The Tension Between Fair Outcomes and Fair Mechanisms

Many politically-sensitive topics become trivial when considering only their immediate outcomes--the poor deserve a decent life too, so give them the basic necessities like food, shelter and some spending money. But when considered as a subset of the entire picture, that line of reasoning is disastrous. The poor will have no incentive to work (if they can't earn reasonably more than what they're given for free to cover for their time and effort) and to limit their family size. With a smaller tax-base and a much larger tax-burden, the rest of society will crumble underneath the growing weight of taxation, pushing the society further into poverty.

The tension isn't just economic. It can also be social. Take abortion for instance. There are arguments to be made for both sides, but the most convincing of them are that (a) women have the right to control their own bodies (an appeal to liberty) and that (b) making it easier to get an abortion disincentivizes people from being more careful through preventive methods (an appeal to distortion of incentives). The former argument (a) preaches the outcome side while the latter argument (b) criticizes the incentive side. Neither side is willing to break the tension by crossing the border between incentives and outcomes. Therefore, neither argument is complete.

As an economist, I believe that there is a net benefit (benefit - cost) to everything, which we call "utility", an abstract value that captures the trade-offs people are willing to make. Simply capture the entire net social cost of an abortion in a price, make alternative forms of contraception more affordable (such that the cost directly varies with urgency), and the entire argument (b) becomes null while retaining women's rights to their own bodies. Perhaps make preventive methods (condoms and birth control pills) free, morning-after methods inexpensive, and abortions expensive (Sufficient data is necessary to correctly calibrate their optimal prices). This construction maintains the liberty while not distorting incentives.

The same principles apply to almost instance of tension between outcomes and incentives. Simply capture the net cost of the issue in a flat "tax", and things will naturally tend toward a more efficient equilibrium.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Too bad people don't always

Too bad people don't always plan ahead (or accidents happen) when it comes to getting pregnant. I think that getting an abortion already has a lot of emotional costs. A tax would put a price on abortion and could actually reduce these emotional costs. What is needed might be more education about contraception (though I didn't have proper sex ed beyond bio class, so I really can't say).

The U.S. welfare system seems based on the philosophy in the first paragraph. However (from the probably biased articles I've read) the U.S. compensates by making it extremely difficult to get welfare (ie: many complicated forms and long lines, or giving people very silly, impractical jobs to do to get welfare). This is a waste of time for people who need welfare and are trying to find a job or obtain training in one.

Ideally, everyone of working age who aren't disabled should be able to stand on their own feet or of family/friends, but unexpected or tragic things happen in life. By making people happier, we make society better for all of us. This sounds really cheesy, but I think it's true. Some people need treatment or time to find a job and get back on their feet. While there are people who might take advantage of the welfare system, it doesn't just give people free rides through life.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.