Thursday, June 03, 2004
Micropolis
According to this morning's WSJ ("New Outposts ... Granbury, Texas, Isn't a Rural Town: It's a 'Micropolis' ... Census Bureau Adopts Term For Main Street America, And Marketers Take Note ... Beans, Ribs and Starbucks"), census data are now compiled by geographic units that reflect the Great Dispersal. The days of "downtown vs the suburbs" are long gone. Aside from a few assorted boutique downtown districts, ever more investors and households are now choosing between suburban, exurban and rural settings.
The new spatial definitions ought to make it possible for social scientists to catch up.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Scholarship and Clarity
UC Berkeley's Prof Mel Webber just keeps getting better. His editorial in Access, "Spread-City Everywhere", is the most concise summary of urban development trends that I have seen. My May 5 post offered some supporting data and the evidence keeps accumulating. Yet, as per yesterday's post, mounting evidence and conventional wisdoms can remain far apart for long periods. And it matters. We live in a world where hugely expensive policy mistakes are made in the service of serious misunderstandings. What to do? Keep clarifying, just as Mel Webber has just done.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Doomsday Once More
Ronald Baily ("What Doom Will Look Like This Time Around") offers an interesting review of "One with Nineveh" by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. This time, they warn about the dire consequences of global warming.Baily notes: "In the Ehrlich's simplistic summary, environmental Impact equals Population x Affluence x Technology, the notorious I = PAT identity. Impact is, of course, always negative. One notes that the three factors aren't merely added togther, their allegedly deleterious effects are multiplied."
I confess that I started some of the Ehrlich books but could not finish any of them. So, I may be (may be)missing something, but Paul Ehrlich's doomsday forecast track record is well known. He has even lost real money, betting against the late Julian Simon. Simon later wrote that the idea of cash bets was a sign of his own exasperation. Poor Julian has passed on and would probably be exasperated all over again. Doomsday tomes are likely to be with us for some time because there is a tremendous demand for them. Why?
I can only speculate:
1. Some people have a puritanical nature and expect that they will have to pay for their material comforts.
2. Others may be uncomfortable with (or suspicious of) the fruits of market successes but are attracted to Kyoto-style economic planning.
3. With the demise of socialism, many may have intellectual capital on hand which they would rather use than discard.
Perhaps it's all inevitable human nature.
Saddest is the occasional comment from a reputable scientist to the effect that hyperbole is OK when the stakes are so large. So, where's the science?
Monday, May 31, 2004
Externalities Everywhere
Real live politicians continue to outdo late-night comics and their writers -- not to speak of George Orwell, wherever he may be. The Guardian of May 26 reports the following:"The good news for Singapore's army of clandestine chewers: gum is going on sale legally for the first time in 12 years. The bad news: if you want some, you will have to register as a gum user and show an identity card every time you buy a packet. ... Nineteen 'medicinal' brands of gum such as Nicorette will now be available as part of a free trade agreement with America, but only on strict tightly-policed conditions. Anyone found trading illicitly will risk two years in jail, and a $S5,000 (1,650 Sterling) fine."
The article goes on to mention unsightly splats of disposed gum on sidewalks, etc.
Externalities (and antidotes) everywhere.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Tort Costs
The Financial Times of May 28 (sorry, I cannot link without agreeing to a 15-day trial subscription) reports on international comparisons of tort costs as percent of GDP. They are:Denmark 0.4
UK 0.6
France 0.8
Canada 0.8
Japan 0.8
Switzerland 0.9
Spain 1.0
Australia 1.1
Belgium 1.1
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.7
U.S. 1.9
Depending on how one counts, we are the champions.
What explains the differences? Is it culture? Is it economics? Can we ever know?
America's lack of a loser-pays (contingency fee) system has been thought to be one cause of the problem. Defenders of our system argue that it is the best way to level the playing field.
Interestingly, the U.K. is the favorite example of loser-pays, the EU countries are thought to be closer to the U.K. and Australia's is an amalgam of U.S. and U.K. approaches. Jane Stapleton gives many more details.
The FT data do show that the U.K. and the U.S. are at opposite poles and that Australia is about half-way between them.
Bigger samples and we can get beyond the anecdotal. Good international cross-sectional comparisons are still the way to go.
