Whatever answer Scotland gives, the question is flawed

Broadly speaking, I'm indifferent to the outcome of the Scottish referendum. Not because I'm uninterested, but because the debate seems to be motivated by entirely the wrong intentions.  Whilst tonnes of ink have been spilled as to whether there would be greater benefits to Scotland to remain in the Union or leave, far less has been said on the subject of whether the far larger remainder of the UK would benefit. As an Englishman, I see few material benefits to the UK of Scotland's presence in the Union. Ridding ourselves of the Barnett formula, some broken banks and Scotland's over-represented, lefty MPs would all be substantial benefits for me.

I'm tempted to argue that, if the Scots do vote 'no', it would be sensible to politely but firmly ask them to leave anyway. On the other hand, Scottish independence might well impose some serious costs and risks in the short to medium term which means that one should be cautious about advocating Scottish independence.

If the Scots do vote 'no', they are virtually guaranteed 'Devo Max', which might offer the benefit of forcing some sense of fiscal responsibility onto Scotland and, if the West Lothian question were adequately dealt with, have some political benefits as well. Sadly, I fear that it may simply mean greater plundering of the few productive parts of the UK economy in order to provide further subsidies to the unproductive parts—thus worsening the situation of all concerned. If this sounds very self-interested, one can hardly accuse the Scots of lacking in that quality.

From a Scottish perspective, the outlook seems entirely ridden with paradox. Many Scots seem to believe that, by voting Yes, they will help secure greater public spending. However, the reverse seems actually to be the case—an independent Scotland would face serious fiscal challenges which would probably mean very significant fiscal consolidation, especially in the absence of a central bank.

Given the welfarist nature of Scotland's public discourse, the likely outcome would seem to be tax rises and economic malaise. Of course, if an independent Scotland did significantly cut public spending, it would likely be beneficial to Scottish performance—but that is not what many in Scotland seem to desire. The same could be said of the deregulation necessary to move Scotland closer to being a 'Nordic' economy.

On the other hand, Scotland has hardly prospered within a Union that has—with the support of the Scottish electorate—imposed high levels of taxation, regulation and welfare spending in both Scotland and the UK.

If the Scottish independence movement were imbued with the doctrines of Smith, Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment, one might have rather more faith than an independent Scotland might flourish under a less burdensome government. However, we can hardly have much optimism for a Scotland that seeks to leave the centrally-planned mess that is the UK economy in order to pursue a greater level of central-planning, taxation and expenditure.

Indeed, the most unedifying spectacle of the Scottish referendum has been the sight of politicians of all stripes falling over themselves to offer the greatest amounts of cash to sway voters. If either the Yes or No campaigns offered real liberty to the people of Scotland (or the rest of the UK), we might have a more optimistic future.

Similarly, the greater devolution that might be on offer to the rest of the UK is all well and good, but only if it means genuine devolution of powers to the individual and not simply shifting power from bureaucrats in Whitehall to bureaucrats in town halls.

Karl Popper, in The Open Society and its Enemies, enjoined us to consider that what matters is not 'who governs?' but 'what are the proper functions of government?'. Whilst the two are intertwined, it is the latter question, not the former which is key. The Scottish referendum debate has ignored this distinction. It is predicated on the belief that there is a substantive choice between government from London or government from Edinburgh that will determine whether the individuals who live in Scotland flourish or not.

This is a false dilemma. What matters is liberty and the restraint of government to its proper functions. Until Scotland, either as part of the UK or independent, rediscovers this, its future looks bleak indeed.

Owen Jones and this democracy thing again

Owen Jones has decided to take on this Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership thing. You know, the treaty that says that governments must live up to the contracts they sign, further, that it won't be the courts controlled by governments that decide whether they have or not? Marshaling his arguments Jones tells us that:

And if our political elite won’t budge, then it’s up to the rest of us to organise. Criticisms of the EU have been surrendered to the xenophobic right for too long: a democratic People’s Europe has to be built. But TTIP is also a reminder of the constant threat from those in power. When they steal chunks of our democracy away from us, we may find that it is far from easy to win them back.

The argument is not that the TTIP or that arbitration set up are themselves anti-democratic. Rather, that they might curb the ability of the electorate to vote for something in the future. On the grounds that a government might have signed a contract. For example, a contract that asks a private company to provide some medical service or other. That contract stating that if the contract is cancelled then there will be some compensation to be paid. Jones and his ilk are arguing that the payment of such compensation will make renationalisation more expensive and that thus this is a denial of democracy.

