I don’t find all of this convincing. The ability to build a good transit system *does* predict GDP growth, and the link is state capacity to build things and enforce rules. There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich. There is no requirement that you can only be good at some…
I don’t find all of this convincing. The ability to build a good transit system *does* predict GDP growth, and the link is state capacity to build things and enforce rules. There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich. There is no requirement that you can only be good at some subset of things that require state capacity. There is no trade off, there is only gain from doing the job better.
Trying to improve that capacity, and reorient government and political processes, aims to improve the same core state competence that you help push for and Ezra/Derek are getting at.
Not a big point. But there is *no* example of a private actor successfully building a full transit system or modern train system without lots of state subsidy and support. So learning how to do that effectively rather than in effectively matters, it cannot simply be delegated to the private sector to provision (as housing can and should be).
Same with law enforcement. To my more limited knowledge, there is no example of a country with a great and fully privatized law enforcement system. Given the state needs to be involved to some extent, how to manage that effectively matters.
Neoliberalism and privatization cannot answer all our problems, and refocusing what government must do in objectives is vital even in a more market oriented country.
Right, but transit and police are somewhat specific examples of where this doesn’t work. There are other sectors like residential housing where the private sector seems perfectly fit to satisfy demand if we could just let them do it.
yeah for housing all that needs to happen is government to allow people to do what they want with their own property, and the market will build all the housing people desire.
But there will definitely be room for government in say getting transmission lines built (eminent domain almost certainly needed)
I think that we may have overfunded R&D. The replication crisis in the social sciences may indicate there are more people chasing grants than are capable of doing quality science.
Not everyone can play in the NBA. I suspect that the intelligence and the talents to do creative work in the sciences are equally rare. Add the fact that the social sciences should be _more difficult_ than the physical sciences.
I would argue this is fundamentally an example of survivorship bias. The point at which private actors see the need to build large transit networks and also have the resources to do so is generally the point at which they have reached the level of being a state actor.
Fundamentally, the question assumes that the dynamics of power distribution and conflicts don’t exist, then examines a reality where they do exist, and obviously finds a discrepancy.
It would be better to ask “Do companies pursue and execute well on public-facing projects within their domains of power?”. For example, do private actors invest resources into building public resources that are appropriate to the scope of their sub-state status? E.g., are private companies building good quality roads? Are individual actors setting effective industry standards? Are they participating in large coordination projects between agents that act in a de facto regulatory capacity? The answer is: yes. There are tons of orgs that represent this: ISO, ASTM, ISPE, ASQ, the REST standard, Go, Python, etc. etc.
I am not sure why you are using the example of transit or policing. The book is about abundance, not mass transit and policing. I have not yet finished the book but it does not seem to mention those policy domains. Neither does Lehman’s review…
I will grant you that “ability to build a good transit system” not only correlates with but actually causes a country not to be poor. Or in the words of this discussion, the ability to build a good transit system does predict relatively decent versus relatively poor GDP *LEVEL*.
But that is very different than saying in the modern world - call it the last 50 years - the the ability to build a good transit system does predict ONGOING GDP *growth*.
California (and I am *no* fan of today’s CA governance) vs. Japan and Europe demonstrates decidedly that it does not.
Good comment. I suspect the response to your comment “There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich” is something like, “Yes but the question is what should countries do next after they’re already rich?”
Rules enforcement seems like an absolute prerequisite for a country to function at all. Beyond that, I can get behind the observation that the USA and the EU have different comparative advantages re: whether the state or private industry is a more effective builder of physical infrastructure.
My idealized hope would be each learning to be a bit more like the other! Or at least the US learning about more aggressive law and behavior enforcement, dedicated planning and infrastructure agencies subject to political oversight rather than consultants, and the importance of ensuring your national champion industries are competitive by protecting workers, not jobs (as the Nordics do)
I don’t find all of this convincing. The ability to build a good transit system *does* predict GDP growth, and the link is state capacity to build things and enforce rules. There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich. There is no requirement that you can only be good at some subset of things that require state capacity. There is no trade off, there is only gain from doing the job better.
Trying to improve that capacity, and reorient government and political processes, aims to improve the same core state competence that you help push for and Ezra/Derek are getting at.
Not a big point. But there is *no* example of a private actor successfully building a full transit system or modern train system without lots of state subsidy and support. So learning how to do that effectively rather than in effectively matters, it cannot simply be delegated to the private sector to provision (as housing can and should be).
