Why commissions can't solve the economy's problems
Commissions, or expert panels, try to solve subjective problems objectively and amplify cynicism about the government
European Central Bank official Klaus Masuch, left, and European Commission official Matthias Mors, members of a debt inspection team, arrive for a meeting with Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos in Athens on Thursday, Sept 29 2011. The author argues that commissions can be problematic because they indicate that the government is unable to solve a problem on ts own.
Kostas Tsironis/AP
I had a quick negative reaction to Peter Orszag鈥檚 about ways to get around government dysfuntionality. But that was mostly from the 鈥攎ost of the piece argues for better automatic stabilizers鈥攑rograms that kick in to help people when the economy hits a recession; fiscal triggers鈥攔ules that enforce deficit reduction (kind of the opposite of the stabilizers); and independent commissions.
I鈥檓 a huge stabilizer fan but it鈥檚 that last part about which I鈥檓 not nearly so sure. In fact, I鈥檒l admit it: I don鈥檛 like commissions.
OK, I should dial that back a bit: Peter endorses procedures like the base-closing commissions of the 1980s and the Independent Payment Advisory Board created under health care reform. In both cases, they鈥檙e structured to wring inefficiencies out of the economy (to close underutilized military bases and reduced ineffective health care spending) that Congress would tend not to touch for political reasons.
But it鈥檚 an awfully slippery slope, no? I鈥檓 with the NYTs Catherine Rampell on :
鈥溾�xpert panels can be useful. But鈥elegating policy authority to technocratic panels is more problematic when dealing with larger economic matters that involve social value judgments, like austerity measures and tax reform.
These policy areas may sound like dry academic subjects. But they are thoroughly infused with, and ultimately shaped by, .
There are, after all, infinite combinations of spending cuts and tax increases that can add up to the same bottom line. Deciding what should get trimmed and what taxes should be increased or decreased involves questions of favoritism, welfare, compassion, fairness and all sorts of other subjective judgments not answerable by the 鈥渓aws鈥� of economics.鈥�
That鈥檚 one problem. The other is that when you constantly kick tough calls to commissions, you amplify cynicism about government. Too often in this town, when you want to show you care about something that you don鈥檛 really want to do anything about (or, less snarkily, you鈥檙e not ready to do anything about), you kick it to a commission.
I haven鈥檛 seen polls on this, but I鈥檒l bet most people鈥檚 reaction to 鈥渟o, we created a commission to study the issue and make binding recommendations, etc.鈥� is 鈥渢hose guys just can鈥檛 do their jobs.鈥�
The Bowles/Simpson deficit reduction commission is an interesting example. They came up with a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones too, like a revenue cap of 21%) that were ultimately adopted as part of the President鈥檚 new plan. But I鈥檓 really not sure what was gained by kicking this to the commission last year鈥攐n the one hand, you could make a case that this was a good way to get the ideas into the debate. On the other, it just muddled and clouded things up.
Not sure which way I fall on that, but I think that latter.