Hmm, well, we might recall this also said by Jones:

The Aids crisis was building; more than half the population believed homosexuality was “always wrong”, peaking at 64% in 1987 when just 11% opted for “not wrong at all”; and later that decade the homophobic legislation, section 28, was introduced.

Jones is, of course, against that section 28 stuff even though it was obviously democratic. He opposes it on the grounds that some things are more important than the will of the majority. But once that principle has been conceded we've then got to decide what are those things that are more important than that majority will?

And the TTIP is saying, essentially, that the rule of law is more important than whatever it is the howling mob wants this week. That's certainly something that we would agree with around here.

There really are areas of life that have to be protected from democracy. You can argue, to your taste, as to whether the teaching about homosexuality in schools, the holding of governments to contracts they have freely signed, are such or not. But once we've the basic principle, that democracy is not the sole and over riding factor then we've got to have all of those arguments individually.

It's the ineffable smugness that gets us

We're all aware of the manner in which the supermarkets have been one of the evil bugbears of our times. The manner in which the upper middle class commentariat has been outraged, outraged we tell you, at the manner in which anyone has the effrontery to offer the working classes cheap and convenient food. doesn't everyone realise that they should be buying at the butcher and greengrocer so as to subsidise the desires of the upper middle class commentariat? Which brings us to this lovely piece claiming that the age of the supermarket is now over and ain't that a good thing?

 In my street, the light thunk of plastic boxes as they’re unloaded from the supermarket delivery vans is now as familiar, if not quite so uplifting, as the sound of my beloved’s key in the door. Those who use the internet for grocery shopping do it for reasons of convenience, certainly. But we also know we spend less online, buying only what we need, choosing necessities with a ruthlessness that often abandoned us in-store. What we used to spend on impulse buys – or some of it – then goes on a decent wedge of Lincolnshire Poacher, a couple of fillets of haddock or some good beef, sold to us by smiling, helpful, talkative people whose names we may know, and whose businesses matter both to them and us.

The people who run our supermarkets, obsessed as they are with “price matching” and “meal deals”, seem not to have noticed this. Or perhaps they have merely accepted there is no real way to respond to it. Small, local supermarkets are good and useful should you run out of stock cubes or Persil of a Tuesday evening. But even their expansion is finite. For the rest, there is no short-term solution. We have become suspicious: of their mawkish advertising, of their treatment of farmers, of their desperate bids to package up things that really don’t need packaging up at all (I mean this literally and metaphorically, versions of “restaurant-style” dishes being every bit as phoney and wasteful as apples wrapped in too much plastic). Modern life, we feel, is isolating enough without self-service check-outs. They want to own us, but we aren’t having it. Suddenly, the over-lit aisles of Tesco have never looked more bleak. Or more empty.

The problem with this is as follows. I've always said that supermarkets were horrible things and look, now people agree with me! That means I was right! But, no, sadly, it doesn't. It means that you might (assuming we accept the idea that the supermarkets are falling out of favour) be right now but it means that you were wrong before. Not in your personal taste of course: but in your projection of your personal taste to others.

And the point of emphasising this is that this is why we have markets. So that the consumer can decide for themselves how, in this instance, they wish to purchase their comestibles. If technology has changed so that internet delivery is now better all well and good. If it's simply consumer taste that has, equally well and good. The entire point of having competitors in a market is so that the consumer can, with each and every groat and pfennig they spend, intimate which of the possible offerings they prefer. On the grounds of price, taste, convenience, technology or any other differentiator.

If the supermarkets do go down (something we rather suspect won't actually happen) then it will not prove that those who campaigned against them in the past were right. It will prove that they were wrong: and further that their attempts to impose their views on others will always be wrong. For the very fact that supermarkets succeeded as a technology for however long it was or will be shows that they were wrong: and that they fail (as any and every technology eventually does) at some point will again show that that market process is the method of dealing with such matters. For, as is now being said, when the technology or consumer desires change then the market reacts and replaces the less favoured with the more. What else could you possibly want from a system of socio-economic organisation?

Friends of the Earth takes a baby step forward: when will they take the big one?

