Sir William Wallace, the historical figure who inspired the movie Braveheart, might have his dream of a free, independent Scotland come true. This week is a big week for Scotland because it is voting on a referendum for Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom. Such a referendum would have huge implications not only for the United Kingdom and the pound zone, but even for the entire world. Scotland has a long history of wanting to be its own country, even in spite of voluntarily joining the United Kingdom in the eighteenth century, so such an impetus does not surprise me. What I have to wonder is whether passing such a referendum would be a good move for Scotland or not.
Looking at secession from a political theory lens is interesting, especially when making a libertarian argument for self-determination and voluntary association, although making nationalistic arguments either way are of a much more subjective nature, which I do my utmost to avoid when analyzing public policy issues. For me, such debate has very little practical implication. Sure, Scotland can claim a moral right to secede or leeway under international law, but from that standpoint, it comes down to whether Scotland can get away with it. Other countries have gotten away with it: Finland, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states. We can debate whether being a small country is actually an advantage, and looking at the aforementioned list, success is a mixed bag. Even if Scotland can successfully become its own country (see the Scottish government's analysis on the prospectives of independence), it might not be wise for Scotland do to so for a few reasons (HM Government, 2014).
My primary concern regarding Scottish independence is that Scotland is currently a part of the British monetary union. If Scotland secedes from the British government, will it still keep the pound (MacDonald, 2010)? If Scotland wants independence from London, then wouldn't it want full independence from Britain? Will London retaliate and kick Scotland out of the pound zone if Scotland secedes? In spite of whatever flaws British monetary policy might have, the pound is a relatively stable currency. It would be a disservice for Scotland to lose such monetary stability, not to mention that secession could very well erode London's monetary stability, although neither Fitch nor Moody's are worried about the UK's creditworthiness if this occurs.
What would be Scotland's alternative monetary options if it secedes? Adopt its own currency? Adopt the nascent Bitcoin? Adopt the euro? Scotland currently doesn't have a central bank or fiscal backstop, and if Scotland tries to enter the European Union, it will have troubles doing so. In order to become a member state, it needs the unanimous votes of all 28 states, including the United Kingdom. Good luck getting Westminster's consent on that one! And even if the EU approves after years of bureaucratic nightmares, it would only encourage more secessionist movements, which I assume that various EU countries (e.g., Spain) do not want to endure. Also, will the EU even want to admit Scotland into the EU? If Scotland can't get along with its closest neighbor, how well will it be able to get along with other European nations with which Scotland has less in common? Scotland's independence would refute the idea that democratic nations can accommodate pluralism.
What will become of Scotland's currency usage is not only a vitally important question, but it remains an unanswered one. If I had to make an educated guess, the confusion and havoc caused will make it difficult to maintain the monetary union if Scotland declares independence. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Scotland would have a more difficult time with long-term fiscal sustainability if it becomes independent. Interestingly enough, though, Standard and Poor's is not too worried about Scottish independence and views Scotland as creditworthy, but there are still many economic woes with which Scotland would have to contend. The pound is one of the top currencies held in global reserves, and if the pound further depreciates because of Scotland's independence (which is possible considering a) the pound's relative decline since this all began, and b) London would appear to be disorganized and weak), it could very well have a ripple effect on the global economy. Furthermore, Scotland would be heavily relying on its gas and oil industry to drive its economy, which can be daunting considering the volatility of energy sector prices. And what happens when Scotland's oil runs out? One of the basic tenets of investment is to diversify your portfolio because it minimizes risk. Scotland would have to rely more heavily on its other industries if petroleum isn't the great boom they think it is. Euromonitor International finds that Scotland would not experience a huge dent in their consumption, which would be an argument for Scotland's independence. Also, some of Scotland's most prominent banks are also threatening to move their business to England, which would be bad for Scottish economic prospects. Since Scotland's finance sector is very much tied to London's financial markets, Scotland's independence, as nominal as it might be, would be illusory. Looking at the "Yes Scotland" website, the proponents pushing for independence want to either maintain or increase government services, which doesn't sit well with me from a libertarian worldview.
There are a few other transition costs to consider. Scotland already has sovereignty in quite a few policy issues, including agriculture, education, tourism, and law and order, so it's not like Scotland has to kowtow to Queen Mum for every last thing. From a militaristic view, there is dividing the British army and determining Scotland's status in NATO. There is a question of whether trade between the UK and Scotland would be more constricted in terms of freedom of movement and freedom of trade, especially since the UK is the largest importer of Scottish goods. Scotch whiskey producers are at least worried about this. Furthermore, Scotland would need tens of billions of pounds in its reserves to pull this off. Finally, I'm going to have to agree with Paul Krugman on something, even if for different reasons: a monetary union without a fiscal union is disastrous. Just look at the European Union. We don't need to repeat history if we could help it. This is compounded by the current political fragility not only in the UK, but in Europe in general. Certain European countries are just getting out of the recession (e.g., Spain). Even if you think that Scotland declaring its independence is a good idea, is this really the best time to do so?
Ultimately, it is up to the Scottish people as to whether it should roll the dice. While I think that there are some potential benefits to Scottish secession, there are enough risks and costs where I, along with the majority of economists, simply think Scottish is too risqué for the Scottish people.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Knocking Some Sense Into the Federal Government About Its Policy on Domestic Violence
Tomorrow will be the 20th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), VAWA was created back in 1994 to address violent crime, particularly against women. Its method of addressing violence against women was twofold: (1) enhanced investigations and prosecutions of sex offenses, and (2) provided a number of grant programs to address the issue of violence of women (CRS, 2014, p. 2). With a name like the Violence Against Women Act, one would have to be sadistic to believe violence against women is a good thing. Sexual assault, rape, violence, and murder are all acts against humanity that are decidedly against libertarian principles, i.e., it violates the nonagression axiom. As the Center for Disease Control (CDC) points out, domestic violence even has long-term effects that surpass the period of the abuse. So how can anybody against VAWA and the noble cause of fighting domestic violence? Its goal is to reduce, or even eliminate, violent crimes against women. However, just because a piece of legislation has a name such as the Violence Against Women Act doesn't mean it's a form of "truth in advertisement." The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has the word "affordable" in it, but the ACA has hardly made health care more affordable. What about VAWA? Does it properly target violence against women, or is VAWA just another government initiative with good intentions, but lousy results?
