I wrote in a previous blog entry that yet another way of slicing the political divide is how people view the socio-economic system - an artificial, top-down construct or something we all swim in and collectively build up?  It jogged my memory & I hunted around for a somewhat-related TCS article by Arnold Kling about the relationship between economists, the number of years they've spent outside academia, and their political beliefs:

Economist	Institution and Year	Years Outside Academia
Arnold Kling	MIT, 1980	20
Larry Summers	Harvard, 1982	10
Jeff Frankel	MIT, 1978	4+
Brad DeLong	Harvard, 1980	2
Paul Krugman	MIT, 1977	1

One thing that struck me in constructing this table is that if you were to align us politically from right to left, we would be in the same order.

So how does this parlay into policy?  Kling uses one poignant example from the brouhaha over outsourcing:

...The writer Bill Whittle argues provocatively that the issue of responsibility constitutes an important political divide. Whittle and I are on the side that emphasizes personal responsibility, while those on the left would tend to downplay personal responsibility in favor of group responsibility or other "root causes." I found it interesting that while the economic analysis of outsourcing posted by economist Brad DeLong was similar to mine, DeLong drew an implication for government to spend more on infrastructure and education, while I drew an implication for individuals to be more adaptable.

I take pain to emphasize that these policy differences are NOT because of some sort of maliciousness on EITHER party (although many of the SF Loony-Left would accuse Kling of being a subhuman corporate shill and the 'hard right' would accuse DeLong of being a closet socialist).  Their respective reactions to outsourcing are a reflexive outcome of the way DeLong sees the world relative to Kling.

Kling identifies some of the philosophical root causes between himself and his colleagues:

...People on the political left, and academics in particular, have an inordinate fear of large corporations. They see no hope for smaller economic units, which they believe will be crushed by the giant corporate steamrollers. Instead, my experience has taught me that large corporations have very limited competence.

...By the same token, the academic left has an inordinate faith in government efficacy. They assume that if government policy means well, then it will be executed well. Those of us who have spent time in government are more keenly aware of the obstacles to effective performance that exist within the bureaucracy.

In short, for Brad DeLong - Big Corps = Bad;  Big Govt = Good. 

I know I said I'd try to extend some understanding towards both world views BUT, this is a conceit where I fundamentally consider Delong's cause flawed.    The DeLong's of the world - who are SO ready to enumerate why corporations swim in a sea of market failures are, for some reason, quite shy about acknowledging that the same motives and perturbations exist within Governments.   And, as I'd argue, they exist in an even more pronounced form towards a greater overall social cost.

Their standard when applied to the market is that any deviation from a perfect outcome is tantamount to a nearly total failure.   At the same time, they apply the equally ludicrous standard of "stated intentional correctness" to governmental orgs (e.g. "does the leader have good intentions"). 

I wonder if GWB recognizes this within the prescription drug bureaucracy he's about to create?

---

BTW - I HIGHLY recommend checking out Mr B's and Chris's comments in that previous blog entry. They both make EXCELLENT, provocative points that are in some cases way outside the type of material you usually see me post here.

---