Tag Archives: regulators

Local land-use restrictions harm everyone

In a recent NBER working paper, authors Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh analyze how the growth of cities determines the growth of nations. They use data on 220 MSAs from 1964 – 2009 to estimate the contribution of each city to US national GDP growth. They compare what they call the accounting estimate to the model-driven estimate. The accounting estimate is the simple way of attributing city nominal GDP growth to national GDP growth in that it doesn’t account for whether the increase in city GDP is due to higher nominal wages or increased output caused by an increase in local employment. The model-driven estimate that they compare it to distinguishes between these two factors.

Before I go any further it is important to explain the theory behind the author’s empirical findings. Suppose there is a productivity shock to City A such that workers in City A are more productive than they were previously. This productivity shock could be the result of a new method of production or a newly invented piece of equipment (capital) that helps workers make more stuff with a given amount of labor. This productivity shock will increase the local demand for labor which will increase the wage.

Now one of two things can happen and the diagram below depicts the two scenarios. The supply and demand lines are those for workers, with the wage on the Y-axis and the amount of workers on the X-axis. Since more workers lead to more output I also labeled labor as L = αY, where α is some fraction less than 1 to signify that each additional unit of labor doesn’t lead to a one unit increase in output, but rather some fraction of 1 unit (capital is needed too).

moretti, land use pic

City A can have a highly elastic supply of housing, meaning that it is easy to expand the number of housing units in that city and thus it is relatively easy for people to move there. This would mean that the supply of labor is like S-elastic in the diagram. Thus the number of workers that are able to migrate to City A after labor demand increases (D1 to D2) is large, local employment increases (Le > L*), and total output (GDP) increases. Wages only increase a little bit (We > W*). In this situation the productivity shock would have a relatively large effect on national GDP since it resulted in a large increase in local output as workers moved from relatively low-productivity cities to the relatively high-productivity City A.

Alternatively, the supply of housing in City A could be very inelastic; this would be like S-inelastic. If that is the case, then the productivity shock would still increase the wage in City A (Wi > W*), but it will be more difficult for new workers to move in since new housing cannot be built to shelter them. In this case wages increase but since total local employment stays fairly constant due to the restriction on available housing the increase in output is not as large (Li > L* but < Le). If City A output stays relatively constant and instead the productivity shock is expressed in higher nominal wages, then the resulting growth in City A nominal GDP will not have as large of an effect on national output growth.

As an example, Moretti and Hsieh calculate that the growth of New York City’s GDP was 12% of national GDP growth from 1964-2009. But when accounting for the change in wages, New York’s contribution to national output growth was only 5%: Most of New York’s GDP growth was manifested in higher nominal wages. This is not surprising as it is well known that New York has strict housing regulations that make it difficult to build new housing units (the recent extension of NYC rent-control laws won’t help). This makes it difficult for people to relocate from relatively low-productivity places to a high-productivity New York.

In three of the most intensely land-regulated cities: New York, San Francisco, and San Jose, the accounting contribution to national GDP growth was 19.3%. But these cities actual contribution to national output as estimated by the authors was only 6.1%. Contrast that with the Rust Belt cities (e.g. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.) which contributed -28.5% according to the accounting method but +6.1% according to the author’s model.

The authors conclude that less onerous land-use restrictions in high-productivity cities New York, Washington D.C., Boston, San Francisco, San Jose, and the rest of Silicon Valley could increase the nation’s output growth rate by making it easier for workers to migrate from low to high-productivity areas. In an extreme migration scenario where 52% of American workers in 2009 lived in a different city than they actually did, the author’s calculate that GDP per worker would have been $8,775 higher in 2009, or $6,345 per person. In a more realistic scenario (only 20% of workers lived in a different city) it would have been $3,055 more per person: That is a substantial increase.

While I agree with the author’s conclusion that less land-use restrictions would result in a more productive allocation of labor and thus more stuff for all of us, the author’s policy prescriptions at the end of the paper leave much to be desired.  They propose that the federal government constrain the ability of municipalities to set land-use restrictions since these restrictions impose negative externalities on the rest of the country if the form of lowering national output growth. They also support the use of government funded high-speed rail to link  low-productivity labor markets to high-productivity labor markets e.g. the current high-speed rail construction project taking place in California could help workers get form low productivity areas like Stockton, Fresno, and Modesto, to high productivity areas in Silicon Valley.

Land-use restrictions are a problem in many areas, but not a problem that warrants arbitrary federal involvement. If federal involvement simply meant the Supreme Court ruling that land-use regulations (or at least most of them) are unconstitutional then I think that would be beneficial; a broad removal of land-use restrictions would go a long way towards reinstituting the institution of private property. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is what Moretti and Hsieh had in mind.

Arbitrary federal involvement in striking down local land-use regulations would further infringe on federalism and create opportunities for political cronyism. Whatever federal bureaucracy was put in charge of monitoring land-use restrictions would have little local knowledge of the situation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already monitors some local land use and faulty information along with an expensive appeals process creates problems for residents simply trying to use their own property. Creating a whole federal bureaucracy tasked with picking and choosing which land-use restrictions are acceptable and which aren’t would no doubt lead to more of these types of situations as well as increase the opportunities for regulatory activism. Also, federal land-use regulators may target certain areas that have governors or mayors who don’t agree with them on other issues.

As for more public transportation spending, I think the record speaks for itself – see here, here, and here.

The Sharing Economy

Over at the Tech Liberation Front, my colleague Adam Thierer has sketched out a few themes in the debate over the sharing economy. His discussion of leveling the regulatory playing field is particularly important. Here is my favorite part:

Alternative remedies exist: Accidents will always happen, of course. But insurance, contracts, product liability, and other legal remedies exist when things go wrong. The difference is that ex postremedies don’t discourage innovation and competition like ex ante regulation does. By trying to head off every hypothetical worst-case scenario, preemptive regulations actually discourage many best-case scenarios from ever coming about.

Adam asks for comments and additional reading suggestions. In that spirit, here are my own additional talking points on the issue:

  • Reviving dead capital: Something that Dan Rothschild has emphasized in a lot of his writings and that I’ve tried to stress when I can is that the “peer production economy” breathes life into otherwise dead capital. Cars, tools, apartments, planes, kitchens, and even dogs are now creating value for people when they otherwise would just be collecting dust (or fleas). This may help to explain the extraordinary value investors see in firms like Uber.
  • Exposing regulatory failure: Another—though not mutually-exclusive—view is that these new firms are making lots of money not because they are doing anything particularly revolutionary. Instead, they are doing well because they have found a way around traditional regulations which have rendered incumbent services truly abysmal and consumers are rewarding them for this. In this sense, Uber is profitable because it isn’t a cartelized taxi company. This is generally the view that Mike Munger expresses in his EconTalk with Russ Roberts. This is probably more applicable to Uber and Lyft than to AirBnB or 1000Tools.com since the ride-sharing firms compete with an industry that has obviously captured its regulator.
  • Transitional gains trap: The whole experience offers us an opportunity to illustrate one of Gordon Tullock’s most-valuable and least-appreciated points. When regulators contrive some artificial exclusivity, they allow incumbent firms to earn above-normal profits (rents). But often these firms are only able to earn above-normal profits for a time (a transitional period). That’s because eventually, the value of the rent is “capitalized” into whatever assets must be purchased in order to enter the industry. These assets may include taxi medallions, specially-outfitted cabs, well-connected lobbyists, or any other asset that is necessary to gain access to the exclusive club. This is important because it means that many of the current incumbents had to pay large sums of money for their exclusive position and, net of these payments, they really aren’t cleaning up. Just as Adam is right to say that “regulatory asymmetry is real” we should also acknowledge that, in many cases, taxi regulations that started out as privileges are now more like burdens.
  • Value is subjective: No two customers have the same values and interests. I may want the windows down on a hot day and you may want them up. It’s simply absurd to think that regulators could devise an objective quality-control checklist for firms to follow or that they could properly vet cab drivers better than consumers. Yet that is exactly the approach they’ve taken (see here for just how clumsy it’s been in VA). The customer rating systems are really revolutionary because they collapse these subjective, multidimensional quality scales down to one simple 5-point rating that captures a driver’s ability to tailor his or her services to the subjective needs of each customer. Your Uber ride begins with a conversation between you and your driver about what is important to you (music, temperature, windows, speed, route, etc.) and ends with a 1 to 5 rating. It’s as simple as that.
  • True competition is a discovery process: Regulations “lock in” the status quo technology (again, because they attempt to objectively state every possible quality that customers might care about). But this misses the whole point of competition. As Hayek taught us, true competition is about discovering things you never knew (and never knew you didn’t know), such as that customers like being able to order cars from their smartphones.
  • Empowering Diffuse Interests: Traditional public choice models predict that small, concentrated interests such as an incumbent taxi industry willtypically prevail in a political battle with a large, diffuse interest such as taxi customers. This time may be different though. Wherever it goes, the peer-production economy has quickly developed a large and happy base of tech-savvy customers. Since the firms themselves have tended to innovate without asking for permission, this has often meant that a city will have tens of thousands of loyal peer-production customers long before its regulators can say “cease and desist.” So in a number of places, we’ve seen regulators move to shut down the peer production economy, then we’ve seen customers protest en masse and regulators withdraw their proposals.
  • Safety: Uber and Lyft drivers carry no cash. Customers have an electronic record of the ride and their driver. Drivers have an electronic record of the customer. These simple solutions accomplish what reams of taxi regulations never could: they ensure that both the customer and the driver are as safe as possible.
  • Flexibility: Because they don’t work for the companies, Uber and Lyft drivers work when they want to. Most of them seem to report that this is one of the best features of the job.
  • Beware of Uber too!: As Milton Friedman put it, one must be careful to distinguish being “pro-free enterprise” from being “pro-business.” The goal here is not to allow Uber to be profitable but to allow competition which will enhance the customer experience. We have already seen that when given the chance, Uber—like most firms—will take an exclusive privilege when one is offered. We must be very careful that Uber isn’t let inside the regulatory velvet rope only to put it back up behind them.

When new ideas meet old regulatory solutions

With the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission recently issuing cease-and-desist letters to ride-share services Lyft and Uber, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto invoked the Age of Reptiles to describe the decision:

“Technologies like ride-sharing evolve with the times and state regulators must, too,” said Mayor Peduto in a prepared statement. “While the commission may wish for Pennsylvania to cling to a Jurassic Age of transportation options, people in Pittsburgh and other communities know our state must adapt or die in the global marketplace.”

That is Christopher Koopman and me, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Click here to read the rest.

The barriers to brewing

Recently, Evan Feinberg of Generation Opportunity described some of the barriers craft brewers face. In one instance, a brewer — who does not prepare any food — was told he had to install a hood for a food oven that he did not even own. Another brewer — who does not use poultry in his beer — was nearly kept from operating because he did not have the equipment to handle raw chicken.

tasty beerThat’s Chris Koopman and me, writing at U.S. News and World Report. We have a new report on the regulatory barriers to craft brewing in Virginia. Here is an excerpt:

In aggregate, the number of regulatory procedures that we identify (12), the wait times to complete many of these procedures (in excess of 100 days), and the associated costs (e.g., $2,150 for a single license) represent formidable barriers to entry. All of these barriers are in addition to the standard regulatory hurdles that all small businesses must surmount (zoning ordinances, incorporations rules, and tax compliance costs). This means that starting a microbrewery in the state of Virginia requires as many procedures as starting a small business in China or Venezuela, countries notorious for their excessive barriers to entry.

I was astounded to learn that, among other reasons, the state may deny a license if regulators feel that the brewer is “physically unable to carry on the business,” is unable to “speak, understand, read and write the English language in a reasonably satisfactory manner” or if they feel that there are already too many brewers in a particular locality. You can read our new report here.

When Regulatory Agencies Ignore Comments from the Public

A few days ago, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized a rule setting energy efficiency standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. Last October I wrote a public interest comment to the DOE to point out several problems with the agency’s preliminary economic analysis for the rule. As part of the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies are required to solicit, and respond to, comments from the public before finalizing regulations. Unfortunately, the DOE failed to even acknowledge many of the points I made in my submission.

As evidence, here are some of the main takeaways from my comment:

1)      The DOE claims consumers and businesses are acting in an irrational manner when purchasing metal halide lamp fixtures because they forgo modest long term energy savings in order to pay a low upfront price for lamp fixtures. Yet the agency offers no convincing evidence to support the theory that consumers act irrationally when purchasing metal halide lamp fixtures. At the same time, roughly 70% of the estimated benefits of the rule are the supposed benefits bestowed upon the public when products people would purchase otherwise are removed from the market.

2)      The DOE is currently adding together costs and benefits that occur in the future but that are discounted to present value using different discount rates. It makes no sense to add together costs and benefits calculated in this manner.

3)      The DOE is using a new value of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), a way to measure benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that may be of questionable validity since the analysts who arrived at the estimate ignored recent scientific evidence. Additionally, the DOE is using the new SCC in its analysis before the public has even had a chance to comment on the validity of the new number.

4)      In its analysis, the DOE is including benefits to foreign countries as a result of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, even while the costs of the metal halide lamp fixture regulation will be borne largely by Americans.