Before delving in, I think it's always worth it to mention the price tag of any government initiative. VAWA is a program that costs the taxpayers $412.5M per annum (the CBO puts the estimated costs at a higher number). In comparison to the $3.45T (FY 2013) budget, the cost of this program is relatively minute (i.e., about a ten-thousandth of the federal budget). Ways to make more efficient programming and curb waste is constantly at the forefront of my mind, but it's not a huge cost driver of federal-level debt, so I'll leave that one alone for now. I'll spend more of my focus on how VAWA does or could affect violence against women.
How good of a job has VAWA done in terms of reducing violence against women? From 1993 to 2010, we see a 64 percent decrease in intimate partner violence, which is great. The issue here is that the rates that criminal acts were decreasing in the early 1990's. How much can we honestly attribute to VAWA and how much can we attribute to the overall decrease in criminal behavior? Correlation is not the same thing as causation, which is something the Government Accountability Office had a problem with VAWA back in 2002 because no one conducted rigorous, experimental evaluation of VAWA's effectiveness. Unsurprisingly, this evaluation still has not been conducted, which means there is no actual evidence that VAWA was responsible for the domestic violence decreases. If anything, it seems that VAWA has had no unique effect on domestic violence rates (Cho and Wilke, 2010).
Looking at the CRS report, VAWA puts too heavy of a focus on law enforcement, thereby diminishing the complexity of domestic violence. Considering that VAWA was created during the end of the "tough on crime" heyday, it should be no surprise that a majority of VAWA funds go to prosecuting and other expenditures related to law enforcement. At the very least, VAWA funds should de-emphasize law enforcement and focus more on prevention, job and vocational training, finding a way to leave the abuser, or addressing the underfunded shelters. Additionally, when discussing problem-solving in a public policy context, we have to ask ourselves what are the root causes [of domestic violence]. The CDC provides an extensive list of over thirty causes of intimate partner violence, ranging from unemployment to depression to belief in strict gender roles to anger issues to poverty to substance abuse. Since the issue of intimate partner violence is so complex and intertwined, we would have to look at a combination of mental health, poverty relief, health care, education, and economic policy to address the issues. And even in the improbability that we can craft a policy to address all those issues, we cannot succumb to Vice President Biden's recent naïveté of thinking the government can stop domestic violence with government policy.
I additionally worry about unintended consequences of VAWA, aside from less funding going to directly address the root causes. One is that of mandatory arrest laws. In addition to doing away with "innocent until proven guilty," mandatory arrest laws increase arrest rates. This might seem like a good idea but what happens is that the woman worries that her husband gets thrown in jail. Since she doesn't want her partner getting thrown in jail, it leads to either retracted accusations or the more common occurrence of reporting domestic abuse less. As a result, intimate partner homicide increases (Iyengar, 2007).
It is also unfortunate how these laws depict men and women as narrow, inaccurate gender stereotypes. "Men are sex-crazed abusers. Women are victims." This mentality is not good for either gender. While there are some general differences between the genders, assuming that men are always the assailant in a domestic abuse case is simply not true. For starters, let's realize that nearly one in four men are victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. While women are statistically more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse, it is not as if men never are victims. Women can victimize, as well, and there are numerous instances in which the domestic violence is reciprocal (e.g., Whitaker et al., 2006). Take a look at this 2010 report by the CDC (particularly Chapter 4), and I can tell you that the number of male victims (CDC, 2010, Table 4.2) in a domestic abuse case is more numerous that one would have thought. 31 million males: that is nothing to scoff at, especially when that is approximately 28.5 percent of the male population. These numbers are most probably underestimates because individuals underreport domestic violence. If women are prone to underreporting because of the shame, think of how much more men are going to underreport domestic violence when it has the potential to emasculate them in a culture of hypemasculinity.
I am not to here diminish what female victims endure. I can only imagine what a female victim who goes through when she is victimized. However, we also need to recognize that there are also a sizeable amount of male victims. Not only is VAWA a Title IX violation, but it an assault on the idea of equal treatment under the law. We should not have laws that say that violence against women is more heinous than violence against men. A victim of a crime is a victim, regardless of gender.
In summation, I would suggest the following reform for VAWA. De-emphasize the "tough on crime" aspect. Put more emphasis on domestic shelters, as well as addressing root causes. Mitigate some of the fraud issues. Conduct effective evaluation that can determine VAWA efficacy. Create a societal climate in which both male and female victims feel that they can talk about their abuse and prevent future violence. Finally, and most importantly, make the law gender-neutral. If we are going to live in a pluralistic society where we emphasize that our similarities are more important than our differences, we need to create laws that help both men and women.
Before delving in, I think it's always worth it to mention the price tag of any government initiative. VAWA is a program that costs the taxpayers $412.5M per annum (the CBO puts the estimated costs at a higher number). In comparison to the $3.45T (FY 2013) budget, the cost of this program is relatively minute (i.e., about a ten-thousandth of the federal budget). Ways to make more efficient programming and curb waste is constantly at the forefront of my mind, but it's not a huge cost driver of federal-level debt, so I'll leave that one alone for now. I'll spend more of my focus on how VAWA does or could affect violence against women.
How good of a job has VAWA done in terms of reducing violence against women? From 1993 to 2010, we see a 64 percent decrease in intimate partner violence, which is great. The issue here is that the rates that criminal acts were decreasing in the early 1990's. How much can we honestly attribute to VAWA and how much can we attribute to the overall decrease in criminal behavior? Correlation is not the same thing as causation, which is something the Government Accountability Office had a problem with VAWA back in 2002 because no one conducted rigorous, experimental evaluation of VAWA's effectiveness. Unsurprisingly, this evaluation still has not been conducted, which means there is no actual evidence that VAWA was responsible for the domestic violence decreases. If anything, it seems that VAWA has had no unique effect on domestic violence rates (Cho and Wilke, 2010).
Looking at the CRS report, VAWA puts too heavy of a focus on law enforcement, thereby diminishing the complexity of domestic violence. Considering that VAWA was created during the end of the "tough on crime" heyday, it should be no surprise that a majority of VAWA funds go to prosecuting and other expenditures related to law enforcement. At the very least, VAWA funds should de-emphasize law enforcement and focus more on prevention, job and vocational training, finding a way to leave the abuser, or addressing the underfunded shelters. Additionally, when discussing problem-solving in a public policy context, we have to ask ourselves what are the root causes [of domestic violence]. The CDC provides an extensive list of over thirty causes of intimate partner violence, ranging from unemployment to depression to belief in strict gender roles to anger issues to poverty to substance abuse. Since the issue of intimate partner violence is so complex and intertwined, we would have to look at a combination of mental health, poverty relief, health care, education, and economic policy to address the issues. And even in the improbability that we can craft a policy to address all those issues, we cannot succumb to Vice President Biden's recent naïveté of thinking the government can stop domestic violence with government policy.
