Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The difference I see here is that the governing coalition in America seems to be shrinking, while in China it seems to be growing. In a broad coalition, there are too many people to just buy off, so you have to invest in public goods that benefit the people generally. In a narrow coalition, supporters can be bought off directly, through government-enabled rent seeking and the like.

You might see evidence of a broadening coalition in China, with high investments in public infrastructure. You might see evidence of a shrinking coalition in America, with the failure to pass effective health care, patent and telecommunications reform, in favor of greater rent-seeking.

Not to say China doesn't have rent-seeking, not at all. It's arguably worse than the States, I'm sure. But the trajectories appear to be different.

Side note: in the Chinese village my wife is from, the central government is now paying for the construction of new land fill. Currently all trash gets thrown in the river, and it creates an awful mess. The local government would never come together to provide trash remove services, so the central government has stepped in. They recognize the intractability of the issue locally, and the strategic importance to do something about it nationally. It's encouraging to watch.



so broad coalitions are forced to favor the public interest, while narrow coalitions can afford to serve only their sponsors and ignore the public interest -- very interesting thesis.

Do you have any links to more detailed discussions of this theory?


I got the kernel of the idea from Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, in this podcast:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/02/bruce_bueno_de.html

I'm sure you can find more material on the subject from there.

Since I heard this, I have found it very profitable to think of public policy in terms of coalitions.

Interestingly, one of Madison's arguments in favor of union at the Constitutional Convention was what that a United States would create broader coalitions, and thus a more stable government. This was to head off arguments at the time that republics had always been geographically limited, and any large state necessarily tended towards empire. (My source for that is Joseph Ellis, btw.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: