I like Matt Ridley's observation along these lines from "How Innovation Works": “Evolution does not tell you anything about whether or not God exists; it simply proves that, if he does exist, he really hates top-down central planning.”
Smith's article is a fantastic, unintentional demonstration of the mindset that infects bureaucracy everywhere, not just the government. Doing things is seen as an absolute good, and simultaneously as proof that the organization serves a vital purpose. If the Office for Doing Things didn't exist to Do Things, then the Things simply would not get done. Therefore, this office should not only exist, but receive more funding and personnel to ensure it continues to do things.
It misses both the fact that most experiments fail, and many experimental ideas turn out to be unsound policy, and the fact that plenty of private enterprises and local governments exist to do the same things
Sorry Arnold. You picked just one sentence of Noah's column to show why Noah is spreading nonsense. Although I fully agree with your analysis, I regret you have ignored how grotesque the column is --it's all BS and much worst. If he were seriously interested in government contribution to high economic growth, he would center on education, from K to PhD. Like in most countries, the U.S. government plays a critical role in education, regardless of personal preferences and experiences. Government intervention in education is much more important than anything else governments have been doing to condition their countries's economic growth. Since parents to a degree share with government the formation of a country's human capital (or if you prefer, the process of child development into adults), if I were to undertake a serious assessment of the relative importance of government and "markets" in contributing to high economic growth, I would start by analyzing the roles of governments and parents in the formation of human capital. Indeed, when talking about government intervention makes nonsense to focus only on how much money government spends because most of its intervention relies on coercion via law enforcement and regulation. (BTW, I used to teach Argentina's Economic History, and I emphasized the great importance of government intervention in education during the period of high European immigration, and the complementarity between government and "markets" in that period).
Since Gordon Tullock was born February 13, 2022, I thought it might add to the discussion to quote him on what drives dynamism in research, in opposition to de Long, et al, on the merits of government directed research agendas.
In the second chapter "Why Inquire?" of the third volume ("The Organization of Inquiry") of his selected works at the most excellent Online Library of Liberty, one can find the following passage addressing scientists motivations:
"The present university administrators themselves, however, would be rather poor people to put in charge of deciding what research is important. Most are little interested in the results of research, although they feel that good research is necessary to maintain the prestige of the university, and many have the common man’s attitude of respectful admiration for “science.” If the administrator has come up from the research side, he may retain his interest in his particular field but is unlikely to be much more concerned with increasing knowledge on the interrelation of American Indian languages than is the average man. His real interests are administrative, particularly getting more money (he may be able to develop great enthusiasm for “science” if he thinks that this will increase his take). All of this is not to denigrate such men. They are necessary for the advancement of science, and their continual concern for getting more funds is of the utmost importance for the advancement of research. It is simply to say that the present scheme under which they do not have much to say in determining the relative merits of various investigators is not as irrational as it might appear.
Who then does decide? At first glance, it would appear that the editors of journals fulfil this function. In fact, although they are important, they fill a subordinate role. I could not turn myself into a power in chemistry by the simple expedient of starting a journal. The ultimate control lies in the hands of the readers. Every scientist who is really curious about his field reads a good deal of material in it. Although he probably does not read any one journal from cover to cover, he reads in a good many. Thus, although he may not have read any individual piece of research by a given other investigator, he can tell something about his ability by noting what journals have published his work.
The scheme works in somewhat the same manner as the market economy.
The individual scientists are both producers and consumers of research, producing on a specialized basis the results of their particular curiosity and consuming results of others’ particular curiosity in order to satisfy their general curiosity. Each one, by subscribing himself, or influencing institutions to subscribe, to journals and by making the type of statements which build or demolish reputations, contributes his mite to the importance of each journal. The editors of the journals are thus motivated to do their best to select the best articles from among the contributions they receive. Since the most prestigious journals usually get first choice of articles, a sort of hierarchy of excellence is established, and the general scientific worth of a man can be, in fact, approximated by simply counting the number of publications he has had in various journals."
Although I would argue with both some of the context and substance, and perhaps even the continued relevance of the observation given the complete and utter degradation of intellectual integrity in universities and journals generally, Tullock correctly, at least in my view, sees that even in the bowels of the bureaucratic hellworld of a government funded university, market-like patterns emerge. And it is most likely the extent to which such patterns flourish that in the end determine whether social benefits of any sort emerge from a program of research.
Donald Campbell called evolution a process of "blind variation and selective retention." In biology, Lamarckism collapses variation and selection into one step, and many think that cultural evolution is Lamarckian in that way because we can "plan" and foresee the result of our plans. Except, of course, that we can't always. It is not easy to admit that our plans are just as blind as random mutations.
Arnold hasn't argued that government can't do anything or even that government can't do anything well. He has argued that the market can do many more things better than the government. Pointing out China's success doesn't negate this argument. Nor does pointing out other government achievements.
This is true as far as it goes but ignores the role of government funding for R&D and infrastructure. This has been a key partner in innovation since Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures. Of course we need the private sector to experiment and commercialize but we also need the government to fund the infrastructure and much of the basic science. I’d go so far as to say this is intentionally misleading.
while there are indeed things here to celebrate, the role of markets in creating them is less clear.
2) I am not a tankie, but I think rational thinkers should agree that the greatest eco mic advance in the last 50 years has been in China. Libertarians must account for this evidence in their theories.
