View Full Version : The Curley Effect
Though touched on in other threads, I thought I would start a new one focusing on this topic specifically. Take the time to read through the article in the link provided:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf
Reading from page 1 through about 3 or 4, it struck me how the effect noted seems to be EXACTLY the model being followed by the Obama administration. I have to admit that the math hurt my head but, I wonder if politicians are aware that they may actually be harming their electorate by following this model. The cynic in me says they do and don't care because they want power and re-shaping the electorate through re-dtributionist policies ensures they stay in power. After all, that seems to be the point.
Trapper John
11-27-2012, 14:37
Though touched on in other threads, I thought I would start a new one focusing on this topic specifically. Take the time to read through the article in the link provided:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/curley_effect.pdf
Reading from page 1 through about 3 or 4, it struck me how the effect noted seems to be EXACTLY the model being followed by the Obama administration. I have to admit that the math hurt my head but, I wonder if politicians are aware that they may actually be harming their electorate by following this model. The cynic in me says they do and don't care because they want power and re-shaping the electorate through re-dtributionist policies ensures they stay in power. After all, that seems to be the point.
Thanks for bringing this forward as a new thread. IMHO this is the new reality (see my previous on this subject).
{Salute}
FWIW, Professor Glaeser is a committed urbanist <<LINK (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/if-the-tea-party-went-downtown/)>><<LINK2 (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354047214&sr=8-1&keywords=edward+glaeser)>> as well as a progressive <<LINK3 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-13/obama-s-welfare-state-needs-republican-guardians.html)>> <<LINK3 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-12/obama-vs-romney-the-battle-of-the-century.html)>>. That is, the man is critical of the current president and his policy preferences for reasons many here might not like.
(IMO, the current president got elected and re-elected not so much because he has a nefarious plan to make cities poorer or because he has a master plan to radicalize and further racialize American national politics but because his opposition allows itself to believe that he does. My $0.02.)
It seems to me that they are saying that politicians who are like this aren't doing it for nefarious reasons but because they want to stay in power and, in this case, they want their party to stay in power and the way to do it is to re-distribute wealth in what is really a vote buying effort. The second and third order effect happens to be poverty inducing.
At least, that was the way I read it.
Trapper John
11-27-2012, 14:43
FWIW, Professor Glaeser is a committed urbanist <<LINK (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/if-the-tea-party-went-downtown/)>><<LINK2 (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/159420277X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354047214&sr=8-1&keywords=edward+glaeser)>> as well as a progressive <<LINK3 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-13/obama-s-welfare-state-needs-republican-guardians.html)>> <<LINK3 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-12/obama-vs-romney-the-battle-of-the-century.html)>>. That is, the man is critical of the current president and his policy preferences for reasons many here might not like.
(IMO, the current president got elected and re-elected not so much because he has a nefarious plan to make cities poorer or because he has a master plan to radicalize and further racialize American national politics but because his opposition allows itself to believe that he does. My $0.02.)
Now that truly is "food for thought"! I am going to need to think about that for a while, it really does have far reaching and strategic political consequences.
Really, Really Good Thought {Salute}
It seems to me that they are saying that politicians who are like this aren't doing it for nefarious reasons but because they want to stay in power and, in this case, they want their party to stay in power and the way to do it is to re-distribute wealth in what is really a vote buying effort. The second and third ordr effct happens to be poverty inducing.
At least, that was the way I read it.Has there ever been political party in American history that did not seek to stay in power and use patronage as a means to do so?
FWIW, my reading of the piece is that Glaeser has a myopic understanding of the roles race, ethnicity, and class have played in American political history. Moreover, he strikes me as a person who has accepted uncritically the notion of American Exceptionalism without engaging intensely the other sides of the dice. (Melting place for some, smelting furnace for others.)
Professor Glaeser also strikes me as something of a race baiter. By his account, Boston would never have had a race problem were it not for guys like Curley.* Moreover, Detroit, a American city populated by Americans, is comparable to a third world city because of the skin color of those Americans.