Same with law enforcement. To my more limited knowledge, there is no example of a country with a great and fully privatized law enforcement system. Given the state needs to be involved to some extent, how to manage that effectively matters.
Neoliberalism and privatization cannot answer all our problems, and refocusing what government must do in objectives is vital even in a more market oriented country.
Right, but transit and police are somewhat specific examples of where this doesn’t work. There are other sectors like residential housing where the private sector seems perfectly fit to satisfy demand if we could just let them do it.
yeah for housing all that needs to happen is government to allow people to do what they want with their own property, and the market will build all the housing people desire.
But there will definitely be room for government in say getting transmission lines built (eminent domain almost certainly needed)
Or funding basic R&D
I think that we may have overfunded R&D. The replication crisis in the social sciences may indicate there are more people chasing grants than are capable of doing quality science.
Are they not capable, or does the incentive structure encourage something else
Yes.
Not everyone can play in the NBA. I suspect that the intelligence and the talents to do creative work in the sciences are equally rare. Add the fact that the social sciences should be _more difficult_ than the physical sciences.
Then there are the various gatekeepers.
I wish Substack would move that button.
I would argue this is fundamentally an example of survivorship bias. The point at which private actors see the need to build large transit networks and also have the resources to do so is generally the point at which they have reached the level of being a state actor.
Fundamentally, the question assumes that the dynamics of power distribution and conflicts don’t exist, then examines a reality where they do exist, and obviously finds a discrepancy.
It would be better to ask “Do companies pursue and execute well on public-facing projects within their domains of power?”. For example, do private actors invest resources into building public resources that are appropriate to the scope of their sub-state status? E.g., are private companies building good quality roads? Are individual actors setting effective industry standards? Are they participating in large coordination projects between agents that act in a de facto regulatory capacity? The answer is: yes. There are tons of orgs that represent this: ISO, ASTM, ISPE, ASQ, the REST standard, Go, Python, etc. etc.
Florida built high speed rail largely relying on private industry.
Florida may be a special case. Relatively flat, for cheaper construction. Good size cities reasonably close together. Growing population.
Also, the single line I know of hasn’t had _time_ to go bankrupt yet.
I am not sure why you are using the example of transit or policing. The book is about abundance, not mass transit and policing. I have not yet finished the book but it does not seem to mention those policy domains. Neither does Lehman’s review…
The book covers mass transit related to CA's failed attempt to build high speed rail.
While CA was not building 500 miles of high speed rail, China built 23,000 MILES of high speed rail.
China also built an over abundance of crappy housing blocks which no one will ever live in.
And of course, that's why this solution is letting the market actually build the housing, not mandate government build housing
What evidence is there that the “ability to build a good transit system does predict GDP growth.”
Western Europe and Japan build excellent transit system (likely the best in the world), but their economies are relatively stagnant.
Their stagnation has little to do with their high speed rail though, a LOTS to do with an over regulated private sector in particular labor markets.
You are effectively agreeing with Michael.
I will grant you that “ability to build a good transit system” not only correlates with but actually causes a country not to be poor. Or in the words of this discussion, the ability to build a good transit system does predict relatively decent versus relatively poor GDP *LEVEL*.
But that is very different than saying in the modern world - call it the last 50 years - the the ability to build a good transit system does predict ONGOING GDP *growth*.
California (and I am *no* fan of today’s CA governance) vs. Japan and Europe demonstrates decidedly that it does not.
Good comment. I suspect the response to your comment “There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich” is something like, “Yes but the question is what should countries do next after they’re already rich?”
Rules enforcement seems like an absolute prerequisite for a country to function at all. Beyond that, I can get behind the observation that the USA and the EU have different comparative advantages re: whether the state or private industry is a more effective builder of physical infrastructure.
My idealized hope would be each learning to be a bit more like the other! Or at least the US learning about more aggressive law and behavior enforcement, dedicated planning and infrastructure agencies subject to political oversight rather than consultants, and the importance of ensuring your national champion industries are competitive by protecting workers, not jobs (as the Nordics do)
“The ability to build a good transit system *does* predict GDP growth,”
No sir, it does not.
It merely predicts a decent GDP *level*
Annual growth is not the same thing as current level.
"There’s a reason that the countries that put together the state capacity to build or enforce rules are rich."
Nobody has more state capacity then East Asia, but all of those societies have topped out at GDP/capita way below USA and crisis level TFRs.
Europe ain't much better.