I additionally worry about unintended consequences of VAWA, aside from less funding going to directly address the root causes. One is that of mandatory arrest laws. In addition to doing away with "innocent until proven guilty," mandatory arrest laws increase arrest rates. This might seem like a good idea but what happens is that the woman worries that her husband gets thrown in jail. Since she doesn't want her partner getting thrown in jail, it leads to either retracted accusations or the more common occurrence of reporting domestic abuse less. As a result, intimate partner homicide increases (Iyengar, 2007).
It is also unfortunate how these laws depict men and women as narrow, inaccurate gender stereotypes. "Men are sex-crazed abusers. Women are victims." This mentality is not good for either gender. While there are some general differences between the genders, assuming that men are always the assailant in a domestic abuse case is simply not true. For starters, let's realize that nearly one in four men are victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. While women are statistically more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse, it is not as if men never are victims. Women can victimize, as well, and there are numerous instances in which the domestic violence is reciprocal (e.g., Whitaker et al., 2006). Take a look at this 2010 report by the CDC (particularly Chapter 4), and I can tell you that the number of male victims (CDC, 2010, Table 4.2) in a domestic abuse case is more numerous that one would have thought. 31 million males: that is nothing to scoff at, especially when that is approximately 28.5 percent of the male population. These numbers are most probably underestimates because individuals underreport domestic violence. If women are prone to underreporting because of the shame, think of how much more men are going to underreport domestic violence when it has the potential to emasculate them in a culture of hypemasculinity.
I am not to here diminish what female victims endure. I can only imagine what a female victim who goes through when she is victimized. However, we also need to recognize that there are also a sizeable amount of male victims. Not only is VAWA a Title IX violation, but it an assault on the idea of equal treatment under the law. We should not have laws that say that violence against women is more heinous than violence against men. A victim of a crime is a victim, regardless of gender.
In summation, I would suggest the following reform for VAWA. De-emphasize the "tough on crime" aspect. Put more emphasis on domestic shelters, as well as addressing root causes. Mitigate some of the fraud issues. Conduct effective evaluation that can determine VAWA efficacy. Create a societal climate in which both male and female victims feel that they can talk about their abuse and prevent future violence. Finally, and most importantly, make the law gender-neutral. If we are going to live in a pluralistic society where we emphasize that our similarities are more important than our differences, we need to create laws that help both men and women.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Yes, Spain's Economy Is on the Road to Recovery, But....
The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) made an important announcement a couple of days ago: Spain's economy is on the road to recovery. After dealing with nearly a half decade of negative GDP growth, Spain is seeing positive GDP growth once more. This is good news or a country whose nominal GDP is over $1T, and is relatively more reassuring than what we see in Italy right now. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) echoed similar positivity in its recently published Article IV Consultation, pointing out that exports are driving the recession, domestic demand is making a comeback, and labor reforms have been enacted (p. 4). By looking at many of Spain's macroeconomic indicators (for my Spanish-speaking readership, you will also enjoy this July report from la Asociación Española de Banca on economic indicators), it seems like Spain is doing better. Even with this good news, what the data on the Spanish economy tell us is that Spain is hardly out of the woods yet.
If we take a closer look at the OECD's latest economic survey, Spain still has some issues, most notably with unemployment (IMF, p. 7). One in four Spaniards are still unemployed, which is well above the Euro Zone average of 12 percent. The OECD recommends additional job search assistance and vocational training to remedy this issue. Price Waterhouse Coopers also points out in a recent report that a proper investment in human capital will be vital for Spain's future (p. 73-74). Looking at the World Bank's Doing Business Index (as well as OECD analysis; OECD, p. 10), it would help if Spain loosened up some regulations, especially when starting a business. If the World Bank is ranking you where your country is the most difficult in the Euro Zone to start a business, you should do something to foster economic growth in the private sector. Entrepreneurship is key for boosting economic growth, and is something Spain should keep in mind.
Public sector debt, combined with its high tax burden, also remains a major issue for the Spanish economy. Before the recession, the debt-to-GDP ratio was just at 36 percent. Now, it's at a whopping 94 percent, which doesn't do any favors for its International Investment Position. Being able to pay of this debt is vital for Spain's economy in the upcoming years, which is why tax reform is a good idea (OECD, p. 10). This means cutting back on the income tax, removing the preferential treatment on the value-added tax (IMF, p. 26), and removing the bank tax. Spain should make its tax broader and more efficient to mimic its European counterparts. Cutting back on its welfare state would also do wonders for the Spanish economy.
We can go into other facets of the Spanish economy. We can talk about it's a good thing that Spain keeps inflation low enough to maintain a sense of competitiveness (IMF, p. 33) because the Euro Zone is in that bad of shape. We can discuss fiscal consolidation (IMF, p. 25), reducing trade barriers (IMF, p. 24), but if the reports from IMF and OECD indicate anything, it's that Spain's recovery, while impressive, needs further reforms if we want to actually consider it long-lasting.
If we take a closer look at the OECD's latest economic survey, Spain still has some issues, most notably with unemployment (IMF, p. 7). One in four Spaniards are still unemployed, which is well above the Euro Zone average of 12 percent. The OECD recommends additional job search assistance and vocational training to remedy this issue. Price Waterhouse Coopers also points out in a recent report that a proper investment in human capital will be vital for Spain's future (p. 73-74). Looking at the World Bank's Doing Business Index (as well as OECD analysis; OECD, p. 10), it would help if Spain loosened up some regulations, especially when starting a business. If the World Bank is ranking you where your country is the most difficult in the Euro Zone to start a business, you should do something to foster economic growth in the private sector. Entrepreneurship is key for boosting economic growth, and is something Spain should keep in mind.
Public sector debt, combined with its high tax burden, also remains a major issue for the Spanish economy. Before the recession, the debt-to-GDP ratio was just at 36 percent. Now, it's at a whopping 94 percent, which doesn't do any favors for its International Investment Position. Being able to pay of this debt is vital for Spain's economy in the upcoming years, which is why tax reform is a good idea (OECD, p. 10). This means cutting back on the income tax, removing the preferential treatment on the value-added tax (IMF, p. 26), and removing the bank tax. Spain should make its tax broader and more efficient to mimic its European counterparts. Cutting back on its welfare state would also do wonders for the Spanish economy.
We can go into other facets of the Spanish economy. We can talk about it's a good thing that Spain keeps inflation low enough to maintain a sense of competitiveness (IMF, p. 33) because the Euro Zone is in that bad of shape. We can discuss fiscal consolidation (IMF, p. 25), reducing trade barriers (IMF, p. 24), but if the reports from IMF and OECD indicate anything, it's that Spain's recovery, while impressive, needs further reforms if we want to actually consider it long-lasting.
Monday, September 8, 2014
Summing Up Whether Teach for America Is a Success
Teach for America is a non-profit organization that enlists recent college graduates and professionals to teach for at least two years in low-income communities throughout America. Teach for America receives its funding primarily from private donations, but also some Title VIII government funds, i.e., it functions more as a private-sector institution. Vox recently published a lengthy article regarding its criticisms and how it finally is looking to change its practices. What is it about the non-profit that causes such a ruckus?
One form of criticism is that most leave after the two-year commitment. For some, teaching in low-income areas is not quite what they imagined. Many find teaching opportunities elsewhere, especially if they are higher-quality, better-paying jobs. As long as there are those who are interested in the Teach for America program (which seems to be the case, given its acceptance rate), at least the teacher shortage issue is solved. The second criticism is that these corps members do not have an extensive training program. While five weeks is better than nothing, it is arguably insufficient. Although an intensive summer program is no substitute for experience, Teach for America has implemented professional development metrics for the corps members throughout the program. Even so, maybe traditional public teacher education is preferable, although with the way tenure works, I'm not so sure. Even with the lack of experience, maybe the Teach for America corps members fare better because they're younger, more energized, and more likely to try out different methodologies that could very well be better than the status quo of teacher unions. What do the more rigorous studies have to say on the matter?
Even if you were to argue that Teach for America was merely a pathway for charter school recruitment, it is hard to argue with the results. Some studies found that Teach for America teachers perform just as well (Turner et al., 2012). The Left-leaning Urban Institute found that by using student performance exams as a metric, Teach for America teachers do a better job of teaching (Xu et al., 2009). The U.S. Department of Education commissioned a report in 2013 showing that Teach for America corp members were more effective than the teachers to whom they were compared. A standard deviation of 0.07 might not sound like a lot, but it is the equivalent of an additional 2.6 months of schooling for the average student to be exact, not to mention intuition could arguably tell us that more experienced teachers in the public school system would perform better. Those who go through Teach for America actually have more conviction and are more likely to stick with teaching (Fryer, 2011). As for spillover effects, they may or may not exist. Regardless, the Teach for America program has high overall satisfaction.
Like any other organization, it isn't perfect and Teach for America can use some reform. However, if we are to look at the big picture, Teach for America is a [largely] private-sector success to help improve upon the quality of public education in this country. While Teach for America cannot be expected to solve all of the woes facing the American public education sector, it certainly is a step in the right direction.
One form of criticism is that most leave after the two-year commitment. For some, teaching in low-income areas is not quite what they imagined. Many find teaching opportunities elsewhere, especially if they are higher-quality, better-paying jobs. As long as there are those who are interested in the Teach for America program (which seems to be the case, given its acceptance rate), at least the teacher shortage issue is solved. The second criticism is that these corps members do not have an extensive training program. While five weeks is better than nothing, it is arguably insufficient. Although an intensive summer program is no substitute for experience, Teach for America has implemented professional development metrics for the corps members throughout the program. Even so, maybe traditional public teacher education is preferable, although with the way tenure works, I'm not so sure. Even with the lack of experience, maybe the Teach for America corps members fare better because they're younger, more energized, and more likely to try out different methodologies that could very well be better than the status quo of teacher unions. What do the more rigorous studies have to say on the matter?
Even if you were to argue that Teach for America was merely a pathway for charter school recruitment, it is hard to argue with the results. Some studies found that Teach for America teachers perform just as well (Turner et al., 2012). The Left-leaning Urban Institute found that by using student performance exams as a metric, Teach for America teachers do a better job of teaching (Xu et al., 2009). The U.S. Department of Education commissioned a report in 2013 showing that Teach for America corp members were more effective than the teachers to whom they were compared. A standard deviation of 0.07 might not sound like a lot, but it is the equivalent of an additional 2.6 months of schooling for the average student to be exact, not to mention intuition could arguably tell us that more experienced teachers in the public school system would perform better. Those who go through Teach for America actually have more conviction and are more likely to stick with teaching (Fryer, 2011). As for spillover effects, they may or may not exist. Regardless, the Teach for America program has high overall satisfaction.
Like any other organization, it isn't perfect and Teach for America can use some reform. However, if we are to look at the big picture, Teach for America is a [largely] private-sector success to help improve upon the quality of public education in this country. While Teach for America cannot be expected to solve all of the woes facing the American public education sector, it certainly is a step in the right direction.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Parsha Ki Tetze: Does the Torah View Women Captured in War as Mere Booty or Something More?
While reading this week's Torah portion, Ki Tetze (Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19), I came across multiple verses that I liked, but I also found irksome ones upon first glance. One passage that captivated me was right at the beginning of this week's Torah portion:
Kidnapping women in war and providing a loophole to force her into marriage violates any sense of modern sensibility on so many levels. How can a loving and just G-d permit something so heinous? Reading this Deuteronomic passage is a fine example of what it means to struggle with G-d and figuring out what He expects from us. Perhaps a more intimate look at the text can help us discern what He is really trying to teach us in this passage about the captive woman.
Before delving into the particulars, I should mention this noteworthy point, which is that the Torah is an eternal text. One of the beauties of Torah is that it speaks to us across generations and across time. It is possible for someone in a new generation to find a gem of Torah wisdom that previously was undiscovered. It is why we read the Torah in an annual cycle: we discover new insights both about the text and about ourselves. However, we do have to remember that the initial audience, for whom many of these laws were created, was the ancient Israelites. Since they were the ones that directly received the Torah, they were the ones most impacted by these laws. By necessity, we also need to be able to interpret these texts within the context of the given time period. Interpreting a text without context renders a text meaningless. This does not mean we cannot glean any eternal insights, but we have to remember to also look at the Torah through the lens of our ancestors, and not just through the lens of our 21st-century moral understand. With that being said, let's begin.