Tears in heaven etc as Friends of the Earth finally agrees with scientific opinion on nuclear power. Yes, they've admitted that actually it's rather safe. Which it is: deaths caused by power generation per terrawatt produced are lower than any other method of electricity generation. Yes, really, more people fall of roofs installing solar than die from radiation from power plants. Which is good, that's a baby step forward. Even George Monbiot changed his mind on this when Fukushima showed that no one at all is killed by radiation even when three plants meltdown after a very large earthquake indeed and the associated tsunami (which in itself killed tens of thousands).

So, what's the remaining problem?

When the presenter asked him to explain the group’s opposition to nuclear power stations he got this reply: “The biggest risk of nuclear power is that it takes far too long to build, it’s far too costly, and distorts the national grid by creating an old model of centralised power generation.”

Well, certain of us think that centralised power generation is just fine: we might even say that we're rather fond of the idea of being able to turn the lights on without having to check our watch to see if we're able to.

But the next, and larger, step in this is that we need to examine why nuclear is so expensive, takes so long to build?

That would be because the hippies have been screaming blue bloody murder about the radiation problem all these decades. So, now that we can all agree that the radiation isn't a problem the hippies will, at least we can hope they will, stop that screaming and we can dial back the public inquiries, the planning appeals and the monstrously overdone safety regulations so that we can have cheap, as well as that safe, nuclear power generation.

Well, in a rational world we would but that ain't our one, is it?

Well, yes, this is rather the point about fees for filing tribunal claims

How lovely to see public policy working well for once:

The number of aggrieved workers bringing sex discrimination claims to employment tribunals has tumbled by 90 per cent in a year since claimants were made to pay a fee.

It appears that the prospect of forking out in advance – and losing the money if their case fails – is deterring many of those who may be tempted to use a tribunal to make their employer pay compensation.

But Labour business spokesman Chuka Umunna has promised to abolish the fees, claiming they are unfair.

Chuka, as ever, is missing the point here. The aim and purpose of the fee is to reduce the number of claims. The fee has been instituted, the number of claims has dropped: public policy is actually working. Would that everything done by government worked so well.

The point is not though to make sure that those cruelly done down by t'evil capitalist plutocrats have no recourse: discrimination law still exists and still operates in the normal manner. Those with a good case will happily pay the small fee, those with a frivolous one won't. The impact of this modest fee therefore tells us something most interesting: the number of former claims that were indeed frivolous, or at least highly unlikely to succeed. But if trying it on costs nothing then why not do so?

There's an interesting parallel here with another thing that the British courts get right. In, say, a patent case, the loser pays everyone's court costs and legal fees. In a similar US case the each side pays its own costs, whatever the outcome of the case (except in truly, truly, egregious cases). It costs perhaps $500 to file a suit alleging patent infringement and up to $2 million just to prepare the defence for a trial. The incentives there are obviously for many trivial suits to be filed in the hopes of getting a bit of cash as a settlement to bugger off and stop bothering everyone.

It's worth noting that the US courts are full of patent troll cases: the UK courts have nary a one.

You know, the first thing everyone should know about economics? Incentives matter.

When proven cases of real sex discrimination bring (righteous) damages of tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds the idea of a small fee as a gatekeeper to deter frivolous cases seems both sensible and not a barrier to those real cases moving into the justice system.

When science tells you something you've got to take the rough with the smooth

We've a lovely little example today of where so many environmentalists go wrong on this climate change thing. As always around here we'll take the IPCC seriously as a matter of exposition of logic. So, The Guardian's running a column in which sure, the IPCC is right about the dangers of climate change, about the way that they prove that something ought to be done. However, they're entirely wrong about what should be done (ie, get markets and private money involved in changing the world) because, well, you know, that's just neoliberal economics and that can't be right, can it?

The IPCC report has done a wonderful job at alerting the global public opinion about the urgency to prevent, or at least limit, climate change. Also, it has correctly identified the growing pressure climate change will put on public finances, thus worsening the crisis of the state. But when it comes to finding solutions, it has not escaped the neoliberal zeitgeist, and especially the tendency to see in financial markets an answer, rather than a source of social problems.

This is indeed a small example of a larger problem. People taking the IPCC seriously on climate change, the need to do something, but then insisting that this means the IPCC supports their own plan for whatever should be done. As, for example, we note around here often enough the Greenpeace and the like plan to move forward into the Middle Ages in response to it all.

Here's the problem with these projections. The very proof that the IPCC uses that something is worth doing, that doing something will be, in the end, less costly than doing nothing, is entirely based on that neoliberal economics. More specifically, that we use the most efficient methods of mitigating climate change (ie, a carbon tax, not any of this regulatory rubbish and most certainly not a retreat to feudalism).

Both William Nordhaus and Richard Tol have done a lot of work on this. Leaving out their differing numbers the logic is: it's worth spending $x to avoid damages of $x or more than $x. If $y is greater than $x then it's not worth spending $y to avoid damages of $x. They both go on to point out, at various times, that the most efficient method of spending to avoid damages is that carbon tax. Thus spending $x in a carbony tax sorta manner can be justified if we're reducing future damages by $x or more. However, because other methods (regulation, law, targets, micromanagement) are less efficient then that is akin to trying to insist that spending $y is worth avoiding damages of $x (where y is still larger than x).

Note that none of this depends upon whether the IPCC is correct in its science about climate change at all. This logic is internal to the system. The IPCC has only, using neoliberal economics, shown that responding to climate change in the most efficient manner possible (ie, using neoliberal economics) is worthwhile. This means that you cannot then project your own desired, less efficient, solutions onto the world using the IPCC as your justification.

So ideas like the one quoted above just don't fly. You can't reject the neoliberalism of the IPCC solutions because they are integral to the argument that anything at all should be done.

Rowan Williams falls into the old climate change logical trap

For someone who trained as a theologian and philosopher this is rather sad: Rowan Williams has, in his retirement, fallen into an all too common logical trap in discussing climate change and what we ought to do about it. His piece is here and that trap is that while it's entirely possible to prove that climate change is a problem that we should do something about (a view largely held here at the ASI) that is not the same thing as saying that because climate change is a problem we should do anything about it. Anything here meaning not that we should do nothing, but that we end up giving credence to the more ludicrous suggestions about what we should do. This is an extremely important point and it's one that is desperately misunderstood too.

OK, so climate change is a problem and we should do something about it. Please, no, let's just take that as a starting assumption for the rest of this discussion. Excellent, does that mean we should follow Greenpeace and abolish industrial capitalism? That would be to embrace the "do anything" option and it would be ludicrous. The costs in human tragedy of starving a few billion of us as we return to an agrarian feudalism would be worse than anything that climate change could possibly foist upon us.

That is, the merits of doing whatever to deal with climate change depend not upon the merits of beating climate change but upon the merits of doing that particular thing.

And that's where this pernicious logical error comes in. That some things might or should be done to deal with climate change is, in our opinion, entirely true. But this does not then mean that every brainspasm that issues from a politician or environmentalist is worth doing due to the threat of climate change. We have to go through each and every suggested action to see whether it does make sense, or not, given the costs and benefits of that action.

The past year has seen the obstacles blocking action on climate change beginning to crumble. Opposition on scientific grounds looks pretty unpersuasive in the light of what has come from the experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their seven-year study states that they are now 95% certain that human activity is a significant and avoidable element in driving climate change around the world. Predicted changes in the climate are now being observed in the most vulnerable countries, confirming the predictive models that have been used.

The suggestion that action on this would have too great an economic cost is likewise looking increasingly shaky.

No, absolutely not. Proof that some action is required, proof even that some actions would be justifiable, is not proof that all actions are desirable or justified. It depends upon the economic cost of each action itself to determine that.

Or, to put it in a shorter and simpler manner. Just because climate change might be real it doesn't mean that the world of Caroline Lucas, George Monbiot or Bob Ward makes any sense. We're not entirely sure that a world that contains Bob Ward makes sense come to that.

Learning from history

In the Keystone Cops comedy that is the contending parties in the Scottish Independence referendum campaign, it seems that the Scottish No team have been making all the same mistakes that Canada's No team made on Quebec independence back in 1995. True, the Quebec referendum campaign ended in a narrow No decision – but so narrow that it kept the independence issue alive and grumbling. Next week's Scottish referendum has become too close to call, but most polls are predicting a No majority - though again, one so narrow that it keeps the independence issue alive and grumbling here too.

It seems the No team have learnt nothing from Canada's experience of nearly twenty years ago. Andrew Coyne of the National Post lists the similarities:

• The same early complacency in the No camp.
• The same unbridled panic as the Yes side surged in the polls.
• The same unappealing mix of threats and dubious accounting claims.
• The same blurring of the issues (devo-max, keeping the currency).
• A charismatic Yes leader and a seemingly distant No Prime Minister.

