Porqué los políticos destruyen oportunidades? Simple lógica:
The income derived from possessing a special privilege is called "rent" (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the monthly payments that tenants make to landlords). Rents themselves are just a transfer of value from some people to others. So, for example, when each American pays an extra $10 annually for sugar because of the special protections that Uncle Sam gives to American sugar farmers, that $10 winds up in the hands of sugar farmers. Each of us who doesn't grow sugar is worse off by $10, while those who do grow it are better off by the sum total.
Sugar consumers' losses are balanced by sugar farmers' gains. On net, then, it appears that society comes out even.
But that's not the case. Tullock's insight is that the very ability of government to create lucrative special privileges diverts resources from socially productive pursuits into wasteful ones.
Knowing that government is willing and able to impose tariffs that will protect them from foreign competition – and knowing that such protection will raise their incomes – sugar farmers understandably spend some of their resources farming government rather than farming their land.
Such lobbying can reap advantages worth millions. So it's understandable that companies spend considerable effort courting politicians who can bestow such privileges. That's wasteful. Time, energy, and other materials that could be used to expand the output or improve the quality of goods and services are instead used to lobby government for narrow benefits that may harm society at large. And the larger the potential gain from being granted such a privilege – that is, the larger the rents – the more intense will be rent-seekers' incentives to chase after them. That puts tremendous pressure on – and gives tremendous leverage to – politicians.
It's easy to look at the Blagojevich case and see a failure of personal ethics. It is about character. But it's also about how government itself creates the very conditions for corruption. Think of all the special privileges governors can bestow: subsidies for stadiums, public-works contracts, special taxes and fees, not to mention myriad regulations with myriad loopholes. Chief executives – mayors, governors, and presidents – are supposed to be the chief enforcers of the law. Today, though, they are also chief bestowers of privileges. As such, the trading of favors is intense, leaving little bandwidth for actual public service. Society loses.
Elevamos esto a la potencia de 10 y tenemos como resultado Latinoamerica o Africa.
Excelente Ramiro. Yo creo que ya lo escribí aca, lo más dramático es el efecto en la sociedad: el subsidio es efectivamente tentar a invertir recursos en emprendimientos economicos ineficientes en detrimento de los genuinamente productivos. Es lo que ha hecho nuestro pais por los siglos de los siglos. El resultado es una enorme porción de la sociedad dependiendo de actividades que no se autosustentan y por lo tanto cautivas del subsidio.
ReplyDeleteY además la balanza obliga a un desincentivo igualmente fuerte para todos aquellos que contra la corriente trabajen en actividades no subsidiadas.
Oh, como mejor lo puso Discépolo, el que no llora no mama, y el que no afana es un gil.