RE: More Guns, Less Crime?
John Samples wrote: >Krugman's underlying assumption (which, I think, Bill Dickens shares >to some extent) was that there are two kinds of intellectuals writing about >policy: objective scientists and biased ideologues. I'm glad you say "to some extent." I don't agree that there are just two categories in any meaningful sense. Nobody is completely objective and even the worst ideologues always act as if they felt that facts place some constraints on the arguments they can make. Whether or not we like to admit it, at least in Economics, an awful lot of progress comes from ideological adversaries dukeing it out over the analysis and the facts. Far more important to me than someone's ideology is their honesty and the general quality of their work. I've often said that I typically learn more from reading one of Arthur Jensen's writings than reading ten articles written by his critics. Those who know me know that a large ideological gap separates us. So good scientists vs. bad ideologues simply is not the issue at all. >Brookings may be independent, but endowment income is not the cause. >Consider three examples of institutions that have independent incomes and >are heavily partisan: the Century Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, >and the Ford Foundation. There are many more throughout the political >spectrum. (As an aside, it makes sense that endowment income produces >shirking, not independence. Not true in Brookings's case but otherwise >robust, I think). (Thanks for the last comment John.) I think endowment income is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for independence. The NBER is pretty independent despite the fact that it exists largely off corporate and government largess. John's point about Ford and Rockefeller are telling. However, it does make a difference to me that I never have to worry about getting some important funder angry by saying something that he/she doesn't want to hear. When I first arrived at Brookings I was invited to comment on a proposal for a huge jobs program for inner city youth that the Rockefeller Foundation was pushing. I flew up to New York and told them in no uncertain terms that I thought the idea was a political non-starter and that even if it wasn't that it was a very bad idea. This is something that I don't think I would have had the courage to do if I had been working somewhere where my job depended on my ability to raise outside money for my projects. >However, I happen to think Dickens is partially correct here. The fact that >Bob Crandall and Pietro Nivola have neither been punished nor fired for >their views suggests that Brookings does tolerate a degree of diversity. (I think "tolerate" is a bit weak. I would say "seeks out and thrives on." I believe both Pietro and Bob are quite happy here. Pietro and I are personal friends as well as colleagues sharing a common interest in soccer. We read and comment on each others work.) >Jim >Reichley also worked at Brookings for years, and Jim is about as >conservative as anyone I know. Still, Brookings has heavy partisans like >E.J. Dionne on board now. We also have Diane Ravitch (a strong Republican partisan) running our education program. I would prefer the organization try to be non-partisan as opposed to bi-partisan, but we have moved more towards the latter in recent years. >Brookings was also quite liberal more or less up and down the line back in >the days when the country was quite left. Why have they become more >moderate? This is not the history of the institution the way I know it. I entered graduate school shortly after the end of the Vietnam war. Most of my compatriots in graduate school viewed Brookings as moderate defenders of the status quo. Pretty much the same position on the political spectrum it occupies now. Joe Peckman was writing about fundamental tax reform in a way that would have warmed the heart of most conservative public finance people a long time ago. >... In Brookings's case, the lessons >learned were translated through the economics profession. Or at least that >is my theory. If what you are saying is that Brookings moved right with the profession I would agree to a limited extent. Again, I think you overstate how far left Brookings was in the past. >"Further, the Brookings charter gives a very minimum of ideological >guidance. Some people on this list might consider the institution's purpose >of improving the operation of government ideological, but that's pretty >broad guidance compared to the much narrower and less inclusive guidance in >the charters of organizations like Cato, Heritage and AEI." > >On this point, see above: objective scientists versus biased ideologues. >Funny how only organizations on the right are "much narrower and less >inclusive." 1) I normally include PPI and EPI on my list of ideologically constrained institutions because they certainly operate that way. I didn't here because I'm not familiar with the
Re: More Guns, Less Crime?
