I think it is valuable to see voice and exit as complements. Without exit as the extreme end option, voice becomes trivial to ignore. Without voice as a way to communicate what is wrong fixing things never happens; exit just moves somewhere else and hopes it is better. Governments want to limit exit because it limits all power their subjects can exert, but limiting voice is nearly as effective, as we see with school boards calling the FBI on those parents who disagree with them. Raise the cost of voice enough, close to the cost of exit, and a sufficiently high cost of exit means you have both while silencing dissent.
If exit is valued more highly, this may have implications for tax policy. It would justify taxing foreign investment and immigrants at a higher rate since they are in a better position to exit than residents. Thoughts?
The importance of Voice in matters political is what makes the current attempts to close down what it is acceptable to Voice so concerning. Consider Martin Gurri’s recent essay on the use of “wokery” to do precisely that.
We need easy exit because we want voice at the level of parent-teacher cooperation. This focuses incentives toward the production of quality education. Without easy exit, we only have voice at the level of the school board or superintendent. (The teachers and assistant principals will honestly explain to us that, “They’re just following orders” or procedures.) At the level of the superintendent, the incentives are to cater to special interests and to play minimax regret. Hence, without easy exit we’re stuck in failing schools. Those who oppose exit (who oppose school choice) are perhaps unwittingly advocating for centralization. Would they prefer that we switch to federal command and control, and take local accountability out of school administration?
People with a monopoly on violence don't like exit. Taxpayers are in effect their property.
But what does a situation without a monopoly on violence look like? I think it looks like when the Russians said "No Peace, No War" and the Germans just rolled through the country one train station at a time. Pretty soon somebody with a monopoly on violence takes over.
Ultimately, you want your people with your ideals to be the one with a monopoly on violence. Then they can allow whatever exit they desire. If you're always exiting against hostiles, ultimately you run out of places to exit to. You have to take a stand at some point.
If Florida passes HB1 and gives everyone school vouchers, it will be because overwhelming majorities voted Republican and demanded it. There might well be lots of support for exit in Virginia or California or wherever, but it ain't going to happen without winning huge majorities amongst those that control the purse strings.
I think it is valuable to see voice and exit as complements. Without exit as the extreme end option, voice becomes trivial to ignore. Without voice as a way to communicate what is wrong fixing things never happens; exit just moves somewhere else and hopes it is better. Governments want to limit exit because it limits all power their subjects can exert, but limiting voice is nearly as effective, as we see with school boards calling the FBI on those parents who disagree with them. Raise the cost of voice enough, close to the cost of exit, and a sufficiently high cost of exit means you have both while silencing dissent.
Exit and Voice --> Arnold Kling's lens --> Nice and Easy. Well done sir.
If exit is valued more highly, this may have implications for tax policy. It would justify taxing foreign investment and immigrants at a higher rate since they are in a better position to exit than residents. Thoughts?
The importance of Voice in matters political is what makes the current attempts to close down what it is acceptable to Voice so concerning. Consider Martin Gurri’s recent essay on the use of “wokery” to do precisely that.
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2023/01/18/the-fifth-wave-twittermania/
We need easy exit because we want voice at the level of parent-teacher cooperation. This focuses incentives toward the production of quality education. Without easy exit, we only have voice at the level of the school board or superintendent. (The teachers and assistant principals will honestly explain to us that, “They’re just following orders” or procedures.) At the level of the superintendent, the incentives are to cater to special interests and to play minimax regret. Hence, without easy exit we’re stuck in failing schools. Those who oppose exit (who oppose school choice) are perhaps unwittingly advocating for centralization. Would they prefer that we switch to federal command and control, and take local accountability out of school administration?
People with a monopoly on violence don't like exit. Taxpayers are in effect their property.
But what does a situation without a monopoly on violence look like? I think it looks like when the Russians said "No Peace, No War" and the Germans just rolled through the country one train station at a time. Pretty soon somebody with a monopoly on violence takes over.
Ultimately, you want your people with your ideals to be the one with a monopoly on violence. Then they can allow whatever exit they desire. If you're always exiting against hostiles, ultimately you run out of places to exit to. You have to take a stand at some point.
If Florida passes HB1 and gives everyone school vouchers, it will be because overwhelming majorities voted Republican and demanded it. There might well be lots of support for exit in Virginia or California or wherever, but it ain't going to happen without winning huge majorities amongst those that control the purse strings.