Regarding #1 above, the DOE provided no direct response to my comment in the preamble to its final rule. This even though #1 puts in doubt roughly 70% of the estimated benefits of the rule.

The DOE also failed to respond to #2 above, even though I cited as support a very recent and relevant paper on the subject that appeared in a reputable journal and was coauthored by Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow.

Regarding #3 and #4, the DOE had this to say:

On November 26, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced minor technical corrections to the 2013 SCC values and a new opportunity for public comment on the revised Technical Support Document underlying the SCC estimates. Comments regarding the underlying science and potential precedential effect of the SCC estimates resulting from the interagency process should be directed to that process. See 78 FR 70586. Additionally, several current rulemakings also use the 2013 SCC values and the public is welcome to comment on the values as applied in those rulemakings just as the public was welcome to comment on the use and application of the 2010 SCC values in the many rules that were published using those values in the past three years.

In other words, the DOE is committed to continuing to use a value of the SCC that may be flawed since the public has the opportunity to complain to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time, the DOE tells us we can comment on other regulations that use the new SCC value, so that should reassure anyone whose comment the DOE ignored related to this regulation!

All of this is especially troubling since the DOE is required by statute to ensure its energy efficiency rules are “economically justifiable.” It is hard to argue this rule is economically justifiable when roughly 94% of the rule’s benefits are in doubt. This is the proportion of benefits justified on the basis of consumer irrationality and on the basis that Americans should be paying for benefits that will be captured by citizens in other countries. Without these benefits, the rule fails a benefit-cost test according to the DOE’s own estimates.

The requirement that agencies respond to public comments is designed to ensure a level of democratic accountability from regulators, who are tasked with serving the American public. A vast amount of power is vested in these agencies, who are largely insulated from Congressional oversight. As evidence, Congress has only used its Congressional Review Act authority to overrule major regulations once in its history. If agencies ignore the public, and face little oversight from Congress, what faith can we have that regulators will be held accountable for any harms that inevitably arise from poorly designed regulations?

Markets Fail and Governments Do Too

We often hear that markets fail when it comes to preserving the environment, so government regulation is needed to protect natural resources from the ravages of capitalism. But what happens when government regulations themselves get in the way of innovative ideas that move us towards a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable future?

This is exactly what happened in Logan City, Utah when the local government built a small hydropower turbine and ran into a nightmare of regulatory red tape that led to large cost overruns and far more time committed to the project than was originally anticipated. In the end, the project was delayed four years and ended up costing twice as much as planned.

This abstract from a recent working paper from the Mercatus Center describes what happened:

In 2004 Logan, Utah, saw the opportunity to place a turbine within the city’s culinary water system. The turbine would reduce excess water pressure and would generate clean, low-cost electricity for the city’s residents. Federal funding was available, and the city qualified for a grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unfortunately, Logan City found that a complex and costly federal nexus of regulatory requirements must be met before any hydropower project can be licensed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This regulation drove up costs in terms of time and money and, as a result, Logan City is not planning to undertake any similar projects in the future. Other cities have had similar experiences to Logan’s, and we briefly explore these as well. We find that regulation is likely deterring the development of small hydropower potential across the United States, and that reform is warranted.

This wouldn’t be the first time that regulations have led to perverse environmental outcomes. To prevent these problems in the future, agencies need to take better account of the expected costs and benefits of their rules before finalizing them. For example, recent analysis by myself and my colleague Richard Williams shows that agencies only rarely estimate dollar values for both benefits and costs of their regulations.

Another improvement would be for agencies to consider more flexible approaches when regulating. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently proposed a rule to reduce silica exposure for workers. The rule requires businesses to consider gas masks or other personal protection equipment only as a last resort. Other methods of controlling silica dust, like enclosing work areas or using sprays and vacuums, should be considered first. These methods are likely to be more burdensome than asking workers to wear a gas mask. The agency should consider offering more flexibility to businesses and workers if it wants to relieve some unnecessary burden in its proposed rule.

Of course it’s true that markets can fail. But it’s important to remember that governments often fail too. Only an approach that considers both market failure and government failure can illuminate the best course of action when addressing a serious social problem like environmental degradation. Furthermore, until regulators start acting more like the experts we expect them to be, government is likely to fail just as much, if not more often, than markets.

Birth control, keg stands, and moral hazard

A Colorado organization managed to produce ads promoting health insurance under the Affordable Care Act that are so goofy that some supporters thought they were a parody produced by over-caffeinated tea partiers. But the ads are more than just an unwitting parody. Some of them also unwittingly illustrate an economic principle that is crucial for understanding the cost of health insurance: moral hazard.

