Skip to main content

Incentives and Balance

A number of times recently, while having a discussion about a policy with friends or acquaintances, the regressivity of a policy has been raised as a concern.  In one case it was gas tax, in another a carbon tax, in another a bag fee.

Does being regressive make a policy bad?  While I agree, it is a point against, it's not the final decision point.  A policy should be looked at in terms of its larger context. 

While it's hard to justify putting additional burdens on those with less, a policy can be enacted within a context of policies that overall lighten the burden.  It's beneficial to do so when the policy has net benefits.  For example, a basic carbon tax is regressive; the poor as a percentage of their income are more dependent on gasoline and energy.  But if a carbon tax is enacted within the context of a equal direct cash payment, the overall effect is progressive.

It's also important to recognize that distribution can be the smaller question, even if it's always a big question.  Climate change is a problem that will affect all.  It affects many today, and the effects will only continue to grow.  Those effects aren't on the same timescale though.  The costs of a carbon tax will start immediately, the benefits will take time to emerge.

It's this non-equivalent comparison that is the most complex part of trades.  It might be short term for future term.  Or it might be money for benefits not expressed in currency.

Using a sugar tax as an example, if the purpose of the tax is to incent better behavior, to "nudge", then the benefit of behavior change, even to lower-income groups, can exceed its direct cost.  This is what Hunt Allcott of New York University, Benjamin Lockwood of the University of Pennsylvania and Dmitry Taubinsky of the University of California, Berkeley looked at in Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax.  The net health benefit of the altered behavior is more valuable to individuals than the money lost.  While it would be regressive from a money perspective, it would then be progressive from a well-being perspective.

But are policies already tilted toward putting too much of a burden on the poor, or even middle-income Americans?  I think so, which is why I'd always support pairing changes that are regressive in money terms with changes that are progressive.  But in both cases I'd search for changes that have positive social benefit overall.

The overall social benefit is another aspect important to acknowledge.  While it's tempting to try and design a policy that has no negative impact on the bank accounts of those with the least, it's not always possible to achieve the objectives in that way.  Wealthy individuals are not the only ones who can create harm.  Due to numbers and lack of choices, you'll often find that a significant amount of harm is done by less wealthy individuals.  Incenting changes in behavior is valuable.  Abandoning efforts to change actions because the policy that fits is regressive blocks important action. 

Compensating within the policy itself sounds attractive, but it's often difficult, impossible or self-defeating.  For example, creating an exception for low-income individuals to a pay-by-the-pound refuse program wouldn't incent change where it's needed most.

Instead of making an exception to this policy, do something that overall assists the less wealthy, such as housing vouchers.  It might initially seem badly designed to pair housing policy and refuse collection. But the point is to have the two policies separated by a wide enough gap that they don't affect each other.


Popular posts from this blog

How to create a resilient Oil & Gas industry

Use Less As part of the current crisis, oil usage is down, and storage around the world is filling up, to the point that oil has traded at negative prices.  As a reaction, many Republican lawmakers want to bailout the oil industry, by providing free access to storage or no-collateral loans.  While it would make sense to ensure oil doesn't get dumped in the ocean, the right way to do that is by producing less oil. These proposals from the Republicans undermine the motivation for the industry to do so.  Workers are important, but they have the same access to unemployment as the other 25 million Americans who are out of work. What this crisis should illustrate is something that has been illustrated many times before, the oil industry is a fragile thing.  In the past this fragility has been demonstrated by massive spikes in prices and fears of shortage, in this case it's the inverse.  Why the fragility?  The simplest explanation is, we use too much.   In a world where oi

Commit to Long Term Testing

Expanding testing is very important now.  It's also clearly an area we were unprepared.  We should commit to having testing capacity long term, to both provide more certainty to anyone expanding testing capacity today, and to be prepared in the future. I had some thoughts about how this testing would be best structured.  It's not possible to test for an contagious disease you're not aware of, but much of the infrastructure for doing so can already be in place, ready to be adapted.  That infrastructure would roughly boil down to a) sample collection b) sample handling c) sample preparation d) sample analysis e) materials: reagents, etc. Scaling these up from scratch is quite a bit more work than adapting to a new contagion.  A commitment to having that infrastructure would have helped a lot with the current crisis. Right now, the focus is rightfully on health care workers, suspected cases and essential workers.  In terms of preparation though, in the early stages

Finding your way: Public Transit and Uber

Uber has been disruptive in many ways.  One way, which has been a great disappointment, is the effect on public transit systems.  It was once hoped that ride hailing would provide an assist to public transit, as a gateway to abandoning car ownership.  There have also been hopes that suburban commuters would use ride-hailing as their connection to public-transit which is not accessible by walking in these areas.   Multiple studies have confirmed these hopes have largely not materialized, and public-transit has been weakened . Cities have reacted, mostly by putting barriers to ride-hailing growth.  Sometimes they are collecting extra fees, sometimes placing new requirements.  But mostly these efforts don't do much to change the relationship between ride-hailing and public-transit. I work with a local group that spends time thinking about automated car policy, how to get the most good and the least bad.  We've discussed a proposal that fits ride-hailing, in the here and now,