__________________________________________
* The opening vignette of the British soldier should raise twenty foot high flags for all readers. A foreign national attempted to convince Americans to violate American neutrality before the U.S. entered one of its least popular wars and yet somehow Curley is the bad guy. Balls.
The math made my head hurt. The opinions without an ounce proof to support it made my head hurt even more.
So the author believes that Chicago and New York City didn't go the way of Boston and Detroit because the mayors were too short sighted? How about the thought never crossing their minds to do something like Curley and Young.
And for those espousing that POTUS is trying to do the same thing, I believe you are not looking at the entire picture. It is easy to push someone out of a city. You may love Boston or Detroit, but you can still be an American in Houston, or Denver, or Seattle. So if Obama is using the Curley effect to the utmost, which I don't believe, one has to believe that the more affluent of this country are going to start leaving in droves.
The ultra rich, maybe. Those of us in the middle class and upper middle class, not going to happen. And I don't see a scenario where Veterans decide it is time to hit the road, vice fighting for what they have always fought for, The Stars and Stripes, and all Old Glory stands for. She is much bigger, and much stronger than that.
Just my .02 worth.
[QUOTE=Sigaba;476322]Has there ever been political party in American history that did not seek to stay in power and use patronage as a means to do so? Appeal to common practice fallacy
FWIW, my reading of the piece is that Glaeser has a myopic understanding of the roles race, ethnicity, and class have played in American political history. Moreover, he strikes me as a person who has accepted uncritically the notion of American Exceptionalism without engaging intensely the other sides of the dice. (Melting place for some, smelting furnace for others.)Straw man
Professor Glaeser also strikes me as something of a race baiter. By his account, Boston would never have had a race problem were it not for guys like Curley.* Moreover, Detroit, a American city populated by Americans, is comparable to a third world city because of the skin color of those Americans. Ad Hominem fallacy
With all due respect, Sigaba, your arguments strike me as logical fallacies. You didn't really address the effect. If it is true that the Curley effect is what he says it is (a politician trying to manipulate demographics by wealth re-distribution for selfish reasons, i.e. to stay in power), how is this not the situation we find ourselves in right now?
To be fair, I agree with you that all politicians probably try this in some fashion but, so what? It is what it is.
My .02 cents.
Trapper John
11-27-2012, 19:32
If no one minds, I am going to share the Glaeser paper with a long time (15yr) friend of mine and retired Navy CMDR. He is a graduate of the JFK School at Harvard (MPA) and the Wharton School at Penn (MBA in Finance). He is the most expert person I know in the field of macroeconomics (specialty - health care industry). He may know the authors and I will ask him for an opinion on the validity of the methodology used. Although I can understand it, I cannot evaluate its veracity. I think expert evaluation of veracity of the study methodology would be useful here.
What say you all?
Glaeser may be the most biased SOB in the world. I simply perceived what he was saying differently than both Sigaba and Afchic. I didn't see his point as being urban focused, but that he was comparing the behavior of the mayors in question to Obama's from a wealth re-distribution perspective. I ask myself, is Obama trying to re-distribute wealth? I think so. Why is he doing it? Because I believe he wants to reshape the electorate into a larger base so he can stay in power and that is what i understand this study to be saying. Do the republicans, when in power, do the same thing? I think so but I also think they focus on the 53%, so to speak, while democrats focus on the 47% and hope to increase it to a point where they stay in power.
Glaeser may be the most biased SOB in the world..
Nope - that would be Dusty with MR2 as close second. As for plain jane SOB there is our friend Dozer.
Tag, you're it. :D
Dozer523
11-27-2012, 21:45
Nope - that would be Dusty with MR2 as close second. As for plain jane SOB there is our friend Dozer.
Tag, you're it. :Dhuh? Not crazy about being called plain or Jane or sob.
I will say this. My great grandfather got off the boat in Boston and couldn't get to San Francisco quick enough so wreched were the the Irish in Boston. So I stopped reading when I got to the happy horse shit about an integrated city of rich and Irish.
And by the way how do you explain the urban flight to the suburbs? A nefarious plan by the Irish, Blacks, and Hispanics and . . . Who's next?
The Reaper
11-27-2012, 22:32
Who knew people would move to areas with less crime, better schools, and lower taxes?