Two of the best examples are reproduced below.

lets get physical

keg stand

Source: www.doyougotinsurance.com

Contrary to what you might think after reading the ads, “moral hazard” does not mean health insurance is hazardous to your morals. (For some commentary on what these ads say about morality, look here.)

Moral hazard refers to an insured party’s incentive to take greater risk because the insurer will pay the costs if there is a loss. The two ads above pretty clearly say, “Go ahead and engage in risky behavior, because if there’s a cost, your health insurance will take care of it.”

In the health care context, moral hazard can also involve excessive use of health care services because the insurer is paying the bill. “Excessive,” in this context, means that the patient uses a service even though its cost exceeds the value to the patient.  For example, my Mercatus colleague Maurice McTigue tells me that before New Zealand reformed its health service, a lot of elderly people used to schedule monthly visits to the doctor’s office because it was free and provided a good opportunity to socialize with friends and neighbors. Visits dropped significantly after New Zealand’s health service instituted a $5 copay for doctor visits — which suggests that some of these visits were pretty unnecessary even from the patient’s perspective!

Moral hazard can have a big influence on the affordability of health insurance. Moral hazard losses in private insurance plans can equal about 10 percent of spending. Moral hazard losses in Medicare and Medicaid are much higher, equal to 28-41 percent of spending. (References for these figures are on page 8 of this paper.)

Duke University health care economist Christopher Conover and I examined the eight major regulations rushed into place in 2010 to implement the first wave of Affordable Care Act mandates. The government’s analysis accompanying these regulations failed to take moral hazard into account. In other words, federal regulators extended insurance coverage to new classes of people (such as “children” aged 21-26) and required insurance plans to offer new benefits (such as a long list of preventive services), without bothering to figure out how much of the resulting new health care expenditures would be wasted due to moral hazard.

Is it any wonder that health insurance under the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be less affordable for many people? Makes me want to do a keg stand to forget about it. After all, if I fall down and get hurt, I’m covered!

It’s Time to Change the Incentives of Regulators

One of the primary reasons that regulation slows down economic growth is that regulation inhibits innovation.  Another example of that is playing out in real-time.  Julian Hattem at The Hill recently blogged about online educators trying to stop the US Department of Education from preventing the expansion of educational opportunities with regulations.  From Hattem’s post:

Funders and educators trying to spur innovations in online education are complaining that federal regulators are making their jobs more difficult.

John Ebersole, president of the online Excelsior College, said on Monday that Congress and President Obama both were making a point of exploring how the Internet can expand educational opportunities, but that regulators at the Department of Education were making it harder.

“I’m afraid that those folks over at the Departnent of Education see their role as being that of police officers,” he said. “They’re all about creating more and more regulations. No matter how few institutions are involved in particular inappropriate behavior, and there have been some, the solution is to impose regulations on everybody.”

Ebersole has it right – the incentive for people at the Department of Education, and at regulatory agencies in general, is to create more regulations.  Economists sometimes model the government as if it were a machine that benevolently chooses to intervene in markets only when it makes sense. But those models ignore that there are real people inside the machine of government, and people respond to incentives.  Regulations are the product that regulatory agencies create, and employees of those agencies are rewarded with things like plaques (I’ve got three sitting on a shelf in my office, from my days as a regulatory economist at the Department of Transportation), bonuses, and promotions for being on teams that successfully create more regulations.  This is unfortunate, because it inevitably creates pressure to regulate regardless of consequences on things like innovation and economic growth.

A system that rewards people for producing large quantities of some product, regardless of that product’s real value or potential long-term consequences, is a recipe for disaster.  In fact, it sounds reminiscent of the situation of home loan originators in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008.  Mortgage origination is the act of making a loan to someone for the purposes of buying a home.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as large commercial and investment banks, would buy mortgages (and the interest that they promised) from home loan originators, the most notorious of which was probably Countrywide Financial (now part of Bank of America).  The originators knew they had a ready buyer for mortgages, including subprime mortgages – that is, mortgages that were relatively riskier and potentially worthless if interest rates rose.  The knowledge that they could quickly turn a profit by originating more loans and selling them to Fannie, Freddie, and some Wall Street firms led many mortgage originators to turn a blind eye to the possibility that many of the loans they made would not be paid back.  That is, the incentives of individuals working in mortgage origination companies led them to produce large quantities of their product, regardless of the product’s real value or potential long-term consequences.  Sound familiar?