Jim Manzi recently did what all policy analysts and political economists are required to periodically do: he wrote about Negative Income Tax (NIT). NIT goes by numerous aliases, including Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI), Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), and Guaranteed Living Income (GLI), and is a streamlined welfare system that, in the words of the Basic Income Earth Network, involves "an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.”
Manzi does a fine job showing the system's flaws, which is not surprising; Manzi's good at what he does. What's most interesting to me is a general point about public policy debates that he makes in passing. Regarding the apparent simplicity/'tidiness' advantage NIT/GLI has over the red-tape laden bureaucratic status quo, he notes:
it is the difference between an academic idea that has not yet been subjected to lobbying and legislation, on one hand, and real laws that are the product of a democratic process, on the other. ...[T]here is nothing inherent about an NIT that will prevent Congress from creating thousands of pages of special rules, exemptions, tax expenditures and so on, that are collectively just as convoluted as the current welfare system. After all, “tax each person a given fraction of income” is a pretty simple idea too, but look at the 2011 federal income tax code.
That's exactly correct. Being serious about policy requires us to be at least half serious about the political process and the people involved in it. What could this look like here? is a better question than what could this look like in starting-government-from-scratch-with-a-perfect-citizenry-and-perfect-politicians-ville?
Good advice for Theory Folk like me - I know we all secretly wish that political science were just like Age of Empires with the cheat codes turned on.
ReplyDeleteIn case you're not a nerd, Age of Empires is one of those computer games where you build a civilization.
Yeah, reality is more complex than the tidy conceptual sphere for sure. I also think, however, that when things get more complex in political arenas, this is not only a result of the need to cater a crystalline principle to an imperfect, rule-defying world, as though politicians are dutifully tinkering with our best interest in mind, just for this purpose. Obfuscation can be advantageous for the governments, and the petty tit-for-tatness of democratic contestation will produce sometimes unnecessary complexity in policy. I just don't want to suggest that politicians are ONLY interested in practicality when they do their tinkering.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, and I see that you take this consideration into account in the "perfect-politicians-ville" statement. I guess I didn't contribute anything, then, but I was feeling sorry for this thread, especially if it were to look over and see how prolific its neighbor has been. Hey, there should be an "Important award" for the most provocative thread each month!
ReplyDelete