I like Matt Ridley's observation along these lines from "How Innovation Works": “Evolution does not tell you anything about whether or not God exists; it simply proves that, if he does exist, he really hates top-down central planning.”
Smith's article is a fantastic, unintentional demonstration of the mindset that infects bureaucracy everywhere, not just the government. Doing things is seen as an absolute good, and simultaneously as proof that the organization serves a vital purpose. If the Office for Doing Things didn't exist to Do Things, then the Things simply would not get done. Therefore, this office should not only exist, but receive more funding and personnel to ensure it continues to do things.
It misses both the fact that most experiments fail, and many experimental ideas turn out to be unsound policy, and the fact that plenty of private enterprises and local governments exist to do the same things
Sorry Arnold. You picked just one sentence of Noah's column to show why Noah is spreading nonsense. Although I fully agree with your analysis, I regret you have ignored how grotesque the column is --it's all BS and much worst. If he were seriously interested in government contribution to high economic growth, he would center on education, from K to PhD. Like in most countries, the U.S. government plays a critical role in education, regardless of personal preferences and experiences. Government intervention in education is much more important than anything else governments have been doing to condition their countries's economic growth. Since parents to a degree share with government the formation of a country's human capital (or if you prefer, the process of child development into adults), if I were to undertake a serious assessment of the relative importance of government and "markets" in contributing to high economic growth, I would start by analyzing the roles of governments and parents in the formation of human capital. Indeed, when talking about government intervention makes nonsense to focus only on how much money government spends because most of its intervention relies on coercion via law enforcement and regulation. (BTW, I used to teach Argentina's Economic History, and I emphasized the great importance of government intervention in education during the period of high European immigration, and the complementarity between government and "markets" in that period).
Since Gordon Tullock was born February 13, 2022, I thought it might add to the discussion to quote him on what drives dynamism in research, in opposition to de Long, et al, on the merits of government directed research agendas.
In the second chapter "Why Inquire?" of the third volume ("The Organization of Inquiry") of his selected works at the most excellent Online Library of Liberty, one can find the following passage addressing scientists motivations:
"The present university administrators themselves, however, would be rather poor people to put in charge of deciding what research is important. Most are little interested in the results of research, although they feel that good research is necessary to maintain the prestige of the university, and many have the common man’s attitude of respectful admiration for “science.” If the administrator has come up from the research side, he may retain his interest in his particular field but is unlikely to be much more concerned with increasing knowledge on the interrelation of American Indian languages than is the average man. His real interests are administrative, particularly getting more money (he may be able to develop great enthusiasm for “science” if he thinks that this will increase his take). All of this is not to denigrate such men. They are necessary for the advancement of science, and their continual concern for getting more funds is of the utmost importance for the advancement of research. It is simply to say that the present scheme under which they do not have much to say in determining the relative merits of various investigators is not as irrational as it might appear.
Who then does decide? At first glance, it would appear that the editors of journals fulfil this function. In fact, although they are important, they fill a subordinate role. I could not turn myself into a power in chemistry by the simple expedient of starting a journal. The ultimate control lies in the hands of the readers. Every scientist who is really curious about his field reads a good deal of material in it. Although he probably does not read any one journal from cover to cover, he reads in a good many. Thus, although he may not have read any individual piece of research by a given other investigator, he can tell something about his ability by noting what journals have published his work.
The scheme works in somewhat the same manner as the market economy.
The individual scientists are both producers and consumers of research, producing on a specialized basis the results of their particular curiosity and consuming results of others’ particular curiosity in order to satisfy their general curiosity. Each one, by subscribing himself, or influencing institutions to subscribe, to journals and by making the type of statements which build or demolish reputations, contributes his mite to the importance of each journal. The editors of the journals are thus motivated to do their best to select the best articles from among the contributions they receive. Since the most prestigious journals usually get first choice of articles, a sort of hierarchy of excellence is established, and the general scientific worth of a man can be, in fact, approximated by simply counting the number of publications he has had in various journals."
Although I would argue with both some of the context and substance, and perhaps even the continued relevance of the observation given the complete and utter degradation of intellectual integrity in universities and journals generally, Tullock correctly, at least in my view, sees that even in the bowels of the bureaucratic hellworld of a government funded university, market-like patterns emerge. And it is most likely the extent to which such patterns flourish that in the end determine whether social benefits of any sort emerge from a program of research.
Donald Campbell called evolution a process of "blind variation and selective retention." In biology, Lamarckism collapses variation and selection into one step, and many think that cultural evolution is Lamarckian in that way because we can "plan" and foresee the result of our plans. Except, of course, that we can't always. It is not easy to admit that our plans are just as blind as random mutations.
Arnold hasn't argued that government can't do anything or even that government can't do anything well. He has argued that the market can do many more things better than the government. Pointing out China's success doesn't negate this argument. Nor does pointing out other government achievements.
This is true as far as it goes but ignores the role of government funding for R&D and infrastructure. This has been a key partner in innovation since Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures. Of course we need the private sector to experiment and commercialize but we also need the government to fund the infrastructure and much of the basic science. I’d go so far as to say this is intentionally misleading.
1) Noah Smith is a techno optimist. Checking a recent list of things to celebrate
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/techno-optimism-for-2022
while there are indeed things here to celebrate, the role of markets in creating them is less clear.
2) I am not a tankie, but I think rational thinkers should agree that the greatest eco mic advance in the last 50 years has been in China. Libertarians must account for this evidence in their theories.