>>There is no ideological test for work done at Brookings period. If >>anything,there is a bit of premium for coming up with a good idea >>which bucks the orthodoxy -- no matter which one. How many other >>institutions can honestly make that claim? > > >The University of Chicago. Agreed. I meant outside of academia. I should have been more specific. -- Bill William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Think Tank Bias' (formerly More Guns, Less Crime?)
Bryan Caplan Wrote: >I don't think we really disagree here. Less than I thought when I misinterpreted what you were saying. I thought you were implying that we were government funded and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds us. If that is not what you are saying then we are closer to agreement than I realized. >Sure, Brookings people are happy >to make marginal criticisms of the status quo. What you view as marginal a lot of people would view as fundamental and sweeping. That was why I added the qualification about "some people on this list..." ;-} >What I think is very >unlikely is that they would publish something saying things like: > >1. Let's quit worrying about "fighting poverty" >2. Let's get rid of discrimination laws >3. Let's get rid of immigration laws You are right that I can't think of anyone at Brookings who would write anything like this. Though there have been some pretty serious questions raised about some other regulatory regimes. >To take another of my favorite examples, do you recall the "Looking >Before We Leap" project you were involved in a few years ago. The basic >premise, which sounds sensible enough, is that welfare reform programs >should be based on the best available social science information, which, >it turns out, is highly inconclusive. Hence, proceed with extreme >caution. > >When I read this, I suggested that when e.g. Medicare was >first proposed, Brookings didn't publish a parallel work emphasizing the >risk that the program might get out of control. I think you agreed that >the asymmetry was real. I don't agree with your characterization of the conclusions of this project. They were much more specific (concerning potential problems with funding etc.) then your characterizations and not very different from the sorts of criticisms and comments made by Brookings folks about the Clinton health care bill (I wasn't around during the Medicare debate). However, ... >I don't think the Brookings brand of scholarship is a product of >financial incentives so much as self-selection of personnel. Moderates >of all types feel comfortable at Brookings. Others probably wouldn't. >The same is true of other think tanks for the most part. I can't argue with this. The same operates to one degree or another in nearly every organization I'm familiar with. However as John Samples has acknowledged, there is a fair amount of diversity in points of view represented on the Brookings staff. It is my impression that we have a much broader representation of views than AEI, Herritage, Cato, PPI, or EPI. Let me turn now to Johns note. -- Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Re: More Guns, Less Crime?
At 9:12 AM -0500 1/22/01, William Dickens wrote: >There is no ideological test for work done at Brookings period. If >anything,there is a bit of premium for coming up with a good idea >which bucks the orthodoxy -- no matter which one. How many other >institutions can honestly make that claim? The University of Chicago. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Change of email address
Dear Family, Friends, and Colleagues: Effective immediately, my email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please disregard both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], which I am told will soon no longer function. You are receiving this email becasue you are in my email address book. If you have received duplicates, it was unintentional and I apologize. Best regards, Ed Edward J. Lopez Assistant Professor Department of Economics University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203-1457 Tel: 940.369.7005 Fax: 940.565.4426 NEW EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.econ.unt.edu/elopez
The Dismal Science
All economists ought to be aware of the true story of why economics was named the dismal science. It's not because of Malthus and the population issue but rather because the classical liberal economists thought that everyone, including blacks, were equal a proposition that that bastard Carlyle thought was truly "dismal." See http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html for the true story. Cheers 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]
RE: More Guns, Less Crime?
