Examining the economics of voting across the world

Yes, once more I have neglected this for far too long. My long sojurn in India this summer was characterised by its lack of internet access and as such, nothing got posted here. I have some interesting things from the trip to put up soon though. My hope to have had some time this term was unfortunately hugely misguided but it is now the holidays once more and I am going to get writing...watch this space!

In a slight change from my normal rants, I thought I would post a more economics based article this time, on a subject very close to my heart: voter apathy. Beware, it does stray a little too much onto the technical side at times but, hopefully it should have a certain measure of readability. I will post a more personal/political entry on voting in a few days. I originally wrote this for a economics competition where I was constrained by a word limit so I apologise for any abruptness.

Low voter turnout in elections is becoming an ever increasing problem. Voter apathy often leads to greater problems with governance. If voters are apathetic and uninterested in the results then it can be argued that they will fail to scrutinise their elected representatives’ performances’, therefore allowing a relatively high level of government failure. In the 2001 UK elections the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted was 57.6%. In Niger’s 2004 presidential elections the turnout was 45.0%.[1] Niger is the least developed country and the UK is 17th most developed country.[2] Therefore we can see this problem spans the world.

One method of considering voter apathy is to consider voting as a public good. Public choice analysis of electoral participation is based on the behaviour of homo economicus. According to Brennan and Lomasky (1993) homo economicus is self interested and instrumental and therefore considers only his own personal costs and benefits when making a decision. Homo economicus chooses to be rationally ignorant, they will only pursue information if the benefits exceeds their costs. There is little or no incentive to vote in national elections.

The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is PB + D > C. P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election, and B is the perceived personal benefit of that person's favored political party or candidate being elected. D represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C represents the personal costs involved (normally the time, effort and financial cost incurred). As the probability (P) of your vote being decisive in the election is close to 0, PB is also near zero, and the personal benefits (D) are therefore the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C. and normally the costs of participating ensure that the net expected utility from voting is negative. Studies using game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero.

However the decision not to vote conflicts with social interest. While one person may not vote, they wish others to do so. As any public good, voting can also be considered as a victim of the ‘free rider’ effect. People decide not to expend time on becoming informed and therefore may take the decision not to vote as they would not know who or what policies to vote for. However, they wish everyone else to vote and take the time to become informed. If they do then it can be considered that the “right” thing will occur. These are external effects. As others become more informed everyone becomes better off. This benefits both the more informed people (private benefits) and everyone else (external benefits). It is impossible to exclude people who do not become informed and do not vote from the benefits gained from voting, a working democratic system, this matches the non excludability characteristic of a public good. Therefore there is an incentive not to vote, others will. Of course, if everyone did this then the system would break down.

The problem is some people do vote. If they acted purely like homo economicus no one would vote. This can be explained by examining the different benefits people experience from voting. Some people experience personal pleasure from voting and enjoy the perusal of knowledge required to make a rational, informed decision on whom to vote for. They are able to satisfy their intellectual curiosity and so voting has a high consumption benefit for them. Many people also experience satisfaction when they vote, it shows they have a sense of civic responsibility. It is also a method through which people may have their views heard. This brings us to the concept of ‘voice’.[3] It is the ability of consumers to express their preferences for public services through an administrative mechanism, in this case electoral voting.

The efficacy of ‘voice’ has been inhibited within municipal affairs, as electoral voting has become less highly regarded in society. ‘Legal and institutional barriers’ have been created, eg inadequate public hearings. People see that these are ineffective and so become less inclined to use ‘voice’ or indeed, their vote as they feel the effect will be limited. ‘Information asymmetries’ have, in some ways, become more common. Public bureaucrats have a wider knowledge of public affairs than the citizens. It can be argued that it is easier to find information now than in the past. The rise of the internet and the Freedom of Information Act (in the UK), have meant that people have more means available to them if they wish to find out particular information. However, it is time consuming and often arduous, and people often value their time at a higher cost than they do the information (therefore making the decision based on their personal costs and benefits). Lastly, and importantly, in an area where service provision is highly differentiated (eg in state education) citizens are more likely to use their voice but also are more likely to only influence their local provision (eg their local secondary school.) It is also hard for people to judge how good their provision is; often with public goods people will never be satisfied with the level provision. However, the greater people perceive the relative importance of a good the more important voice is in addressing government failure. Voting as a use of ‘voice’ under a democratic system is hugely important, it is the way in which people choose their representatives and show their feelings about particular policies. However, with the rise of alternative methods to formal voting, examples include opinion polls, protest meetings and opinion shows, voting is considered less significant now than previously. People feel they can give their opinion and views in many different ways and therefore don’t need to vote. However, it is undeniable that many still do. Economists feel that one of the reasons people do still vote is partly because the personal costs involved in voting are relatively low, the energy that is required to be expended is minimal[4] and there are many different methods through which it is possible to vote.