Obviously not the mayors.
TR
Who knew people would move to areas with less crime, better schools, and lower taxes?
Obviously not the mayors.
TRWas called an Uncle-Tom.:confused:
Stay safe.
With all due respect, Sigaba, your arguments strike me as logical fallacies. You didn't really address the effect. If it is true that the Curley effect is what he says it is (a politician trying to manipulate demographics by wealth re-distribution for selfish reasons, i.e. to stay in power), how is this not the situation we find ourselves in right now?
Sinjefe--
The point I am making is that Professor Glaeser is offering an interpretation of America's past through a poorly crafted lens that is designed to let us see present-day inefficiencies in public policy.
While everyone has one bias or another, when an economist offers a historical interpretation of the Progressive Era and the early 1970s that suggests that the politicians he doesn't like were racist without looking in depth at broader context of ethnic conflict and racial division (as he does on page 11 and again on page 12), he is leading his readers astray with math. (Based upon the evidence offered, does the reader know if Mr. Crowley or Mr. Young invented the game they played or if they simply played it better/worse than their predecessors?*)
In my reading of American history, racially/ethnically charged rhetoric is not the sole province of urban mayors.
IMO, the lack of documentary evidence of Curley's political plan ("Curley seems" is not nearly as convincing as "Curley did") or of a Young plan ("We cannot be sure that Young’s actions were strategically designed to drive the whites out") in the linked-piece is telling, as are:
the myopic view of Boston's Brahmins (but then, can you blame two Harvard eggheads for not knowing on what side their bread is buttered?)
the too short discussion of the broader trends of the Democratic Party since the Gilded Age/Progressive Era,
the tepid contextualization of his two cities in the broader currents of American urban history
(What was happening in America's major cities that might have contributed to "white flight" throughout the twentieth century?
What about the overall migration of people from the Northeast to the West?
Might the ongoing influx of working class Irish migrants have led to Boston's slowing economic growth?
How did the world wars reconfigure America's key cities?)
the lack of evidence showing a direct link between Crowley's and Young's policies and their impact on their constituents, and
an incomplete understanding of how divisive the First World War was in America.**
MOO, given Glaeser's more recent discussions of the Progressive Era, it would be interesting to know why his 2005 piece has such glaring deficiencies.
Glaeser may be the most biased SOB in the world. I simply perceived what he was saying differently than both Sigaba and Afchic. I didn't see his point as being urban focused, but that he was comparing the behavior of the mayors in question to [the president's] from a wealth re-distribution perspective. I ask myself, is [the president] trying to re-distribute wealth? I think so. Why is he doing it? Because I believe he wants to reshape the electorate into a larger base so he can stay in power and that is what i understand this study to be saying. Do the republicans, when in power, do the same thing? I think so but I also think they focus on the 53%, so to speak, while democrats focus on the 47% and hope to increase it to a point where they stay in power.Where in the article is the current American president mentioned?:confused: (FWIW, the links I provided in my previous post will lead one to Professor Glaeser's views of the current president.)
In any case, does the "Curley effect" provide a better explanation of the modern Democratic Party's approach to national politics that supersedes what historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars have long described as the New Deal coalition? (IMO, the answer is "no.")
More generally, I think we (those who opposed the president's reelection bid) are falling into bad habits. In our search for reasons why the Democrats won, we are looking for "evidence" of dysfunction in America and people to blame. We are looking for magic bullet "lessons of history" that can show us exactly where they screwed up America. I remain convinced that we, not "they," are responsible for our profound disappointment.
(If we were Coca Cola, we'd be running full page ads and sixty second commercials blaming consumers for choosing different soft drinks--":mad:You drink Mountain Dew because you suck!:mad:"--rather than looking at the sales report and figuring out how to diversify our product line and re-energize our marketing and advertising campaign.)
