On Abortion and Political Spending
So I've finished reading Freakonomics and I enjoyed it. It definitely challenged my assumptions. Legalized abortion reduces crime? I find it hard to argue with the evidence Levitt and Dubner present, and it even makes sense when you think about it: Unwanted children are unwanted because their mothers don't believe they're in a position to raise them well. If those children are born anyway, they're likely to grow up under difficult circumstances, and their mothers may not take care of them as well because they didn't want them in the first place. And it's well-established that people who grow up under difficult circumstances are more likely to commit crimes. But that's such a cold and repulsive way to think about human lives. It's cool that economic analysis can lead to such a revelation, but as the authors acknowledge, it's also disturbing.
Maybe this is a reflection of my own political biases, but I'm not sure that I buy Levitt's conclusion that money doesn't make a difference in elections. It seems to defy common sense, although that in itself isn't a reason to discount it--the point of this book is to challenge conventional wisdom. But as someone who pays way too much attention to political campaigns, I would question Levitt's assumptions. He claims that by looking at instances in which the same two candidates run against each other in consecutive elections, he can isolate the effect (or non-effect) of campaign spending. But he's assuming that the elections are exactly the same, and I don't think that's right. His analysis is based on congressional races, and if you're looking at consecutive congressional races, you're always going to be comparing a presidential election to a midterm election. And during the last congressional campaign, we (or at least I) heard a lot about the difference between presidential and midterm elections: The composition of the electorate is not the same in midterm elections because fewer people vote, and midterm voters are generally more inclined to vote against the president's party. If a candidate spends twice as much money and doesn't improve his share of the vote, perhaps the story is not that the money didn't help him but that he needed to spend more money in order to overcome a more difficult political environment.
In any event, what bothers me the most about spending on political campaigns is not that it affects who wins. Contrary to what they might tell you, Democrats play the same games as Republicans and spend money just as obscenely. What bothers me is that a candidate can't even get into the race without a lot of money, so every candidate who makes it onto the ballot is beholden to someone. No one's independent. I would like my elected representatives to be beholden to me and my fellow voters--not whoever donated to their campaign. But that's not how the world works.
So, you want to research campaign spending? It's a hot topic right now. Or do you want to do something else? Have other economists challenged Levitt and Dubner?
ReplyDeleteHey Conrad! I really like what you’re investigating here with campaign spending and funding. I agree that there is no real independent candidate when funding for enormous campaigns requires strong alignment with a powerful group. It’s certainly an important and, as Ms. Romano pointed out, current issue. When do you think patterns of political spending became a large part of American campaigns? Also, is the issue of money in politics as great in other countries? Does it correlate with corruption?
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about the attitude that Levitt and Dubner have sticks with me. It seems odd that they can make points as liberal as the ones that you mention, then deny the role that money plays in politics. I might just be misunderstanding their argument or attitude, but it’s weird the way they try to justify the statement. I should look further into what they were saying.
I remember watching a documentary last year in Georgantas’s class about the Koch brothers and how they influence politics with big money. It might be a good source to supplement Freakonomics. If I remember correctly, the video was titled Park Avenue and it talks about how some of the wealthiest people in America rig the game in their favor.
One thing I think you did really well in this post was approaching the topic of economics. You say that the attitude the authors have towards their subjects seems to be “a cold and repulsive way to think about human lives.” Generally, that’s the problem with analysis performed by professionals. It is, indeed, “disturbing.”