gingrich himself, who lost popularity when his efforts contributed to temporary shutdowns of federal services. (Remember federal buildings being forced to close down for a day at a time, due to budget uncertainties?) With the demise of Gingrich, the Radical Repubicans lost their figurehead, and the so-called Radical Republican movement evaporated. It evaporated because it was thin to begin with. I don't think the above fully answers Alex's call for a way to distinguish between Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2, but perhaps it's a good enough story to satisfy some of us. Comments? Criticisms? Carl Remember when the Republicans took control of the house in 1994 for the first time in something like 40 years and all the new young blood was talking about cutting government programs and scaling back everywhere? Remember all the newspaper reports about how everything would now change. Yeah, I can hardly remember it either. How distant those days seem. Notice that in recent days the Republicans have been proudly asserting how much *more* expensive their prescription drug plan is than the one Democrats have proposed. There are different ways of interpreting this volte-face. One way is to assert that this shows how corrupting the institutions of Washington are, how even people with good ideas are sucked in to the spending way of life etc. Calls for term limits etc. follow. An alternative interpretation, but ultimately perhaps the same thing, is to say that the public didn't really want what the Republicans said they were offering and the failure of the cut government group is simply a reflection of the public's desires. In this view it's the American people who are to blame for their government and not peculiar institutions. Comments? Ways to distinguish these explanations? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat Description: application/ms-tnef
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
I wonder if entry is cheap. To effectively enter this market, you have to do more than edit articles and print copies of the journal. You have to attract valued contributions and thereby, readers. I believe contributors send articles to journals on the basis of their brand name. How can a journal build its brand name? Have any journals sought to build a brand name by paying well-known scholars for their contributions for several years? The most expensive academic journals are in the fields of science, technology and medicine. European commercial publishers who charge thousands for an annual institutional subscription own the most prestigious of these journals. A few years ago a few American universities looked into starting up their own competitors to the STM leaders. Nothing came of it. I suspect they discovered that entry costs were high as was the risk of failure. Academic books cost a lot because their markets are small (300-500 copies on average per title) while production costs are relatively high. Total production costs for an academic press run of 500 copies are in the $30,000 range. Unit sales are so small in part because universities heavily subsidize book production. Even if all the subsidies were dedicated to the demand side (or were eliminated), academic books would be expensive compared to the average trade book. Without production subsidies, however, there would many fewer producers. And the world would be a better place. John Samples Cato Institute -Original Message- From: Michael Etchison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: fantastically entertaining paper Robin Hanson: Michael E. Etchison wrote: an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is getting a copy so expensive? Standard armchair econ question, really. Yes, I know, and I know what we'd suspect. I was wondering if anyone had some grounded explanations. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
academic journals
I have taken the liberty of changing the subject line since the discussion seems to have shifted. Given that this is the Armchair list, what would economists make of an industry that works like this: A firm (the university) hires employees (professors) to make products (articles) that are then given gratis to other firms (journal publishers) who produce a product (a journal) that is then sold back to a part of the original firm (the university library) who buys it on behalf of other parties (its faculty) who by and large will not spend their own money on the product (and do so only when there is severe price discrimination in their favor). Academic books fit the same model except the product is sold to the publisher but the proceeds go to the employee and not the firm that originally invested in the writing of the book. Steve Landesberg recently remarked to me in relation to his experience with university administration that it's clear universities are maximizing something, but it's not clear what. Perhaps by publishing journals, universities maximize the quality of students who seek admission. John Samples Cato winmail.dat Description: application/ms-tnef
RE: Me and the eminent econometrician Dr. Joyce
Most reporters are interested in, and skilled at writing narratives. They generally are not interested in or skilled at analytical approaches to politics and society. Professor Auld's work was absorbed into the narrative form man bites dog. That is, everyone believes hard work and sobriety leads to wealth, but Auld shows the opposite. The story was the thing, not the data or the analysis. On bad days I'm convinced that narratives and anecdotes drive all public policy. But I still think there could be a kind of journalism that blends narratives and analysis in a useful way. Professor McCloskey has written a lot about the need for narrative in economics. However, the fact remains that the market for journalism prefers a good story to an ambiguous truth most of the time. John Samples Cato -Original Message- From: Christopher Auld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 7:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Me and the eminent econometrician Dr. Joyce I am somewhat surprised no one has written to this list to give me a bad time over my recent spate of media attention, for example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51889,00.html I found the whole experience of being misquoted, misrepresented, and generally mistreated quite fascinating, albeit annoying. I can state for the record that correlation does not imply causation is far too advanced a concept for most reporters, even those who are supposed to have a technical bent. My advice: When some reporter calls you up and asks you about your research, say No comment, hang up, change your phone number. Cheers, Chris Auld Department of Economics University of Calgary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