________________________________________________
* Of Anglo Saxons in Boston, the piece merely states "In part,Curley’s ethnic politics had its roots in the long-standing battles between the English and the Irish. The English discriminated against the Irish, and the Irish resented this discrimination." Of Detroit, the piece summarizes: "Detroit’s long tradition of institutionalized racism and racial hostility exploded in the 1967 riot, among the deadliest and most destructive in U.S. history...." Yet, without providing any detail of how that discrimination and institutionalized racism played out in Boston and Detroit, how can a reader have a good idea of the contexts of Curley's and Young's responses to those dynamics?
** The historical fact that America fought alongside the British in the First World War should not overshadow the intense debate leading up to that choice (http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Less-Than-War-Americas/dp/0813130026/ref=la_B001HMPA0A_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354085699&sr=1-1).
(If we were Coca Cola, we'd be running full page ads and sixty second commercials blaming consumers for choosing different soft drinks--":mad:You drink Mountain Dew because you suck!:mad:"--rather than looking at the sales report and figuring out how to diversify our product line and re-energize our marketing and advertising campaign.)
Do you by chance work for the Heckler & Koch management team?
Trapper John
12-01-2012, 14:09
Sinjefe--
.....In any case, does the "Curley effect" provide a better explanation of the modern Democratic Party's approach to national politics that supersedes what historians, political scientists, and presidential scholars have long described as the New Deal coalition? (IMO, the answer is "no.")
More generally, I think we (those who opposed the president's reelection bid) are falling into bad habits. In our search for reasons why the Democrats won, we are looking for "evidence" of dysfunction in America and people to blame. We are looking for magic bullet "lessons of history" that can show us exactly where they screwed up America. I remain convinced that we, not "they," are responsible for our profound disappointment......
In an earlier post in this thread I said that I would ask a long-time friend of mine to evaluate the veracity of Glaesser's methodology. He has promised to revert to me on this sometime next week and for what it's worth I will post his comments then. In the meantime I did not want this thread to go stale as it is an important discussion.
First let me say that I agree with Sigaba and I would like to add my 2 cents. Although published in peer-reviewed journal it is a low impact journal (impact factor - 1.023) indicating that it may be read in the field, but no one is citing the works published in their papers. This paper is a strange admixture of political opinion with clear overtones of racial and ethnic bias. This unfortunately detracts from what could have been an otherwise useful study. As to the study itself, it falls short as a prospective study. Having set out a mathematical model based upon the Curley administration, Glaeser dose not apply it to the Young administration in Detroit, let alone Mugabe's reign in Zimbabwe.
I take further issue with the presumption of cause and effect, i.e. Curley et al. intentionally put into place "bad" tax policy to bring about mobility of the electorate in favor of their re-election. IMO it is more likely that in modern democracies policies are developed out of a sincere belief that the policies are in the best interest of the electorate. If those policies happen to be impoverishing in their effect then it is a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences in operation. If those same policies also have the effect of reshaping the electorate in favor of the politicians in office, then that only reinforces the belief in the "correctness" of the policy and re-election of politicians supporting the policy.
For its obvious limitations, the description of the Curley Effect is still valuable as a short-hand descriptor of the effect of public policy on shaping the electorate and the maintenance of political power.
It is because of this, I am an advocate of term limits and a dismantling of the permanent political class. Professional politicians are always going to act in their own best interest first. Just my opinion.
charlietwo
12-02-2012, 01:12
More generally, I think we (those who opposed the president's reelection bid) are falling into bad habits. In our search for reasons why the Democrats won, we are looking for "evidence" of dysfunction in America and people to blame. We are looking for magic bullet "lessons of history" that can show us exactly where they screwed up America. I remain convinced that we, not "they," are responsible for our profound disappointment.
(If we were Coca Cola, we'd be running full page ads and sixty second commercials blaming consumers for choosing different soft drinks--":mad:You drink Mountain Dew because you suck!:mad:"--rather than looking at the sales report and figuring out how to diversify our product line and re-energize our marketing and advertising campaign.)
Assumption: The Constitution is the foundation of this country and an informed populace is necessary for a voting republic to survive and thrive.
Question: Has knowledge and understanding of the Constitution improved or declined in the past 50 years?
Hypothesis: An orchestrated campaign devoted to the undermining of the Constitution and tenets of individual liberty and responsibility has grown a demographic that embraces security, rather than the Constitutional tenets.
