Re: Mixed economy??? - Was: Gintis:TINA

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Herb Gintis said:

(herb:)
>       This is the opposite of the case, I believe. Representatives
>       should be rewarded for doing well and punished (by losing
>       office) for doing poorly. This means paying them well with the
>       threat of nonrenewal (we call this 'labor market discipline through
>       contingent renewal).

to which Trond Andresen replied:

>Yes, and here we again have the conflict beteen the fine academic
>theories for the classless theoretical world on one side, and the real
>world on the other. There was one lesson we learned in my country
>during the 80s: Do not listen to the arguments about high wages to
>politicians to get the "talented" ones and they will not be tempted by
>bribes, or about the need for high wages and bonuses to managers,
>also to get the most talented ones. What we discovered was that this
>was just excuses for chummies in the politico-economic elite playing a
>game of "you do me a favour, and I will do you one later". And when
>they didn't deliver in politics or in business, they gave each other
>golden parachutes while employess were sacked and the health budget
>cut..

To resort to the jargon of the trade, don't we have an adverse selection
problem here? Won't high rewards for public service tend to attract people
most in love with money, and therefore those most vulnerable to bribery
and other blandishments?

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)