Public Policy Not Always In Public Interest

Welfare maximization is only one factor used by policymakers to select policy. It is weighed against political factors including popularity among select categories of constituents, acceptance by major campaign donors, and the odds of it being passed into law. Policymakers are also subject to the same cognitive biases that affect you and I. Rational decision-making is impeded by these factors, such as identifiable victim effect (prioritizing helping individuals that are easy to identify) and optimism bias (overestimating the odds of success). Present bias (prioritizing helping people now versus in the future), and the desire to do something when faced with a crisis, are also important cognitive biases at play in the pandemic. These biases, among others, interfere with the ability of politicians and their advisors to take the most constructive actions to deal with the pandemic.

In public health departments, an institutional culture of valuing infectious disease control above all other health considerations has strongly influenced governments’ response to the coronavirus pandemic. Rather than public health policy resulting from a comprehensive estimate of life expectancy and wellbeing over the lifespan (the approach taken by Lockdown Resistance), the culture in health policy circles is biased towards a categorized approach — one which unconditionally prioritizes the potentially fatal infection category and doesn’t even factor in wellbeing apart from medical diagnoses.

One thing is for sure — the more important an issue is to a politician’s career, the further she is willing to go in harming society. The coronavirus pandemic is a unique situation in which all political leaders find their careers hanging in the balance. Both the potential rewards and the potential costs for them are great. As we have witnessed, there is no limit to the lengths in which politicians are willing to punish their own people in such a situation.

Public employees, too, are known for their disinterest in the public good. They often resist evaluation of the programs and policies in which they are involved. A poor evaluation could adversely affect them in some way. They could receive a poor evaluation of their personal performance. A program that receives a poor evaluation may be discontinued, scaled back, or restructured in a way that is not beneficial to them personally. Sectors of the government are incentivized to underperform. If a department falls short of its objectives, it can claim to be underfunded and understaffed. There is therefore a motivation to underperform and overspend so that they can justify a larger budget. The environment and culture of the public sector is not conducive for maximizing public welfare.

How does an issue get on the government’s agenda in the first place? A large body of research exists on this topic. The two most common ways are: 1) the issue is accentuated in the media, or 2) lobbying by special interest groups. Less commonly, an issue originates from within the government or from a politician herself. The issues most important to the public also originate in the media most of the time. The media determines what is a “social issue.”

A problem that affects many people but does not get picked up by the media is not a social issue that warrants collective or government action. It is a personal issue of many people for which people do not care about whom else it affects. An inadequate social or romantic life is such an example. For a large portion of society, it is one of the most important issues in their lives, yet it is not a social issue because it is not reported in the media and no one cares if others are affected by it.

Another example is intimate partner abuse against men. It affects more men than women in many countries, including the forms of intimidation and severe violence. Yet, it is not a social issue, nor is it on the government’s agenda, because it is ignored by the media and no one cares if it is happening to anyone else. Unless policymakers are confronted with a problem of society through powerful interest groups or significant media attention, it will not make their agenda.

When policy is clearly contrary to the public interest, there is usually an identifiable conflict of interest at play. Corporations spend tens of billions of dollars a year on lobbying. They put so much money into lobbying because it consistently offers favorable returns — a tax break for their industry, a stop to proposed increased regulation of their industry, etc. As explained in the video below, public opinion has almost no impact on American public policy. Policy is usually determined by the upper class and special interest groups.

Offshore banking and other corporate tax loopholes are another area in which it is hard to conclude that governments have the public interest in mind. Large corporations and rich individuals have many ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Governments are aware of their tactics, but take no action. Politicians are reluctant to even discuss the issue. Many politicians use these tax havens themselves, so it is understandable why they don’t want to discuss them. Politicians also live in a very elite world. Their friends are CEOs, celebrities, and other politicians, many of whom utilize sophisticated tax avoidance mechanisms for themselves or their business. And of course, lobbying is a major factor as to why tax havens are left off the agenda. Fiscal deficits are in large part due to corporate and wealthy individual tax avoidance but policies of turning a blind eye abound — a blatant case of governments intentionally acting against the public interest.

Back to lockdowns. Why do we have them? They are much worse for society than a 100% coronavirus infection rate. Political leaders know this. Cognitive biases and public sector culture play a role. The primary driver of the destructive path government is on, however, is the media. News outlets have made a spectacle out of coronavirus, so they recognize that the public (which gets its agenda from the media) cares about nothing other than mitigating coronavirus contagion. Politicians have not chosen to shut down society because it was the best option for society. They have pursued radical social distancing policies to appease the COVID-crazed media and quiet the mass hysteria that the media has (and continues to) incite among the public.