Insuring skills

by Henry Farrell on October 17, 2003

Via William Sjostrom, this rather remarkable specimen of codswallop from Gary Becker, Edward Lazear and Kevin Murphy. These gathered luminaries argue in the Opinion Journal that cutting taxes has a double pay-off. It starves the beast, making cuts in welfare state spending more likely, and it also encourages workers to invest in “human capital,” i.e. job skills.

bq. The evidence is clear: Cutting taxes will have beneficial effects. Tax cuts will keep government spending in check and will provide the incentives necessary to produce a highly skilled, productive work force that enables high economic growth and rising standards of living.

This claim rests on some rather heroic assumptions which I won’t go into. It’s also, very possibly, self-contradictory; you can make quite a strong case that the two effects interfere with each other. Torben Iversen and David Soskice provide some decent evidence to suggest that people with high levels of specific skills actually want a beefy welfare state. More pertinently, where people don’t have such a welfare state, they may have a strong incentive to avoid investing in job-specific skills. If this result holds, then the benefits of tax cuts for human capital formation are _not_ clear at all. Starving the welfare state will deplete valuable forms of human capital.

[click to continue…]

Inside the blogger’s studio

by Ted on October 17, 2003

If you look up “self-indulgent blog post” in the dictionary, you’ll find the following. You’re all excused from reading it.

[click to continue…]

Libertarianism without inequality

by Chris Bertram on October 17, 2003

I’ve just started, as part of a reading group, Michael Otsuka’s Libertarianism Without Inequality . Otsuka is a political philosopher at University College, London, and well published in journals like _Philosophy and Public Affairs_ , so I’m expecting this to be an important contribution to the literature on self-ownership and justice. We’ve covered chapter one so far, in which Otsuka outlines his claim that robust self-ownership is compatible with equality, understood along the lines of Richard Arneson’s equal opportunity for welfare rather than Dworkinian equality of resources. What I say here is therefore highly provisional, probably involves misunderstandings, and probably gets an adequate answer from Otsuka later in the book. But anyone else who has _either read the book, or is reading it_ should feel free to post comments (we’re doing about a chapter a week and I hope to post some remarks on each chapter as we read).

[click to continue…]