At the beginning of the text, there is one immediate reprieve, which is that this is limited to the context of wartime. Not only is this Rashi's interpretation (amongst other rabbis), but the text also points that out. The first word used in the Torah portion, as well as this passage, is the word כי. Although it can be interpreted as "when," it makes more sense to interpret the word כי as "if." However we would like to play with the semantics in English, the Hebrew points to a conditional statement here. This means that men do not have a carte blanche to subjugate women. Given modern-day standards of warfare, it should somewhat put our minds at ease that this verse does not specifically have any practical implications. Even so, the fact that G-d provided any context whatsoever to permit this is still perturbing. Good thing I'm not done with analyzing the passage.
Upon further examination of the text, we realize that G-d enacts further barriers and conditions to make sure this doesn't become a reality. For one, the man has to wait a month before marrying her and consummating the marriage, which as I explain later, is a big deal. When comparing this to other ancient societies, this was truly enlightening because in the ancient practice of warfare, no such quarter would have been given. Although a month might not seem like much, it really is. Wartime is a period in which it is all the more tempting to do away with any sense of decency or mercy. This month-long pause provides that decency. Why? War is one of those things that epitomizes the impulsiveness of testosterone-induced decisions. Choosing to marry and cohabit with a non-Jewish woman during wartime is hasty, especially when that decision is solely based on her physical appearance (hence the use of the word "beautiful" in Deuteronomy 21:11). Thirty days is provided as a period of time for the man's hormones to settle down and time to think it over. This could explain why the passage with the the rebellious son is juxtaposed with this passage: to give men in this scenario time to realize that an improper infatuation will result in one family tragedy after another (Rashi). This could explain why the end of Deuteronomy 21 can alternatively be interpreted as an example of foresight because such family disarray would unsurprisingly create a rebellious son with spiritual angst.
G-d created men to be just as hormonal as women, which is why R. Ibn ben Ezra thought this thirty-day period was ample time to think about this decision more rationally, cool down, and ultimately set her free. The idea was to theoretically make it possible while putting up so many obstacles that it would be de facto undesirable or impossible to go through with it.
The thirty-day period was not just for the solider. It was also for the captive woman to weep for her mother and father. If the parents were still alive, then she had to mourn the separation from her parents and everything she knew (Nachmanides). If the parents were slain in battle, she needed time to mourn their death (Nachmanides). In either case, the woman needs time to honor her parents (Ibn Ezra). It's not just the mourning period that is captivating about this practice. There is also the practice of trimming the captive's hair. Nachmanides thought it was a mourning practice, but that view comes with its difficulties. The captive is also supposed to pair her nails. It is possible that the paring is done to make her unattractive (Rashi), but there is also that possibility that it has the opposite effect (also see here). The same ambiguity can be said for the garments she wore: they may (Rashi) or may not (Ramchal) have been used to make her unattractive. Depending on the man's attraction, the female captive trimming her hails, cutting her nails, and wearing a different garment may or may have not been a turn-off for him. The only definitive factor that seems to curtail the man's desires is time, as is explained in the previous paragraph.
Even with these disputes of the rituals for a captive woman entail, this begs an even more essential question: why does the woman have to go through this in the first place? Why create the situation in the first place? Answer: we live in an imperfect world. G-d didn't create us as angels. He created us as human beings that have impulses, desires, and in short, imperfections. G-d gave us free will, which means we have the choice to act on our good impulse or our יצר הרע (evil inclination). [My alternative theory is that without suffering or some sort of dependency, people wouldn't need to develop relations with G-d or other human beings. The evil inclination is quite the necessary evil, don't you think?]
During wartime, a time during which "anything goes," men are at their most vulnerable when it comes to morals and values. I would posit that G-d created such a scenario to remind us that living in a human world means living in an imperfect one, as well as a dark, cruel, and unfair one. Short of a Messianic era, we are not going to live in a world without poverty, war, or conflict, nor should we strive for utopia. People have tried that throughout history, and we know how that ends. So does this mean we should simply stop striving for ideals? Of course not.
Although Judaism has its ideals and we are to aspire to those ideals, Jewish law is practical in the sense that it provides us laws that are realistic for us to follow. G-d is not eliminating the yetzer hara in this scenario, but providing a response to the reality of the situation. Maybe G-d is signaling to us while we are to pursue our ideals, we still live in a reality that is distant from those ideals. What G-d provides the ancient Israelites is the opportunity to inch closer to our ideals in what is literally and metaphorically a battlefield.
Even in warfare and even in the surrounding ancient world where women were treated like objects, G-d provided the Israelites with a moral conduct that was within their grasp. The laws of the captive woman give the woman time to grieve her loss. If the man is no longer interested, the man has to let the woman go. The man also has to marry the woman as part of the arrangement. This is no minor detail. G-d could have said there's no waiting period and that the sex could either be premarital or extramarital, but He didn't. He said that the soldier would have to marry the captive woman. In Judaism, marriage is a long-term commitment, and to make such a devotion is no trifling matter. As previously mentioned, G-d gave the man enough time for his hormones to settle where the odds of him wanting to actually marry a woman solely based on her looks are next to nil.
Although our sense of morality has evolved since the time of the ancient Israelites, there is still the basic message of caring about the dignity and worth of a human being, regardless of gender. Look at this week's Torah portion and you'll see that it's a motif throughout, whether it is returning lost animals (Deuteronomy 22:1-12), immediately burying the body of an executed criminal (21:22-23), erecting a parapet (22:8), providing for the welfare of the disenfranchised (24:17-22), using honest weight and measures (25:13-16), or ensuring the timely payment of wages (24:14-15). G-d asked our ancestors to take the moral situation of their given time period and inch towards the ideals that Judaism teaches. It is currently the month of Elul. We are approaching the High Holy Days and have to realize that G-d is asking the same of us as He did of the ancient Israelites in this passage: to elevate our moral status quo. If we can take the lesson G-d is teaching us in this Deuteronomic passage and raise our spirituality even a little bit, we will have metaphorically put a smile on G-d's face.
If [or when] you go to war against your enemies, and Hashem, your G-d, will deliver him into your hands, and you take his captives, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife. You shall bring her into your home, and she shall shave her head and let her nails grow. And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon herself, and stay in your house, and weep for her father and her mother for a full month. After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a slave because you have afflicted her. -Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Kidnapping women in war and providing a loophole to force her into marriage violates any sense of modern sensibility on so many levels. How can a loving and just G-d permit something so heinous? Reading this Deuteronomic passage is a fine example of what it means to struggle with G-d and figuring out what He expects from us. Perhaps a more intimate look at the text can help us discern what He is really trying to teach us in this passage about the captive woman.