One of the things economists have looked at is how, once people have got to the voting booth, they make their decision. The answer appears to lie in ‘expressive voting’. This is related to people wanting to use their ‘voice’. No one’s vote is likely to be decisive but people still wish to express their support or disapproval. Although the public are aware of how little their vote is likely to affect the outcome of the election they gain expressive satisfaction from voting. People are more likely to support causes that serve the public when the cost is low. To vote in the public interest is cheap, your vote will not be decisive and so if a policy passes and costs you £50, it would have passed anyway and at least this way you get the expressive satisfaction for doing the “right” thing.

So we have examined why people vote, and how they make their decisions, can economics also work out how to get more people to vote?

One of the most common methods economists use to influence peoples’ behaviour is the use of incentives and disincentives. Incentives can include: minimising the personal costs involved, providing a cash incentive to vote or the use of social pressures. Economists have tried many of these, probably the most well know of these are the promotion of alternative voting methods, for example postal and internet voting. However, while these make the voting costs lower, they do not seem to have made turnout higher. [5] A cash incentive seems like a viable solution but raises moral issues. These are generally related to people’s fears that this is too close to the world of bribery in politics and it feels as if someone is buying their vote. Social pressures are the hardest to create and the hardest to measure, but it can be suggested that the answer to low voter turnout lies in education. Greater education increases our interest in politics and our desire to express our views on issues, and as a result, voting turnout amongst educated people [6] in western society tends to be considerably higher. So could education be the answer? It is possible, Iceland has a 99.9%[7] literacy rate and a voting turnout of 87.7%[8] (as measured at the 2003 elections). Niger has one of the lowest literacy rates and has a voting turnout of 44.7% (2004 elections). It is possible that this evidence is purely anecdotal and coincidental, only a long term study looking at the correlation between improving education and voter turnout would be able to say for sure. However, it seems likely.

Of course, the countries with the highest voting rates remain those with enforced compulsory voting, like Australia[9]. It is left to the countries themselves and the citizens whether they wish this to be the case. It is also true that many economists and political scientists believe that low voter turnout is a desirable thing to have.[10] Low voter turnout acts as a self selection tool. It is those with the greatest political interest, greatest knowledge of politics (those who have chosen not to become rationally ignorant) and those with the greatest level of education who end up voting. This could be argued to cause a greater stability of governmental system and also promote a more rigorous eye to be kept on lawmakers whose policies will be more closely scrutinised.

[1] Figures obtained from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)
[2] The UN’s Human Development Index table, Human Development Report 2006
[3] A. Hirschmann, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, 1970, Cambridge University Press
[4] Referring to a voter who has remained uniformed but due to personal satisfaction still votes.
[5] P. Funk, Modern Voting Tools, Social Incentives and Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence, 2006
[6] Those educated to a tertiary level.
[7] United Nations Development Programme Report 2006
[8] IDEA, ibid
[9] voter rate of 94.3%, 2004 elections, IDEA, ibid
[10] M.N. Franklin, Electoral Engineering and Cross National Turnout Differences, British Journal of Political Science, 1999

Censorship

The exams are finally over, so, lo and behold, another blog!

'Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, for ever.'
-Nadine Gordimer, 'Censorship And Its Aftermath’, 1990

If you want to know what defines an era, look no further than the authors, artists and activists who fell foul if it. Their works will show you what the people of the time could not deal with. Censorship is as old as civilisation itself - and the drive to suppress as strong today as ever. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that assassination is the ultimate form of censorship, and recent events seem to be bearing that out. On January 19th of this year the Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink died at an ultra-nationalist assassin's hands. His murder was a subsequence of the high profile and vehement campaign to vilify and prosecute those who had the courage to publicly and candidly debate the Ottoman massacres of 1915, in which a million or more Armenians died. Dink was in high level company, Turkey's Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk had criminal charges brought against him after discussing the same issue.

Just three months earlier, the author and journalist Anna Politkovskaya paid the same price; her public assassination came following her detailed and persistent research into the underside of Putin’s regime. Her dedication to the truth causes her to be shot in the lift of her Moscow apartment. When Alexander Litvinenko was publicly and grotesquely killed in London last November, it was stated by his Russian enemies that his chief offence was to publish a book that denounced the alleged terror tactics of his ex-employers in provoking the second Chechen war. That book, Blowing Up Russia, was promptly and permanently banned in his native land.
Following such events, the British media and politicians became increasingly smug in their moral superiority. Freedom of expression was praised, and the suppression of thoughts and ideas was publicly denounced. However, censorship has been becoming increasingly more common in the UK as well. Last year, only a concerted campaign by what one minister once sneeringly called "the comics' lobby" - in fact, a very broad coalition of writers, artists, lawyers, parliamentarians and entertainers - reined in an ill-drafted catch-all law against the incitement to so-called "religious hatred". However, the same government that devised that measure refused to act when several existing laws were broken when a hooligan gang claiming to act for the Sikh community forcibly shut down the Birmingham Rep's production of Behzti (Dishonour) by the young British writer Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti. "No one from the Home Office was prepared to defend the playwright," noted the National Theatre's director Nicholas Hytner, "even after she was threatened."

It has been seventeen years since books were burned on the streets of Britain; the last was Rushdie's Satanic Verses. However, British publishers took stood firm against the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa and issued a joint paperback edition of the Satanic Verses to display solidarity with Salman Rushdie. This would be unlikely to happen today. The press in the UK has subjected itself to a particularly rigorous form of self-censorship. During the uproar over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, not one British publication, channel or station published or displayed the cartoons. It was a legitimate news story but the press refused to publish them and by doing so did not allow the public the freedom to make up their own minds concerning the cartoons. Every journalist had seen them; they were freely available over the web and had been published by media across the free world. In the UK they were too scared of the reaction that might follow to exercise their freedom to publish anything, controversial or otherwise. It can be argued that they have the right to refuse to publish something they don’t feel is newsworthy, but that argument could not have been successfully used to defend them. It was the most high profile case regarding the right to freedom of expression in recent years yet the press censored the publication. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Currie in 1786 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.’ When the press gives away its freedom, what can follow?

The right to freedom of expression is as important today as it has ever been, not just in Britain, but across the entire world. When university students in Beijing were shown a video of the Tiananmen Square demonstration, they were amazed. They had never heard of or seen it before. The lone student attempting to stop tanks was one of the defining images of the twentieth century, yet it had been so well censored that well educated students had never seen it. It is incredible that in one of the most rapidly growing countries in the world, in a country proud of its educational systems, students have been prevented from seeing the power of a single person.

In the US, books are being taken out of schools. In a study conducted by the American Library Association, 42 of the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century have been the focus of ban attempts. Also in the US, the Harry Potter series have been publicly burnt and reviled. According to author Berit Kjos, ‘The biblical God doesn't fit into Potter's world of wizards, witches, and other gods. The Harry Potter series teaches an Earth-centered spirituality, the same religion as what the witch religions teach in the San Francisco area,’ she said. ‘It is a religion that is very real and is spreading throughout the country. It makes me very uncomfortable when [children] are immersed in topics that make witchcraft very exciting. It can be very confusing for them.’ Is it just me who thinks this is maybe just slightly ridiculous? I simply do not believe that children are this susceptible. In many western countries it is also a crime to claim that the holocaust did not happen. This is patently ridiculous. The holocaust was a tragic and evil slaughtering of millions of people, it is through seeing what lengths people will go to in order to deny the truth, that we can ensure something as heinous does not happen again. Woodrow Wilson said in 1919 to the Institute of France, 'If a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.' I cannot help but believe this is the case. As the next generation of press, politicians, artists and workers, we should be defending the right for all to speak, write and draw anything without the fear of censorship.