Krugman's original attack on Cato et al. was remarkably anti-liberal (in the classical sense or specifically in the sense of supporting a marketplace in ideas). Krugman's underlying assumption (which, I think, Bill Dickens shares to some extent) was that there are two kinds of intellectuals writing about policy: objective scientists and biased ideologues. Krugman put himself in the former category. It so happened that everyone on the right went into the latter category. The purblind arrogance and self-righteousness of the distinction was astonishing, even by Washington standards. What made it anti-liberal was Krugman's assertion that the "ideologues" served no public purpose, that they should not exist. Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you that "liberals" are inclusive and appreciate diversity. Now to Bill Dickens's points: "Brookings is unique in having a large fraction of its budget come from income from its endowment. We are truly beholden to no one. Although we receive government contracts, corporate and individual donations, and foundation money, no source is essential. A far more valuable asset to us than any funding source is our reputation for independent research." Brookings may be independent, but endowment income is not the cause. Consider three examples of institutions that have independent incomes and are heavily partisan: the Century Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. There are many more throughout the political spectrum. (As an aside, it makes sense that endowment income produces shirking, not independence. Not true in Brookings's case but otherwise robust, I think). "Another thing. Although Brookings is sometimes called a "liberal" think tank, that label ignores a fair amount of diversity in our make-up. The last two presidents appointed at Brookings were Republicans, and the head of the foreign policy program now is a Republican. There are several Republican Senior Fellows including a former Republican congressman. Several members of the staff who have Democratic leanings have, none the less, served in Republican administrations (heck, I was invited to serve as a Senior Economist to Bush's (the last one) CEA twice)." This confuses diversity in partisanship with diversity in ideology. The world of think tanks and foundations is filled with liberal Republicans added to this or that to provide "balance." So this argument on its own proves nothing. However, I happen to think Dickens is partially correct here. The fact that Bob Crandall and Pietro Nivola have neither been punished nor fired for their views suggests that Brookings does tolerate a degree of diversity. Jim Reichley also worked at Brookings for years, and Jim is about as conservative as anyone I know. Still, Brookings has heavy partisans like E.J. Dionne on board now. Brookings was also quite liberal more or less up and down the line back in the days when the country was quite left. Why have they become more moderate? I once heard Charlie Schultz remark that he went into government twice (with LBJ and Carter) and when he left both times, inflation and unemployment had risen. Reality set in. In Brookings's case, the lessons learned were translated through the economics profession. Or at least that is my theory. "Further, the Brookings charter gives a very minimum of ideological guidance. Some people on this list might consider the institution's purpose of improving the operation of government ideological, but that's pretty broad guidance compared to the much narrower and less inclusive guidance in the charters of organizations like Cato, Heritage and AEI." On this point, see above: objective scientists versus biased ideologues. Funny how only organizations on the right are "much narrower and less inclusive." The whole discussion of guns and social research raises deep and interesting questions. I am rather skeptical that any organization that produces writing and research on public issues will be neutral about values or politics. Brookings's good government/vital center/establishmentarianism is a political position too, one that is all the more effective because it says it's not a political position at all. I think the more interesting question is how we make public judgments about research and writing on political issues. Duncan McRae once argued for a kind of review process for policy work similarly to scholarly review. That may be a high standard. However, I do think there is something like a review process in the policy community (which includes part of the university world). Of course, it's also possible that there is a review process where the final reviewers are members of Congress or other policymakers. John Samples Cato Institute
RE: More Guns, Less Crime?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of I agree with you--I don't believe that public health bureaucrats will necessarily be more impartial. The point of Ropeik's article was that, initially, the EPA and the automobile industry each wasted millions of dollars funding studies that the other side would not accept as valid (precisely because, as you write, the automobile companies didn't trust the EPA bureaucrats' impartiality, and vice versa).So they agreed to jointly fund the Health Effects Institute to perform the studies. Neither side could then claim that the studies were skewed by ideological motivations. For this strategy to succeed, don't we have to assume that there are no principal-agent problems, that both funders could monitor the work and thus be tied to the results? How likely is the absence of principal-agent problems? John Samples Cato Institute
Re: More Guns, Less Crime?