As in Canada, says Coyne, an unwarranted legitimacy was conferred on the separatist project; then came attempts to pacify it with more powers and more money, only to see it grow more ravenous in response. And once again,  a Yes vote is probably forever, while a No vote just marks the start of fresh campaigning.

It all looks like one of the slow-motion car crash in those early comedies. Except this particular farce is deciding the UK's future political and economic reality.

Strange fruit

Vishal was the 2014 winner of the Adam Smith Institute’s Young Writer on Liberty competition.  The free trade of all goods and services seems likely to be optimal—however, given that there are countless lobbies and political pressures that make this situation currently infeasible, I will argue for the abolition of tariffs and restrictions on the trade of fruits and vegetables.

A global abolition of import tariffs and restrictions on fruits and vegetables would, on a static analysis, reduce tax revenue derived from them and increase demand for fruits and vegetables as their prices decreased. But dynamically, reducing the revenue derived from tariffs on fruits and vegetables may well be more than offset from the gains in labour productivity and the increase in national income (and tax revenues) that may result.

David Blanchflower, Andrew Oswald & Sarah Stewart-Brown (2012) found that, after controlling for various other factors, individuals who eat 7 fruits and vegetables a day are found to be significantly happier than those who do not. They further found that this improvement in psychological well-being is nearly as much as the increase in happiness from being employed versus being unemployed!

On top of psychological well-being, greater fruit and veg consumption may also improve general health—itself a benefit—and potentially freeing up healthcare funds. Furthermore, Andrew Oswald, Eugenio Proto and Daniel Sgroi (2009) found that there is evidence to suggest that happiness does raise productivity.

An increase in happiness would also be amplified by the dynamic, contagious effect of happiness: it would spread through the population, further amplifying the economic gains from the easing of import tariffs and restrictions. This phenomenon has been well documented, including in James Fowler & Nicholas A. Christakis (2008).

Some countries already have low import tariffs on fruits and vegetables (in the US tariffs on fruits and vegetables average less than 5% according to Renée Johnson (2014)). But there are several economies where the tariffs are substantially higher; more than three fifths of EU and Japanese tariffs on fruit and veg are between 5-25% and nearly a fifth exceed 25%. Other countries with relatively high import tariffs on fruits and vegetables include China, Egypt, India, South Korea and Thailand.

Perhaps most importantly, the abolition of tariffs and import restrictions on fruits and vegetables would be a big boost to society's least fortunate, a group particularly hard up during an economic crisis like that from which we are only just recovering.

The abolition of tariffs on fruits and vegetables would reduce their price and increase their consumption. The initial drop in tax revenue would be offset by both the direct improvement in psychological well-being and its contagion that would work to enhance labour productivity, national income, health and happiness. Let's pick the low-hanging fruit!

Some evidence that sweatshops are good for Bangladeshi women

I recently read an interesting paper by Rachel Heath and A. Mushfiq Mobarak, of the Universities of Washington and Yale, which looks at the impact that the garment industry has on young girls and women in Bangladesh. 

The results are quite amazing. According to the study, girls in villages close to garment factories (or sweatshops, as they are sometimes called):

1. Delay marriage. On average, a young girl living near a garment factory was 28% less likely to get married in the study year than the average Bangladeshi girl. This effect was strongest among 12-18 year olds.
2. Delay childbirth. On average, a young girl living near a garment factory was 29% less likely to give birth in the study year than average. Again, this effect was strongest among 12-18 year olds.
3. Are much more likely to go to school. Exposure to garment factory jobs was associated with a 38.6% increase in school enrolment rates. Broken down, this translated into a slightly lower enrolment rate for 17-18 year old girls, who presumably were more likely to be in work, and a considerably higher enrolment rate for girls younger than that.

According to the study’s authors, these findings are probably due to some combination of wealth effects (richer families need to marry off their daughters less early, and can afford to send their daughters to school for longer) and the fact that garment factory jobs reward skills, increasing the value of education.

The paper is an important reminder that sweatshops may provide significant benefits to their employees and the places they are located. They are by no means all good, but they are not all bad either, which well-meaning campaigners against sweatshops would do well to remember. A working version of the whole paper can be accessed here.