Mediocre politicians

Why are so many politicians such duffers? Economic modelling might have the answer. A recent paper by Andrea Mattozzi and Antonio Merlo concludes:

A political party may deliberately choose to recruit only mediocre politicians, in spite of the fact that it could afford to recruit better individuals who would like to become politicians. We argue that this finding may contribute to explain the observation that in many countries the political class is mostly composed of mediocre people.

The gist here is that political parties compete with lobby groups to recruit talented people. If a party were to recruit really talented people, lobby groups would then offer higher wages, in order to bid some talent away from parties. This would require the party to raise wages for all its workers to retain staff, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Rather than incur this expense and get into a bidding war, parties might prefer to recruit mediocre people, letting some more talented ones become lobbyists.
This is not the only economic model that generates an equilibrium of mediocre politicians. Here's another one (pdf). This story starts with high-quality individuals earning more outside politics, so only duffers enter politics. Once they've done so, politics becomes a low-status occupation, which further deters high-quality people from entering. This is reinforced by the fact that bad politicians have incentives to devise ways to keep high-quality people out of politics.
Is all this just vindication of the tendency of economics to use maths you don't know to explain facts you do know?
No. There's more than this. It suggests the mediocrity of our politicians isn't just an accident, but an inherent feature of our political structures.
Another thing: Given the correlation between beauty and earnings, these papers could be extended to explain why even the best looking politicians (Caroline Flint excepted) aren't very attractive.

Comments

[dsquared]

[Is all this just vindication of the tendency of economics to use maths you don't know to explain facts you do know?]

no, it's the tendency of economics to use maths you don't understand to explain facts that ain't so. I don't see the evidence that politicians are systematically low-quality people by any reasonably metric.

[Marcin Tustin]

Even if we accept that politicians are low-quality people, then what makes you conclude that this isn't just using maths you don't know to explain facts you do? Do the papers relate their models to known facts about how political institutions operate?

In any case, I have to agree with dsquared: As you so often point out, many members of the cabinet are very bright indeed, but nonetheless act as duffers once in office.

[dearieme]

Since I can't tell whether y'all are using "mediocre" in the style of a sports commentator, implying "rubbish", or with the meaning once ascribed to it by educated folk (middling, near the median), it seems otiose to comment.

[Katherine]

I notice interestingly that out of the Top 10 list you link to, 6 are women. Given that this is a disproportionate amount in relation to the number of female MPs compared to male MPs, could this say anything about the earnings of women and women in field of politics? Err... that's it.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Katherine, that is brilliant.

[Alex]

Isn't the whole point of this blog that it's not about the individuals, but about their incentives, interests, organisational environment, and cognitive framework?

[Katherine]

Well thanks. Erm, why?

[Paulie]

Apologies in advancce for filling your comments box up with links to my own blog (though one is a link to a post that you had a passing involvement in).

I think that, in your interview on Direct Democracy - here....

http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2007/02/direct-democracy-interview-with-chris.html

... you are hugely overstating a fairly crude Public Choice Theory interpretation of why people go into politics. I don't think that Political Parties recruit 'mediocre people' because they can't get high-flyers to run for them. I think that people with certain attitudes and certain talents are able to survive in political parties, are able to get selected, and able to get themselves elected.

In the Labour Party, the 'roundhead' mentality that I've covered here...

http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2007/01/roundheads.html

... is very well represented. These people are not flocking to work for lobbyists, and often will move from high-paid lobbying jobs to lower-paid jobs as MPs.

I may be being a bit presumptive here, but I can think of one prominent Labour blogger who is currently a lobbyist, who would - I suspect - be prepared to amputate at least one of his gonads for a Westminster seat. And both gonads for a safe one.

http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/

He may correct me on this though?

Also, as an admirer of Charles Clarke - one who wishes that he'd put the wind up Irn Broon by standing against him for the Labour leadership, I'm very upset at your continued linking of physical beauty and career success.

[Johny]

test, gay talk, hwlgog, weddingfavorshotglass, 8(, collyflower ear pics, %-]], teenage sleep syndrome, xsdfi, sci-fi network movies, %), on march 25 2004 the document we made based on the approval or registration of this case was mailed directly to the person whom issued, qbtzi, athletic nude pics, jdd,