William Dickens wrote: > > > Krugman, for example, pointed out that a place like Cato is > >never going to publish calls for government expansion. Fair enough; but > >is a place like Brookings (no offense, Bill) going to publish vocal > >cries for the abolition of popular programs? > > Why wouldn't we? Depending on what you mean by popular programs Brookings scholars >have always been in the business of advocating against poorly conceived programs. For >example, Joe Peckman's often repeated mantra of "broaden the base and lower the >rates," was meant to apply to all sorts of popular tax deductions including the >mortgage interest deduction. I don't think we really disagree here. Sure, Brookings people are happy to make marginal criticisms of the status quo. What I think is very unlikely is that they would publish something saying things like: 1. Let's quit worrying about "fighting poverty" 2. Let's get rid of discrimination laws 3. Let's get rid of immigration laws To take another of my favorite examples, do you recall the "Looking Before We Leap" project you were involved in a few years ago. The basic premise, which sounds sensible enough, is that welfare reform programs should be based on the best available social science information, which, it turns out, is highly inconclusive. Hence, proceed with extreme caution. When I read this, I suggested that when e.g. Medicare was first proposed, Brookings didn't publish a parallel work emphasizing the risk that the program might get out of control. I think you agreed that the asymmetry was real. I don't think the Brookings brand of scholarship is a product of financial incentives so much as self-selection of personnel. Moderates of all types feel comfortable at Brookings. Others probably wouldn't. The same is true of other think tanks for the most part. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[T]he power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous." -- Edward Gibbon, *The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*
RE: More Guns, Less Crime?
Amplifying Fred's point below, murder rates in the United States reflect very intense pockets. For example, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that Washington, DC, had a 1998 murder rate of 50 per 100,000 (down from recent years), compared to the U.S. rate of 8.4 reported by Girard below. Meanwhile, South Dakota had a 1998 murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000, lower than the rate of 1.97 reported below for the United Kingdom. One might speculate that the frequency of gun ownership in South Dakota is much higher than in the United Kingdom. Further, at first blush, it seems unlikely that frequency of gun ownership could explain the intense pockets of murder that account for so much of the U.S. total. The crime data are available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/datast.htm Walt -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More Guns, Less Crime? On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Girard wrote: > Why not look at the statistics? Here are some : > Percent of households with a handgun: > United States 29% > United Kingdom 1 > > Murders committed with handguns annually: > United States 8,915 > United Kingdom 7 > > Murder rate (per 100,000 people): > United States 8.40 > United Kingdom 1.97 > > Who needs long dissertations to prove that guns kill? Nothing is proved. This is post-hoc ergo propter-hoc. Culture is a key variable here. Given the culture, the freedom to defend oneself may well be correlated with lower crime rates. Vermont in the US has the most liberty in self-defense and low crime rates relative to other states. Fred Foldvary
Re: More Guns, Less Crime?
> Krugman, for example, pointed out that a place like Cato is >never going to publish calls for government expansion. Fair enough; but >is a place like Brookings (no offense, Bill) going to publish vocal >cries for the abolition of popular programs? Why wouldn't we? Depending on what you mean by popular programs Brookings scholars have always been in the business of advocating against poorly conceived programs. For example, Joe Peckman's often repeated mantra of "broaden the base and lower the rates," was meant to apply to all sorts of popular tax deductions including the mortgage interest deduction. Brookings is unique in having a large fraction of its budget come from income from its endowment. We are truly beholden to no one. Although we receive government contracts, corporate and individual donations, and foundation money, no source is essential. A far more valuable asset to us than any funding source is our reputation for independent research. Another thing. Although Brookings is sometimes called a "liberal" think tank, that label ignores a fair amount of diversity in our make-up. The last two presidents appointed at Brookings were Republicans, and the head of the foreign policy program now is a Republican. There are several Republican Senior Fellows including a former Republican congressman. Several members of the staff who have Democratic leanings have, none the less, served in Republican administrations (heck, I was invited to serve as a Senior Economist to Bush's (the last one) CEA twice). Further, the Brookings charter gives a very minimum of ideological guidance. Some people on this list might consider the institution's purpose of improving the operation of government ideological, but that's pretty broad guidance compared to the much narrower and less inclusive guidance in the charters of organizations like Cato, Heritage and AEI. There is no ideological test for work done at Brookings period. If anything,there is a bit of premium for coming up with a good idea which bucks the orthodoxy -- no matter which one. How many other institutions can honestly make that claim? I wouldn't have left a tenured job at U.C. Berkeley for this place if it was any other way. -- Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
