David McMullen writes:
>I feel very comfortable with the concept [of government failure]. As a
>socialist I am happy with the idea that not only does the market fail but
>so too does the capitalist state.
>
>Government failure is essentially about rent seeking - individuals and
>organisations trying to use the actions of government to increase the
>value of their property rights whether these relate to means of
>production, a specific type of labor power, or a position in the
>government or bureaucracy. One of the tasks of a socialism will be to
>replace this system of private property with a collective one that
>eliminates the wedge between individual and collective interest.
yes. Market failure and government failure parallel each other and can
interact with each other, leading to a mutually-reinforcing process. The
nuclear power producers control the Nuclear Regulatory Commission more than
anyone else does.
>The bourgeois state in its role as economic agent falls down in a number
>of other ways that could also be called government failure. Or perhaps
>they could be seen as further sub-categories under an some over-arching
>rubric. As with government failure proper, they stem not from the poblem
>of government as such. but rather government within a capitalist society.
Even so, when and if we attain a socialist society, we should be concerned
with the possibility of government failure. (An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.) The move to a "stateless society" means that the
people control the government as much as vice-versa.
>The two cases I have in mind are as follows:
>
>1. Even where government regulation has the best of motives, it is faced
>with the
>difficulty of regulating vested interests who don't want to be regulated.
Often, the regulated _want_ to be regulated. This can be seen in the US
trucking and airline industries before the late 1970s, where the regulating
agencies (the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics
Board) acted as government-sponsored cartels for the regulated industries.
>This makes regulation costly and often ineffective. Under socialism there
>could be greater reliance on self-regulation and any external supervision
>would be aided by the openness of decisionmaking.
I would add that "self-regulation" would occur more and more _through_ the
government.
>2. The capitalist state is lumbered with an inefficient and distorting
>tax system, mainly because of political pressure to use it as a means of
>redistribution. Under socialism, where work is secure and income fairly
>equal, it would be feasible to rely on a non-distorting poll tax.
This fits with Marx's own preference for simple government. BTW, we have to
remember that with socialism, much of people's income will not be in the
form of money. Ultimately, there'd be no way for people to pay taxes except
in the form of unpaid labor of some sort.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