'The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.’
- John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty’, 1859

Celebrity culture

So first things first, an apology for not having updated for so long. Blame can go to the joys of a family Christmas and the ever approaching exams!

Right, all thanks to people who have commented, I've replied to you in the relevant entries' comments.

I'm having a slight change of pace today and am partly going to talk about the Celebrity Big Brother scandal. I'm aware I'm marginally out of date, but at least we get the benefit of hindsight! For those of you who don't live or follow news in the UK, Wikipedia has a fair overview of the story.

As I'm sure you can guess, I do not watch the show. I find it a distinctly repellent concept and scarily Orwellian. If anyone is interested, I watch two or three shows a week: Have I Got News For You?, Mock the Week and QI. Everything else I watch on DVD, I'm obsessed with House, The Gilmore Girls and Monk. But anyway, all this is by the by, let's get down to the main purpose of this entry.

I think we can all agree that the *ahem* delightful Jade Goody was out of order and did mean harm in her comments. I decline to pass judgement on whether she did actually mean them in a racist way. There is one thing inordinately hopeful about this whole ridiculous debacle. Over 45,000 people complained to Ofcom, the media regulator. In our fairly apathetic society, over most issues, few people complain, but the comments passed by Ms Goody and other housemates caused a massive deluge of objections. At least there are some things our society cares about.

I find Jade Goody more than slightly repellent, it astounds and, frankly appals me that someone who, throughout their "career" has displayed such crudeness, vulgarity, and, let's face it, immense ignorance, has amassed a fortune of £8m and was voted the 25th most influential person in the world (according to a poll taken by Heat). It can't just be me who this terrifies. What does it say about the state of our society today that someone as ignorant as Ms Goody is as admired as she is? In fact, it is fairly indicative of the current culture in the UK that she should be admired. Education continues to count for less, respect for teachers continues to fall and the new plans for a "flexible curriculum" sound like they are designed to teach less but sound better. Also, what else can you expect for a country where more magazines documenting the ups and, better, the downs of celebrities are sold than anywhere else in the world (relative to the size of its population). When did it become a stigma to be well spoken, educated and polite? It is interesting that when Celebrity Big Brother placed a wealthy, well-spoken Indian together with some white, working-class Brits, they immediately decided that she was not just different from them, but more upper class. One called her a princess, and meant it as an insult. If this is the case and the sociologists are right, it will inject new life into Britain’s fascination with celebrity. Oh joy.

What is this obsession with celebrity that dominates our culture today? Many reasons have been given for this. They could be historical: Britain has always has a very strong class system, and though it was supposedly abolished, a new one has been built on the dying embers of the old. The "celebrities" are considered to be in a new dimension, and, as a rule, people are fascinated with those who they see as higher in the social echelon and also those who they consider to have glamorous or rich lifestyles. However, this obsession could also have its root in the continued declination of communities. People no longer can gossip about their neighbours so instead talk about the lives of the famous. I'm less sure about this one, a school will always be a fairly close knit community where gossip runs amok, but the obsession with celebrity culture is as strong there as anywhere else. British celebrity culture is fairly tolerant: ethnic minorities and homosexuals feature prominently. I suppose you could even call it democratic, it certainly cannot be defined as a meritocracy, no discernible talent is apparently needed to enter the aristocracy of celebrity. Of course, you could also call this obsession symptomatic of a consumerist and materialist society. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-consumerist, No-Logo disciple. As far as I'm concerned, people can have what they want in terms of labels and famous cars. Just don't ask me to participate! I simply cannot bring myself to partake in a game of one-upsmanship. Celebrities' lives, indeed, celebrities themselves, are a product. They are carefully packaged and managed and presented to the voracious public to consume. Just an idea.

I have to say, I don't understand the attraction. What is the point in talking about random people's lives? Most of them aren't famous for anything except their looks, or sounding vaguely like they can sing once their voices are distorted through the wonders of modern technology. Why are they interesting? I really like Paul Merton, he amuses me, and his wit never fails to amaze. However, my level of interest in his personal life? None, or at worst, minimal.