Before delving into the particulars, I should mention this noteworthy point, which is that the Torah is an eternal text. One of the beauties of Torah is that it speaks to us across generations and across time. It is possible for someone in a new generation to find a gem of Torah wisdom that previously was undiscovered. It is why we read the Torah in an annual cycle: we discover new insights both about the text and about ourselves. However, we do have to remember that the initial audience, for whom many of these laws were created, was the ancient Israelites. Since they were the ones that directly received the Torah, they were the ones most impacted by these laws. By necessity, we also need to be able to interpret these texts within the context of the given time period. Interpreting a text without context renders a text meaningless. This does not mean we cannot glean any eternal insights, but we have to remember to also look at the Torah through the lens of our ancestors, and not just through the lens of our 21st-century moral understand. With that being said, let's begin.
At the beginning of the text, there is one immediate reprieve, which is that this is limited to the context of wartime. Not only is this Rashi's interpretation (amongst other rabbis), but the text also points that out. The first word used in the Torah portion, as well as this passage, is the word כי. Although it can be interpreted as "when," it makes more sense to interpret the word כי as "if." However we would like to play with the semantics in English, the Hebrew points to a conditional statement here. This means that men do not have a carte blanche to subjugate women. Given modern-day standards of warfare, it should somewhat put our minds at ease that this verse does not specifically have any practical implications. Even so, the fact that G-d provided any context whatsoever to permit this is still perturbing. Good thing I'm not done with analyzing the passage.
Upon further examination of the text, we realize that G-d enacts further barriers and conditions to make sure this doesn't become a reality. For one, the man has to wait a month before marrying her and consummating the marriage, which as I explain later, is a big deal. When comparing this to other ancient societies, this was truly enlightening because in the ancient practice of warfare, no such quarter would have been given. Although a month might not seem like much, it really is. Wartime is a period in which it is all the more tempting to do away with any sense of decency or mercy. This month-long pause provides that decency. Why? War is one of those things that epitomizes the impulsiveness of testosterone-induced decisions. Choosing to marry and cohabit with a non-Jewish woman during wartime is hasty, especially when that decision is solely based on her physical appearance (hence the use of the word "beautiful" in Deuteronomy 21:11). Thirty days is provided as a period of time for the man's hormones to settle down and time to think it over. This could explain why the passage with the the rebellious son is juxtaposed with this passage: to give men in this scenario time to realize that an improper infatuation will result in one family tragedy after another (Rashi). This could explain why the end of Deuteronomy 21 can alternatively be interpreted as an example of foresight because such family disarray would unsurprisingly create a rebellious son with spiritual angst.
G-d created men to be just as hormonal as women, which is why R. Ibn ben Ezra thought this thirty-day period was ample time to think about this decision more rationally, cool down, and ultimately set her free. The idea was to theoretically make it possible while putting up so many obstacles that it would be de facto undesirable or impossible to go through with it.
The thirty-day period was not just for the solider. It was also for the captive woman to weep for her mother and father. If the parents were still alive, then she had to mourn the separation from her parents and everything she knew (Nachmanides). If the parents were slain in battle, she needed time to mourn their death (Nachmanides). In either case, the woman needs time to honor her parents (Ibn Ezra). It's not just the mourning period that is captivating about this practice. There is also the practice of trimming the captive's hair. Nachmanides thought it was a mourning practice, but that view comes with its difficulties. The captive is also supposed to pair her nails. It is possible that the paring is done to make her unattractive (Rashi), but there is also that possibility that it has the opposite effect (also see here). The same ambiguity can be said for the garments she wore: they may (Rashi) or may not (Ramchal) have been used to make her unattractive. Depending on the man's attraction, the female captive trimming her hails, cutting her nails, and wearing a different garment may or may have not been a turn-off for him. The only definitive factor that seems to curtail the man's desires is time, as is explained in the previous paragraph.
Even with these disputes of the rituals for a captive woman entail, this begs an even more essential question: why does the woman have to go through this in the first place? Why create the situation in the first place? Answer: we live in an imperfect world. G-d didn't create us as angels. He created us as human beings that have impulses, desires, and in short, imperfections. G-d gave us free will, which means we have the choice to act on our good impulse or our יצר הרע (evil inclination). [My alternative theory is that without suffering or some sort of dependency, people wouldn't need to develop relations with G-d or other human beings. The evil inclination is quite the necessary evil, don't you think?]
During wartime, a time during which "anything goes," men are at their most vulnerable when it comes to morals and values. I would posit that G-d created such a scenario to remind us that living in a human world means living in an imperfect one, as well as a dark, cruel, and unfair one. Short of a Messianic era, we are not going to live in a world without poverty, war, or conflict, nor should we strive for utopia. People have tried that throughout history, and we know how that ends. So does this mean we should simply stop striving for ideals? Of course not.
Although Judaism has its ideals and we are to aspire to those ideals, Jewish law is practical in the sense that it provides us laws that are realistic for us to follow. G-d is not eliminating the yetzer hara in this scenario, but providing a response to the reality of the situation. Maybe G-d is signaling to us while we are to pursue our ideals, we still live in a reality that is distant from those ideals. What G-d provides the ancient Israelites is the opportunity to inch closer to our ideals in what is literally and metaphorically a battlefield.
Even in warfare and even in the surrounding ancient world where women were treated like objects, G-d provided the Israelites with a moral conduct that was within their grasp. The laws of the captive woman give the woman time to grieve her loss. If the man is no longer interested, the man has to let the woman go. The man also has to marry the woman as part of the arrangement. This is no minor detail. G-d could have said there's no waiting period and that the sex could either be premarital or extramarital, but He didn't. He said that the soldier would have to marry the captive woman. In Judaism, marriage is a long-term commitment, and to make such a devotion is no trifling matter. As previously mentioned, G-d gave the man enough time for his hormones to settle where the odds of him wanting to actually marry a woman solely based on her looks are next to nil.