Conclusion: Politicians selling a brand name as you refer to are successful BECAUSE of a general lack of understanding in regards to the Constitution. Hence, it IS the fault of the voting population when representatives promising security defeat representatives promising liberty. It is also the fault of elected representatives for allowing security to trump liberty, in many instances.
Personal responsibilities do not apply to minor decisions like "Coke or Mountain Dew". They DO apply when electing representatives.
ZonieDiver
12-02-2012, 08:03
It is because of this, I am an advocate of term limits and a dismantling of the permanent political class. Professional politicians are always going to act in their own best interest first.
My main problem with so-called 'term limits' is that they don't address the real problem, which has been stated here recently (I think by you TJ... and I use that particular nickname with love! < Not THAT kind of love, Dusty!>:D), and comes from the Pogo cartoon of long ago. "We the People" are the true problem. The same surveys that hold Congress in 'contempt' with mid-teens approval ratings usually rate the surveyeds' Congress-critter in the high 50's or above. It isn't "Congress" we hate, it's "them other Congress-critters"!
IF they come up with term limits on a national level, I hope it works better than it does here in AZ. Government here is like a "roach motel" - "they check in but they never check out"! If your two terms in the HofR are up, run for two terms in the Senate. Then, get elected to the Corporation Commission, or have one of your political pals appoint you to some cushy committee, board, etc.
They almost never seem to go back to 'civilian life' - no matter what "We the People" do... unless WE 'retire' them.
Trapper John
12-02-2012, 08:30
IF they come up with term limits on a national level, I hope it works better than it does here in AZ. Government here is like a "roach motel" - "they check in but they never check out"! If your two terms in the HofR are up, run for two terms in the Senate. Then, get elected to the Corporation Commission, or have one of your political pals appoint you to some cushy committee, board, etc.
They almost never seem to go back to 'civilian life' - no matter what "We the People" do... unless WE 'retire' them.
Thank you for this "ground truth" intelligence. I did not know the Arizona model was not working. The reasons you explained are understandable and, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, should have been predictable. Not being a fan of repeating "failed experiments" I guess its back to the drawing boards :D.
Thanks again {Salute}
To continue with the OT "Term Limits" discussion... I will again advocate another, abet flawed, idea.
Starting at the State level, each person who wishes to run or be appointed to any office at the County, State, or National level would be requires to obtain a professional license. It would be like a drivers license and have certain requirements, like proof of birth for example, not that that should ever come up. If you want to get on the ballot in that state, you have to maintain a valid license. You could add in other requirements, such as proof of recall insurance, successful completion of a Constitution class, not be a felon, etc.
The main requirement is the two-year rule. It would prohibit anyone from running for or accepting appointment to any office for two years after they have successfully completed their current term/appointment. They would also not be able to accept appointment to any office for two years after successful completion of their current term. It would allow campaigning during such period, but one would have an actual two year break between terms.
Yes, I know that people will figure and we might just end up with two sets of professional politicians, but it does give us a greater choice between craps tables...
Trapper John
12-02-2012, 09:40
To continue with the OT "Term Limits" discussion... I will again advocate another, abet flawed, idea.
Starting at the State level, each person who wishes to run or be appointed to any office at the County, State, or National level would be requires to obtain a professional license. It would be like a drivers license and have certain requirements, like proof of birth for example, not that that should ever come up. If you want to get on the ballot in that state, you have to maintain a valid license. You could add in other requirements, such as proof of recall insurance, successful completion of a Constitution class, not be a felon, etc. Oh my! What's Jesse Jackson, Jr. to do? Such obvious racism is just not acceptable in our society.[COLOR="Lime"]MR2 please forgive the sarcasm - I just could not resist :D
The main requirement is the two-year rule. It would prohibit anyone from running for or accepting appointment to any office for two years after they have successfully completed their current term/appointment. They would also not be able to accept appointment to any office for two years after successful completion of their current term. It would allow campaigning during such period, but one would have an actual two year break between terms.
Yes, I know that people will figure and we might just end up with two sets of professional politicians, but it does give us a greater choice between craps tables...
A very interesting post {Salute}