Good Policies For Bad Governments

Politicians and policymakers are prone to the same biases as private citizens. Even if politicians are rational, little suggests that they have altruistic interests. Such concerns lead us to be wary of proposals that rely on benign governments to implement interventionist policies that protect us from ourselves. We recommend paternalism that recognizes both the promise and threat of activist government. We support interventions that channel behavior without taking away consumers' ability to choose for themselves. Such benign paternalism can lead to very dramatic behavioral changes. But benign paternalism does not give government true authority to control our lives and does not give private agents an incentive to reject such authority through black markets and other corrosive violations of the rule of law. We discuss five examples of policy interventions that will generate significant welfare gains without reducing consumer liberties. We believe that all policy proposals should be viewed with healthy skepticism. No doctor would prescribe a drug that only worked in theory. Likewise, economic policies should be tested with small-scale field experiments before they are adopted.

Building on a deep theoretical foundation and drawing on numerous examples, we examine how policies spread across the American states. We argue that for good policies to spread while bad policies are pushed aside, states must learn from one another. The three ingredients for this positive outcome are observable experiments, time to learn, and favorable incentives and expertise among policymakers. Although these ingredients are sometimes plentiful, we also note causes for concern, such as when policies are complex or incompatible with current practices, when policymakers give in to underlying political biases, or when political institutions lack the capacity for cultivating expertise. Under such conditions, states may rely on competition, imitation, and coercion, rather than learning, which can allow bad policies, rather than good ones, to spread. We conclude with lessons for reformers and policymakers and an assessment of our overall argument based on state responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

American government is in the midst of a reputation crisis. An overwhelming majority of citizens—Republicans and Democrats alike—hold negative perceptions of the government and believe it is wasteful, inefficient, and doing a generally poor job managing public programs and providing public services. When social problems arise, Americans are therefore skeptical that the government has the ability to respond effectively. It’s a serious problem, argues Amy E. Lerman, and it will not be a simple one to fix. With Good Enough for Government Work, Lerman uses surveys, experiments, and public opinion data to argue persuasively that the reputation of government is itself an impediment to government’s ability to achieve the common good. In addition to improving its efficiency and effectiveness, government therefore has an equally critical task: countering the belief that the public sector is mired in incompetence. Lerman takes readers through the main challenges. Negative perceptions are highly resistant to change, she shows, because we tend to perceive the world in a way that confirms our negative stereotypes of government—even in the face of new information. Those who hold particularly negative perceptions also begin to “opt out” in favor of private alternatives, such as sending their children to private schools, living in gated communities, and refusing to participate in public health insurance programs. When sufficient numbers of people opt out of public services, the result can be a decline in the objective quality of public provision. In this way, citizens’ beliefs about government can quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with consequences for all. Lerman concludes with practical solutions for how the government might improve its reputation and roll back current efforts to eliminate or privatize even some of the most critical public services.

'Everyone wants good government, but how do we know when we have it? The path-breaking Quality of Government Institute cuts through the tiresome ideological debate with theoretically grounded empirical analyses of the components, measures, and outcomes of good government. The book's contributors demonstrate the relevance of political science, and they do so with arguments and evidence that should improve policy and, ultimately, peoples' lives.' – Margaret Levi, University of Washington, US 'All too often today research in political science is irrelevant and uninspiring, shying away from the "big" questions that actually matter in people's lives. Good Government shows that this does not have to be the case. Tackling some of the "biggest" questions of the contemporary era – What is good government? Where does it come from? How can it be measured and how does it matter? – this book will prove invaluable to academics and policy makes alike.' – Sheri Berman, Barnard College, US 'What is "Good Government?" Few doubt that it is better to have a "good government" than a "bad" one, but few of us have thought carefully about what makes for good government vs. bad. Sören Holmberg and Bo Rothstein's excellent volume helps fill in this gap. Though the book is more than this, the focus on corruption is particularly fascinating. We know that corruption is "bad" but where does it come from? Why are some legislatures more corrupt than others? Why does the media sometimes collude? Why are women less easily corrupted than men? These are just a few of the many fascinating questions this volume explores. By bridging democratic theory, public policy and institutional analysis, it is one of the first to give us some practical insight into the obviously important question: what makes some governments "better" than others?' – Sven Steinmo, European University Institute, Italy In all societies, the quality of government institutions is of the utmost importance for the well-being of its citizens. Problems like high infant mortality, lack of access to safe water, unhappiness and poverty are not primarily caused by a lack of technical equipment, effective medicines or other types of knowledge generated by the natural or engineering sciences. Instead, the critical problem is that the majority of the world's population live in societies that have dysfunctional government institutions. Central issues discussed in the book include: how can good government be conceptualized and measured, what are the effects of 'bad government' and how can the quality of government be improved? Good Government will prove invaluable for students in political science, public policy and public administration. Researchers in political science and the social sciences, as well as policy analysts working in government, international and independent policy organizations will also find plenty to interest them in this resourceful compendium.

This highly anticipated addition to the "Great Questions in Politics" series offers a provocative argument about the persistence of bad ideas in shaping American economic policy. The result of a collaboration between political scientist Bryan D. Jones and economist Walter Williams, The Politics of Bad Ideas is indispensable reading for any study of American government, public policy, or economic and budgetary analysis. The Politics of Bad Ideas examines why, over the last quarter century, bad economic ideas -- such as cutting taxes without cutting spending -- have become so influential in shaping government policies. Using in-depth research and trenchant political and economic analysis, the book explores why those bad ideas continue to survive despite overwhelming evidence that they in fact cause damage to the federal government's long-term fiscal stability and the American economy.

I often find myself going easy on the government. I let them off the hook by attributing the consequences of their actions to a failure. In this book, I will not be so kind. I believe that the results of government policies and actions are more than mere failure. Whichever country we are talking about, I believe all government policies and actions are actively harmful. Yes, all of them. Failure presumes a level of innocence, ignorance, or accident. I do not believe these excuses are justified. Governments do know what they are doing. Modern policies all have long histories and precedents. We are not experimenting - these are tried and true procedures. They haven't just failed us, they have harmed us. And they will continue to do so unless we make dramatic changes in our government systems. We have had more than enough time to see the consequences of every government policy. There is no longer any excuse for the pain and suffering these policies continue to cause. All policy derives first from ideology. The people who comprise governments believe certain things, and they form policies around these beliefs. I will argue that these ideologies are flawed at the core, and so any policies derived from them will also be flawed. There are two parts to my grievances with the government. First, we do not need the government to do the things it does. The useful functions we supposedly need the government to oversee can be handled by private enterprises. Often, these functions are already contracted privately. Roads are built and maintained by private companies, schools can be run privately just as effectively as by the government, and every other aspect of the amenities that comprise our modern life can be designed, built, and regulated by private industries. The second grievance is that governments tend to do things that do not need to be done at all. In the first case, the harm is a simple waste of resources. We do not need the middleman to contract private businesses. In the second case, the harm is much greater. When governments take it upon themselves to impose unnecessary rules, infrastructure, propaganda campaigns, and wars, we are all harmed. In my lifetime I have considered myself both a liberal and a conservative. I have voted for both left and right parties in my home country. I am now convinced that the distinction between left and right is a false dichotomy. These are two heads of the same serpent. I will not make the case that we should abolish government outright. We have a society deeply structured around an existing control system. Removing the system completely, I do believe would be chaos. I think there is a way out, but we must first understand the problem before we can really talk about a solution.

With unrivalled political savvy and a keen sense of irony, distinguished political scientists Anthony King and Ivor Crewe open our eyes to the worst government horror stories and explain why the British political system is quite so prone to appalling mistakes.

What is it exactly that makes a governments good or bad? One of Britain's leading theoreticians and practitioners of government explains how governments work, how they should work, and why good government matters.

“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Such comments spotlight a central question animating Suzanne Mettler’s provocative and timely book: why are many Americans unaware of government social benefits and so hostile to them in principle, even though they receive them? The Obama administration has been roundly criticized for its inability to convey how much it has accomplished for ordinary citizens. Mettler argues that this difficulty is not merely a failure of communication; rather it is endemic to the formidable presence of the “submerged state.” In recent decades, federal policymakers have increasingly shunned the outright disbursing of benefits to individuals and families and favored instead less visible and more indirect incentives and subsidies, from tax breaks to payments for services to private companies. These submerged policies, Mettler shows, obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the market. As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance companies and the financial industry. Neither do they realize that the policies of the submerged state shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans, exacerbating inequality. Mettler analyzes three Obama reforms—student aid, tax relief, and health care—to reveal the submerged state and its consequences, demonstrating how structurally difficult it is to enact policy reforms and even to obtain public recognition for achieving them. She concludes with recommendations for reform to help make hidden policies more visible and governance more comprehensible to all Americans. The sad truth is that many American citizens do not know how major social programs work—or even whether they benefit from them. Suzanne Mettler’s important new book will bring government policies back to the surface and encourage citizens to reclaim their voice in the political process.

One of the primary reasons that otherwise good politicians enact bad policies in countries all over the world, but especially in low-income countries, is that they face significant constraints in their efforts to bring about reform. These constraints, the "room for maneuver", are shaped by the degree of social cohesion in a country and the quality of its institution.