Although our sense of morality has evolved since the time of the ancient Israelites, there is still the basic message of caring about the dignity and worth of a human being, regardless of gender. Look at this week's Torah portion and you'll see that it's a motif throughout, whether it is returning lost animals (Deuteronomy 22:1-12), immediately burying the body of an executed criminal (21:22-23), erecting a parapet (22:8), providing for the welfare of the disenfranchised (24:17-22), using honest weight and measures (25:13-16), or ensuring the timely payment of wages (24:14-15). G-d asked our ancestors to take the moral situation of their given time period and inch towards the ideals that Judaism teaches. It is currently the month of Elul. We are approaching the High Holy Days and have to realize that G-d is asking the same of us as He did of the ancient Israelites in this passage: to elevate our moral status quo. If we can take the lesson G-d is teaching us in this Deuteronomic passage and raise our spirituality even a little bit, we will have metaphorically put a smile on G-d's face.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Even With Less Funding, Charter Schools Still Outrank Public Schools
It should be no surprise that I have much criticism to hurl at the American public school system. For being a developed country, it is a crying shame that our public school system cannot even provide a K-12 education that is comparable to what one can receive in other developed countries. If the adage of "our children are our future" is correct because of the rate of return on human capital investments, then we should absolutely be finding alternatives to the status quo. One such alternative is the idea of a charter school, which is a school that receives government funding but operates independent of the government. Think of it as a private-public partnership for K-12 education. Much like any political issue, you will have your proponents and naysayers. Those on the Left who have an issue with charter schools bemoan further economic disparity, although I would posit that charter schools bring competition to the monopolistic grasp of the public school system and teachers unions, thereby weakening teacher union clout. If I were to have a prima facie issue with charter schools, is that there is still an element of government intervention because the government is still providing the funding with taxpayer dollards. Even so, less government intervention is a deontological improvement, which makes me wonder whether charter schools are an improvement in terms of improved economic and social welfare.
As a starting point, let's go with study from the University of Arkansas (Wolf et al., 2014) that was released back in July. What did they find? Although there were some irregularities in terms of overall performance, on the whole, the average charter school outperforms traditional public schools both in terms of cost effectiveness and return on investment (Wolf et al., p. 6). What makes this study noteworthy is that it is the first national study conducted that measures the productivity of charter schools relative to public schools. This study's noteworthiness is amplified by the fact that charter schools are able to produce better results, even in spite of receiving 28 percent less funding than public schools (ibid, p. 8). The example of charter schools illustrates once again how throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. This is not to say that funding is not a necessity to provide a quality education (see Figure 2 in Wolf study), but the reality that one can do more with less is nothing short of astounding. Perhaps these improvements are because the charter schools are selecting prime candidates, thereby exacerbating the socio-economic disparities. Per the study, that is not the case since half of the charter schools enroll a lower-income population (p. 33).
This should help add some additional insight, especially since Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) shows that the average differences are not that large, although the results can quite vary from state to state. If the University of Arkansas study is a more apples-to-apples to comparison than the CREDO study, then we should take the results to heart, especially if charter schools reduce unintended teen pregnancies and incarceration rates (Dobbie and Fryer Jr., 2013), not to mention the unemployment rate (Gan and Zhang, 2013).
There is an increased demand for charter schools, and it's no surprise. Charter schools provide the flexibility and incentive structure to succeed that is nigh impossible to enact in a public school system riddled with bureaucracy and labor rigidities caused by unionism. While the impacts can vary by state and demographics, what we see in the aggregate is that charter schools work not only on a national level (see New York's success), but also in countries like Chile (Elacqua et al., 2011). There are going to be good charter schools and bad charter schools, and the fact that charter schools are in their infancy in comparison to public schools, it should be no surprise that charter schools are getting some of the bugs worked out. Policy reforms such as admissions lotteries (Angrist et al., 2011) will help, but make no mistake: based on the evidence we have, more charter schools will be a better solution to improving K-12 education in this country than throwing more taxpayer dollars at the traditional public school system.
As a starting point, let's go with study from the University of Arkansas (Wolf et al., 2014) that was released back in July. What did they find? Although there were some irregularities in terms of overall performance, on the whole, the average charter school outperforms traditional public schools both in terms of cost effectiveness and return on investment (Wolf et al., p. 6). What makes this study noteworthy is that it is the first national study conducted that measures the productivity of charter schools relative to public schools. This study's noteworthiness is amplified by the fact that charter schools are able to produce better results, even in spite of receiving 28 percent less funding than public schools (ibid, p. 8). The example of charter schools illustrates once again how throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. This is not to say that funding is not a necessity to provide a quality education (see Figure 2 in Wolf study), but the reality that one can do more with less is nothing short of astounding. Perhaps these improvements are because the charter schools are selecting prime candidates, thereby exacerbating the socio-economic disparities. Per the study, that is not the case since half of the charter schools enroll a lower-income population (p. 33).
This should help add some additional insight, especially since Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) shows that the average differences are not that large, although the results can quite vary from state to state. If the University of Arkansas study is a more apples-to-apples to comparison than the CREDO study, then we should take the results to heart, especially if charter schools reduce unintended teen pregnancies and incarceration rates (Dobbie and Fryer Jr., 2013), not to mention the unemployment rate (Gan and Zhang, 2013).
There is an increased demand for charter schools, and it's no surprise. Charter schools provide the flexibility and incentive structure to succeed that is nigh impossible to enact in a public school system riddled with bureaucracy and labor rigidities caused by unionism. While the impacts can vary by state and demographics, what we see in the aggregate is that charter schools work not only on a national level (see New York's success), but also in countries like Chile (Elacqua et al., 2011). There are going to be good charter schools and bad charter schools, and the fact that charter schools are in their infancy in comparison to public schools, it should be no surprise that charter schools are getting some of the bugs worked out. Policy reforms such as admissions lotteries (Angrist et al., 2011) will help, but make no mistake: based on the evidence we have, more charter schools will be a better solution to improving K-12 education in this country than throwing more taxpayer dollars at the traditional public school system.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Laboring Over the Argument of Whether We Need Right-to-Work Laws
In honor of Labor Day, I figured that some contemplation on the job market would be in order. For a recession that officially ended nearly five years ago, it's amazing how sluggish job growth has been. It would be great if they could implement some policies that actually work so we can get our economy back on track. A few months back, the good people over at the American Enterprise Institute came up with a few policy alternatives that would do the trick. One such policy alternative was to get more states to accept right-to-work laws. In spite of its name, a right-to-work law (or RTW for short) does not guarantee every citizen employment. The function of such a statute is to prohibit mandatory union membership and dues as a prerequisite to enter into a given profession. This, according to proponents, secures the rights of employees to choose whether or not they would like to join a union. For the longest time, I thought that RTW was a good way to stop unions from forcing employees to monetarily support the Democratic Party. I was then introduced to viewing the right-to-work law in a different light: a right-to-work law essentially acts as a government regulation of contract agreements telling employers how to run business. I'm no fan of unions abusing their power, and I am certainly open to an alternative policy. As of now, there are 24 states that have implemented right-to-work laws, and most people support it. However, is the implementation of a right-to-work law the way to go?
