In the previous post, I discussed several basic functions of government—while inserting snide remarks about whether governments actually carry out these functions. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the news will understand why; governments often claim to pursue a given goal, but then enact policies that seem designed to a) be ineffective at achieving that goal or actually make the problem worse, and b) happen to benefit the ruling faction politically or monetarily.

Why? In the basic model of public-choice economics, it is because all government officials act in their own personal best interest, at all times, even if that involves neglecting or victimizing the populace. If there is any hope of good policy, says this model, it can only be when it is in the personal interest of the officials to deliver good policy. (This is why democracies tend to have better policies than autocracies, at least on average: politicians need to at least look like they are furthering the interests, or perceived interests, of at least half the voters.)

We needn’t accept the strong form of this model, at least not all the time. We can still recognize that some political figures and bureaucrats genuinely want to do a good job. But good policy is hard to pull off, even with the best of intentions, because governments don’t always have enough information to make good judgments about complex policy choices, and often don’t even understand the information they do have. This is related to the “knowledge problem” of Hayek—people are better at accurately perceiving their own personal surroundings and experiences than they are at interpreting imprecise representations of the wide world that have gone through several rounds of abstraction and reification.

In an environment of insufficient information, it is very easy for even a small faction of self-interested actors to put their thumb on the policy scale, so to speak, so that policies end up favoring them. It is also easy for well-intentioned ideologues to push policies that seem nice in the abstract, but prove hideously inappropriate for the real world.

For worldbuilding purposes, we can boil down the messy workings of policy formation into a triangle with three points. One point represents the “best” policy that could be arrived at, assuming that governments were perfectly benevolent and omniscient. (This assumes, of course, that you know what the “best” policy would be for your invented society; but hey, it’s your story.)

A second point represents the most likely policy to be arrived at assuming benevolent intentions but imperfect decisionmaking, given the limitations of available knowledge and skill among policymakers, their mental models, and the capabilities of existing government structures, among other bits of administrative friction. (You can throw in the workings of the political system as a further obstacle, if you want to be ambitious!)

A third point represents what policy would be set if government officials were strictly maximizing their own personal interests (or alternatively, the interests of the state as against the populace or rival states—or a combination of both!). This is trickier than it seems; as we discussed with regard to taxation, an actor’s evaluation of its best interest will depend on its values and time horizon, among other things. But as a rule of thumb, it still gives you something to hang your hat on.

This is not meant to be a rigorous exercise, but a quick and dirty way to think about policy choices in your invented setting. For any given society, or even for specific policy areas in the society, you can arbitrarily decide at what point (within the triangle) public policy is going to land—and then you get to imagine how it ended up that way!

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

We’ve repeatedly alluded to the role of governments in structuring the economy. The full role of government goes well beyond a single blog post, or even a single book, but we can still lay out a few basic ideas to structure how we think of governments’ role in the economy in our worldbuilding settings. We’ll begin by talking about what ideal governments do, and in a later post we will discuss reasons why the real world often falls short of the ideal.

Let’s begin with a simple inventory:

Providing and enforcing laws. We’ve discussed how commerce thrives in stable societies where the threat of violence and banditry is low, and we can rely on enjoying the fruits of our labors even far in the future. The more secure that property rights are, the more complex commerce tends to become.

Notably, you don’t need a formal government to have and enforce laws. Several societies achieved a degree of social and commercial stability without a formal government, because a customary or religious set of laws was widely agreed upon and followed. Examples were/are the Nuer, Somali tribes following customary law, and the Jewish diaspora. Some societies in a border region even maintained a shared legal code even while at war with each other, such as the Law of the Marches between England and Scotland.

Similarly, it’s not necessary that a territory follow a single law code. In medieval England, the law merchant would compete with royal courts, which in turn competed with the courts of local lords. Today in America, the states often compete to provide laws that are favorable to particular industries, and companies also can use private arbitration to settle disputes.

Still, it seems that formal governments tend to be more effective at maintaining a stable legal system, on average. Or at any rate, the provision of law and order is one of the most compelling justifications that governments can give for their existence.

Providing public goods. How one defines “public goods” strongly depends on one’s level of cynicism, but in general we can say that there are certain kinds of things that governments have historically paid for that often do not get paid for in their absence. Militaries, road networks, and massive irrigation projects and drinking water are typical examples. One of the classic justifications of government is that by levying mandatory taxes and directing unified projects, it can overcome the collective-action problem and ensure that everyone benefits from public goods that everyone wants, but no one is able to fund on their own.

Again, many are quick to label something a “public good” when in fact it could be provided privately, as long as the necessary incentives are created and methods exist to coordinate people and resources. Mercenary units have existed since the dawn of time, and private companies often build roads and water projects if they are able to charge for them. Robert Nozick imagined a contractual mechanism in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia for people to commit money to a project and only be charged if enough other people join, and today we actually do this on crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter. I myself have hoped for a long time that we could replace much of our tax code with crowdfunded public works (and published a rather amateurish short story on that theme—but we all have our old shames!).

Nevertheless, there is a sense felt by many that certain goods and services ought to be provided collectively, and not through market mechanisms. National defense and crime prevention are prime examples.

Redistribution of incomes. The oldest governments known, in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, spent the bulk of their efforts on gathering food and then distributing it to their populaces. Ever since, some level of social support has been practiced by nearly all governments. The scale of such redistribution varied widely between, say, the Soviet Union and Victorian England. But in general, governments usually recognize that their power comes from their (control over the) populace, and that allowing large numbers of people to starve to death does not serve their interests (if it can be prevented cheaply enough, anyway).

Redistribution is expensive, and often bitterly resisted by those who are forced to pay for it. And it is also quite common for redistribution to be manipulated to produce, ahem, unexpected beneficiaries.