What does everyone think? Is this world really this obsessed with the idea of their 15 minutes of fame? Are our own lives so pathetic that we have to live voraciously through others? Is it really a crime to actually have some form of general knowledge?

The Young Contrarian

Cloning ban overturned in Australia

So, I noticed this story when I was doing my usual daily news trawl earlier and I'm overjoyed! Stem cell research is going to be the way we find cures for such debilitating diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer’s. Well done to the Australian senate for finally passing the law allowing cloning of human embryos.

Idealism and the Developing World

It appears to be impossible to say you want to work in the developing world without sounding like a pathetic follower who wants to "make everyone happy and change an entire country." or someone who simply wishes to "make a difference." As someone who has ambitions to be a development economist I find this incredibly frustrating, someone today commented that it made me "sound like a contestant for Miss World". I see his point but I thought I would post my response here.

Development economics is an area of economics specifically aimed at the developing world. It is one of the two most rapidly evolving areas of economics and is currently considered one of the most helpful. While I agree that the 'developing world' bit can sound like an archetypal wannabe do-gooder's response let me assure you that, in my case this is not true. There is a surfeit of qualified economists working in and for the UK government, NGOs and companies based in the UK. One of the biggest recruiters of development economists in the UK are the FCO. While it is true that "charity begins at home", forging economic links with and strengthening the economy of third world and developing countries are considered both one of the most helpful processes to eliminating poverty and diseases worldwide (including reaching the UN MDGs) and, a way to help retain stability throughout the world. Incidentally, a strong economy and, through that a strong government, is also one of the vital ways the right to freedom of expression can be brought to all countries.

Let me make it clear from here on in, I know what I want to do and how helpful it is in a global setting. The aim and the direction are clear. Right, there's that part over.

When did it become a stigma to want to "make a difference" or, indeed "help people". If you say that in this charming country of ours you tend to be scooted away from or derided as an idealist with no real clue about the world. When did cynicism become the ruling ideal? The majority of politicans, whatever you think about their views, do actually go into a fairly thankless field becuase they want to change something. Sure, deriding politicians is amusing, but can we please not lose sight of their eventual goal. The US doesn't appear to have lost their way as completely as we have, witness the success of 'The West Wing' which was essentially about a group of good guys and their wish to make the world a better place. Even their political oppononants were considered to be at least trying to improve life for everyone. What went wrong over here?

The Young Contrarian

Openings

Blair, "education, education, education". That was his promise of almost 10 years ago to focus on improving schooling and training in the UK. Yet it has taken him this long to realise some fundamental points everyone has been pointing out for years, A-Levels are too easy. A large proportion of the A-Levels offered over here are totally pointless, LSE has been publishing a list of these for years and this year other top universities finally followed their example. (LSE's list of non preferred A-Levels.) More students doing the IB is a good thing, shock, horror! You mean creating more well-rounded students is a good thing?! Of course the major problem with education in this country is the general attitude to it. Teachers are given little or no respect and subjects like media studies are considered as important as physics. Blair's aim for 50% of 18 yr olds to go to university is blatantly ridiculous, if they're doing serious courses then fine but seriously, golf course management as a degree? Wouldn't it be more sensible to push alternate qualifications and on job training?

Is it just me who is beginning to feel as if we're living an old Cold War spy book? It was bad enough when the former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with the radioactive isotope polonium-210. Now, Yegor Gaidar (the former Russian prime minister), also seems to have been poisoned. This has been linked with the death of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot in Moscow in October. I'm sorry; this is beginning to get absurd. Assuming for a moment that is the Russians, and more specifically Putin, what do they think they're playing at? I know that under Russian law the president and the government are entitled to pursue and attack extremists all over the world (incidentally the law to define extremism can be interpreted to mean anyone against the government). This was passed quietly by the Russians to avoid attention. What are they playing at? Russia should be conducting itself as one of the political and economic leaders of the world, as a member of the G8 it has quite an important role to play. They are meant to be a free democracy but instead you have alleged assassinations and a press that isn't quite free. Is this a country we should be following?

Speak to you soon,

The Young Contrarian