No Longer Blogging – Follow Me on Twitter!
The reality of being a tenure-track professor is that I simply don’t have time to sit and write a modestly insightful blog post every day or even every few days. But I’ll be “microblogging” using Twitter – @dansmithphd.
Debate: American Politics Subfield
An excerpt from David Glenn’s report from the American Political Science Association (APSA) annual conference in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education:
…four prominent scholars came together on Thursday afternoon for a grim panel discussion on the health of the subfield known as American politics. Three of the four panel members said that the subfield—at least as it is now defined and structured within most political-science departments—has grown bloodless and hyperquantitative…
This debate, perhaps first waged by the Perestroika Movement, seems to be hitting its stride. The article quotes prominent political scientists who decry the subfield’s almost singular focus on the quantitative analysis of legislative committees and subcommittees and public opinion.
As a non-political scientist, I have no dog in this fight. Public administration and political science are sufficiently close to each other, however, that the debate has bearing on PA–especially since the critics of the American Politics subfield in its current form say it must pay more attention to the executive branch.
A Politically Feasible Carbon Tax
A central tenet of economics is to tax things that bear negative externalities; this principle is probably made most convincingly by economist Greg Mankiw’s Pigou Club. Despite the fact that Pigovian taxes make a lot of sense, we in public administration fret considerably over the political feasibility of such taxes. For instance, raising the gas tax (either federal or state) is a nuclear issue.
However, in checking my (physical) mail today, I decided that a good first step would be a carbon tax on junk mail, the production and delivery of which increase carbon emissions and reduce the number of natural carbon scrubbers (trees) in the world. There is no citizen lobby on behalf of junk mail–everyone hates it. And as in the case of telemarketing calls, public disdain for junk mail probably trumps the business lobby.
While feasible administration would seem a barrier to a junk-mail tax, if you really think about it, you receive virtually nothing but junk mail from banks and other junk mailers. It would be easy enough to set-up a system that separates junk from non-junk for the purposes of taxation, and the tax would be levied by way of a higher price of postage.
The big problem, of course, is that Congress would no doubt debate endlessly over what constitutes “junk” and how to establish either an opt-in or opt-out system. There also would be great debate over whether to earmark the revenue for “green” government programs. Nonetheless, targeting junk mailers would be the easiest segue into general carbon taxation, I think.
Policy Problem: Scientists in the U.S.
How do we address the shortage of scientists in the United States? Well, apparently the problem doesn’t actually exist. See The Chronicle of Higher Education and Newsweek.
This piece of news is rather important, given that additional federal resources–which are now more scarce than ever before–have been verbally committed to solving this “problem” in coming years. Ironically, one presidential candidate suggested diverting funds from NASA’s manned mission to Mars to solve it.
Eliminating Paper Currency
An article in the Cincinnati Enquirer offers perhaps the best evidence yet that we can live without expensive paper currency.
Keep it Simple
Recently, I’ve read a lot about colleges’ and universities’ efforts to bring faculty to campus more often for various reasons. These efforts often require great expense and inconvenience for faculty and students. I have a simpler suggestion that, I think, would work: Install a campus voicemail system that faculty cannot check from home.
Wanted: More Public Service
The graphic to the right is from today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required). The point is self-explanatory, and the article explains clearly and convincingly that the U.S. has been “unraveling” Reagan’s era of deregulation and devolution. At the outset, I’m optimistic that this bodes well for public administration; but because “more government” means different things to different people, only time will tell.
A Sure-Fire Way to Look Incompetent in Government
Announce a major policy 12 years after the precipitating event.
Ph.D. Tip #3: Read PHD Comics
Yes, read PHD Comics. There is comfort and strength to be found in solidarity.
Tip: I highly recommend starting from scratch by reading the Archives.