Aside from the three roles above, economists typically point to three other roles that seem, to me, rather less universal:

Stabilizing the economy. Economic fluctuations and crises are of concern to states, for several reasons. (But not all states are able to respond usefully; and not all states’ responses are effective.)

In one interesting example, he Babylonian Talmud records that the Temple in Jerusalem would use a portion of its treasury to buy food products if market prices were unusually low, and then sell them to the market once prices rose. [Find the cite.] The text is silent on whether such market activity was meant to be stabilizing; but the profits from such trading were spent on “extra” sacrificial offerings, rather than being retained, suggesting that profit was not the motivating factor.

Maintaining competition (or the reverse!). Often, governments use regulations to prevent markets from being dominated by particular actors. For example, governments might impose a fixed rate on rail freight so that farmers are not squeezed by the rail companies. A city might require that marketplace stalls have a maximum size, so that many sellers can fit in the town square. 

Conventional economists aside, often governments do the opposite: reserve an entire market sector for a designated monopoly. This can be done for purely self-interested reasons (such as to enrich a government minister or an ally), but governments often justify monopolies in situations with high barriers to entry, such as the need to outfit a private navy to deepen trade links with the East Indies, or building fantastically expensive semiconductor plants. Creating a monopoly, it is sometimes believed, can prevent “wasteful” competition in situations where it would yield little benefit.

Similarly, state monopolies are often advocated for in situations prone to “natural” monopolies, such as a water utility that needs to build pipes to every building.

Finally, and most speculatively, we have:

Correcting externalities. Often, commercial activity creates costs that the participants can shift to others, such as pollution or the depletion of natural resources. Since the participants don’t bear the whole costs, they have incentives to act in ways that are, globally speaking, not optimal. Governments often (claim to) act to control such misaligned incentives. For example, the U.S. government has a cap-and-trade system to limit harmful emissions from power plants, and many have advocated for a carbon tax to discourage energy-intensive behavior.

*****

Now, merely listing the potential activities of governments does not tell you what governments actually do, or why. As we know, governments often have different motivations than the welfare of their peoples. But this post is already going long, so we will discuss a three-part model for government motivations in a future post.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Rereading Fernand Braudel recently, I came across two critical points he makes during his discussion of cities. We’ve previously discussed how cities show up where they are most convenient for commerce, production, or government control (and sometimes all three at once). But Braudel adds some lovely texture to that discussion.

First, he notes that in Europe, cities were often placed by rivers in order to take advantage of watermill power for production. Every inch of suitable riverbank was harnessed by mills, where possible (and where the riverbank was not already devoted to docks for the vast array of shipping needed to supply the city). If the site was not conducive to the growth of a city, the mill complex would become a standalone production site, such as ironworks or mines. But cities had several advantages as centers of production even before the Industrial Revolution, namely that they had lots of workers nearby and potentially had lots of customers, and easy access to the transportation networks for raw materials and the export of finished goods.

In a more abstract sense, you could say that cities grow where they can access enough power (plus food, another frequent topic of Braudel’s). If new ways to produce (and transport!) power emerge, expect to see new cities grow up that can make use of the new power availability to exploit opportunities that previously were out of reach.

Second, we noted that “administrative” cities often have little production of their own, and rely on constant government funding. Braudel (starting around pg. 530 of Structures of Everyday Life) gives us hard numbers of major European capitals, which were particularly prone to such tendencies, and they are quite astonishing.

Lavoisier, writing in the mid-1700s, estimated that the city of Paris spent some 260 million livres per year to support its populace—of which only 20 million came from commercial profits, while 140 million came from government salaries and bonds, and 100 million came from ground rents or from business activities conducted outside of the city.

Some 141,000 people lived in Berlin in 1783, of which some 33,000 were soldiers and their families, 13,000 bureaucrats-and-families, and 10,000 servants—in other words, over a third of the city was economically unproductive, spending salaries that came from tax revenue. Many of the remainder made their living solely by catering to the needs and tastes of the salaried class.

St. Petersburg, capital of imperial Russia, was even more lopsided. In 1789, it had about 220,000 inhabitants, more than two-thirds of whom were male. Soldiers, (military) sailors, and cadets (and their families) comprised some 55,000 people, over a quarter of the city. Large numbers of others were servants. And let us not forget the bureaucracy. The city itself was placed in a bad location for practical purposes, constantly dealing with bitter cold and floods that killed many every year, far away from its sources of food and even building material; but that was where Peter the Great wanted his court, due to the spectacular vistas it afforded. Consequently, vast sums of money were spent to build the city and keep it working.

None of this is bad, per se. If a country has the money and wants to spend it in a major city, good for it. But it does illustrate that the fortunes of such cities are inextricably tied to those of the government. Braudel notes that when the Mughals of India moved their capital city, practically the entire population of the old capital would move with them; they had no way to support themselves otherwise.

Braudel also points out, in an argument later echoed by Jane Jacobs, that when a capital city grows too large and lacks an independent commercial base, its elites end up bending government policy to favor the capital city at the expense of the rest of the country. Jacobs noted in particular that London favored policies that benefited its international banking business and impoverished the rest of Britain. Paris likewise became a massive megalopolis that drained wealth from the countryside.

(I note in passing that until recently, Washington DC and its environs were not a major urban powerhouse—that role was played by New York, Los Angeles, and other major cities able to counterbalance the centralizing tendencies of the capital. By 2011, however, that had changed. The region has become overrun by well-paid lobbyists, and to a lesser degree by financial and healthcare firms that benefit from easy access to regulators. This was probably a symptom, not a cause, of the growth of centralized policy; but once such people are ensconced, they continue to drum up business at the expense of the common citizen. See Luigi Zingales, A Capitalism for the People [2012]. Matters have only become more exacerbated since he wrote.)

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)