From a deontological standpoint, I have to wonder whether further government intervention to try to resolve the issues of the initial government intervention of passing restrictive labors laws back in the New Deal era is a wise decision here. Union security agreements are not as simple as "no union association" or "mandatory collective bargaining"; there are gradations. Take a "fair share provision" as an example, which don't mandate union membership but require a "fair share fee" to cover collective bargaining costs (This might sound fair, but for those who are worried that this would fund union political activities, let's remember that money is a fungible resource). Whether you have mandatory collective bargaining or RTW, they are both examples of the government interfering in the freedom of contract because they limit the types of contracts in which the parties may enter. Since I am a fan of economic freedom, I think that eliminating exclusive representation (i.e., monopoly unionism) without passing RTW laws is the best route.
As a consequentialist libertarian and a pragmatist, I have to realize that the American political establishment is not ready for a completely liberalized freedom of contract. As such, I have to ask whether RTW laws are preferable to the status quo of exclusive representation. The last thing we need is some form of public policy paralysis simply because we don't get everything we want. The extent to which RTW laws improve economic growth can be difficult to determine because states with RTW tend to have stronger pro-business laws in effect, thereby making the effects of RTW more difficult to isolate. Even so, some have given it a go.
One of the most recent reports on the subject was written by the Heritage Foundation (Sherk and Kloster, 2014), in which they found that RTW laws reduce union aggressiveness while promoting economic growth. Competitive Enterprise Institute (Vedder and Rose, 2014) also conducted a recent study. What CEI found was that a) people are migrating from non-RTW states to RTW-states, and b) economic growth is greater in RTW states than non-RTW states. The Mackinac Institute had similar findings (Hicks and LaFaive, 2013). In all fairness, I might as well cite a think-tank that begs to differ. The Economic Policy Institute, which is unabashedly pro-union, conducted studies that concluded that RTW has no positive economic effects and only works to diminish the wages of union workers (Lafer, 2011; Gould and Shierholz, 2011). The EPI's findings make sense when one considers the Left's theory that unionism makes for a strong worker class. I might have to favor the findings of the Congressional Research Services (Colins, 2012). What did the CRS find? Although wages were lower in RTW states, historical research shows that very little actually has to do with RTW laws (CRS, p. 12). Although aggregate employment has modestly increased, it is unclear if that is attributable to RTW laws or not (p. 11). If we're looking at RTW laws from their effects, the only thing we can conclude is that the research on RTW is inconclusive.
Opting for a completely liberalized freedom of contract is too much to request in a country whose unions have a good amount of power and political clout, which is why, at least for now, I would take that option off the table. If I had to choose between forced unionism and RTW laws, I would have to opt for RTW laws. Yes, it's true that the economic effects are more ambiguous. However, RTW laws have weakened the monopolistic grasp of unions, although globalization and the decline of the manufacturing sector also contributed to the decline of unions (Vedder et al., 2012). I would posit that union membership has been on the decline in the private sector because they do not provide members with an incentive to voluntarily join or remain members. It's why unions need to change their way of business if they want to survive in this century. Without going too much off-topic, what I would like to reluctantly conclude with is that although RTW laws are far from ideal, they are second-best, Pareto-optimal laws.
From a deontological standpoint, I have to wonder whether further government intervention to try to resolve the issues of the initial government intervention of passing restrictive labors laws back in the New Deal era is a wise decision here. Union security agreements are not as simple as "no union association" or "mandatory collective bargaining"; there are gradations. Take a "fair share provision" as an example, which don't mandate union membership but require a "fair share fee" to cover collective bargaining costs (This might sound fair, but for those who are worried that this would fund union political activities, let's remember that money is a fungible resource). Whether you have mandatory collective bargaining or RTW, they are both examples of the government interfering in the freedom of contract because they limit the types of contracts in which the parties may enter. Since I am a fan of economic freedom, I think that eliminating exclusive representation (i.e., monopoly unionism) without passing RTW laws is the best route.
As a consequentialist libertarian and a pragmatist, I have to realize that the American political establishment is not ready for a completely liberalized freedom of contract. As such, I have to ask whether RTW laws are preferable to the status quo of exclusive representation. The last thing we need is some form of public policy paralysis simply because we don't get everything we want. The extent to which RTW laws improve economic growth can be difficult to determine because states with RTW tend to have stronger pro-business laws in effect, thereby making the effects of RTW more difficult to isolate. Even so, some have given it a go.
One of the most recent reports on the subject was written by the Heritage Foundation (Sherk and Kloster, 2014), in which they found that RTW laws reduce union aggressiveness while promoting economic growth. Competitive Enterprise Institute (Vedder and Rose, 2014) also conducted a recent study. What CEI found was that a) people are migrating from non-RTW states to RTW-states, and b) economic growth is greater in RTW states than non-RTW states. The Mackinac Institute had similar findings (Hicks and LaFaive, 2013). In all fairness, I might as well cite a think-tank that begs to differ. The Economic Policy Institute, which is unabashedly pro-union, conducted studies that concluded that RTW has no positive economic effects and only works to diminish the wages of union workers (Lafer, 2011; Gould and Shierholz, 2011). The EPI's findings make sense when one considers the Left's theory that unionism makes for a strong worker class. I might have to favor the findings of the Congressional Research Services (Colins, 2012). What did the CRS find? Although wages were lower in RTW states, historical research shows that very little actually has to do with RTW laws (CRS, p. 12). Although aggregate employment has modestly increased, it is unclear if that is attributable to RTW laws or not (p. 11). If we're looking at RTW laws from their effects, the only thing we can conclude is that the research on RTW is inconclusive.
Opting for a completely liberalized freedom of contract is too much to request in a country whose unions have a good amount of power and political clout, which is why, at least for now, I would take that option off the table. If I had to choose between forced unionism and RTW laws, I would have to opt for RTW laws. Yes, it's true that the economic effects are more ambiguous. However, RTW laws have weakened the monopolistic grasp of unions, although globalization and the decline of the manufacturing sector also contributed to the decline of unions (Vedder et al., 2012). I would posit that union membership has been on the decline in the private sector because they do not provide members with an incentive to voluntarily join or remain members. It's why unions need to change their way of business if they want to survive in this century. Without going too much off-topic, what I would like to reluctantly conclude with is that although RTW laws are far from ideal, they are second-best, Pareto-optimal laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)