Acceptable vs effective
I’ve never seen the attraction of prostitution. If a man wants quick unfulfilling sex with a woman who despises him, he should get married. However, government proposals to criminalize paying for sex with someone “controlled for another person’s gain” are quite obviously imbecilic.
But this raises a wider question. Could it be that there’s a very sharp trade-off between effectiveness and political acceptability? Could it be that policies that could work are politically unacceptable, whilst policies are that are “acceptable” wouldn’t?
I’m thinking of four topical examples here.
1. If you’re serious about wanting to protect vulnerable women from becoming prostitutes, why not have a citizens’ basic income? In improving their options outside prostitution, this would improve women's bargaining power and so reduce exploitation. Freer immigration would have the same effect, as traffickers of women would lose their power over them.
2. Proposals for a “presumed consent” rule for organ donation seem problematic. So why not have a market in organs? The allegation that this would hurt the poor might not be true, and could in any case be ameliorated by a citizens’ basic income.
3. Many forms of fiscal stimulus might fail as they’ll be offset by increased private saving. One that might work, however, would be a big increase in unemployment benefits. This would have the virtue of being targeted at people who’d like to borrow but can’t, so government, in effect, is borrowing on their behalf. It might also increase private savings, by diminishing one motive to save - the fear of losing a lot of income if one loses one’s job.
4. Recidivism rates are high and rising. We should therefore conduct experiments in prisons to see what policies might reduce re-offending. But when Whitemoor prison did this, Jack Straw ordered it to stop, without citing any hard evidence at all about the effectiveness (or not) of the comedy classes. In this respect, he is just repeating the idiocy of one of his predecessors, who refused to fund research which might have shown that dietary changes could improve prisoners’ behaviour.
What we have in all four of these cases is a dichotomy. One the one hand, we have policies that New Labour (and in some cases Tories too) consider acceptable - laws against prostitution, “presumed consent”, tax cuts, and a tough prison regime - but which are unlikely to succeed. On the other hand we have policies which might work - CBI, markets in organs, higher unemployment benefit and experimental prison therapies - but which are so unacceptable as to not even be on the agenda.
What this shows, I think, is that New Labour’s claim to believe in technocratic, evidence-based policy is a sham. They are not technocrats at all, but either priggish moralists or cowardly panderers to mob prejudice.
I sympathize with Penny Red; if we really want rational policy-making, we might need a revolution.
But this raises a wider question. Could it be that there’s a very sharp trade-off between effectiveness and political acceptability? Could it be that policies that could work are politically unacceptable, whilst policies are that are “acceptable” wouldn’t?
I’m thinking of four topical examples here.
1. If you’re serious about wanting to protect vulnerable women from becoming prostitutes, why not have a citizens’ basic income? In improving their options outside prostitution, this would improve women's bargaining power and so reduce exploitation. Freer immigration would have the same effect, as traffickers of women would lose their power over them.
2. Proposals for a “presumed consent” rule for organ donation seem problematic. So why not have a market in organs? The allegation that this would hurt the poor might not be true, and could in any case be ameliorated by a citizens’ basic income.
3. Many forms of fiscal stimulus might fail as they’ll be offset by increased private saving. One that might work, however, would be a big increase in unemployment benefits. This would have the virtue of being targeted at people who’d like to borrow but can’t, so government, in effect, is borrowing on their behalf. It might also increase private savings, by diminishing one motive to save - the fear of losing a lot of income if one loses one’s job.
4. Recidivism rates are high and rising. We should therefore conduct experiments in prisons to see what policies might reduce re-offending. But when Whitemoor prison did this, Jack Straw ordered it to stop, without citing any hard evidence at all about the effectiveness (or not) of the comedy classes. In this respect, he is just repeating the idiocy of one of his predecessors, who refused to fund research which might have shown that dietary changes could improve prisoners’ behaviour.
What we have in all four of these cases is a dichotomy. One the one hand, we have policies that New Labour (and in some cases Tories too) consider acceptable - laws against prostitution, “presumed consent”, tax cuts, and a tough prison regime - but which are unlikely to succeed. On the other hand we have policies which might work - CBI, markets in organs, higher unemployment benefit and experimental prison therapies - but which are so unacceptable as to not even be on the agenda.
What this shows, I think, is that New Labour’s claim to believe in technocratic, evidence-based policy is a sham. They are not technocrats at all, but either priggish moralists or cowardly panderers to mob prejudice.
I sympathize with Penny Red; if we really want rational policy-making, we might need a revolution.
Of analysis in the press, I thought this by Minette Marrin in the S Times was especially to the point:
Slithery Jacqui Smith wants a backdoor ban on prostitution
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article5213486.ece
Moralism is seldom even handed. It's fairly predictable that the proposed legislation is not going to interfere much with the (? international) market for highly-priced call girls serving celebrity clients, of the kind run by Heidi Fleiss in Hollywood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Fleiss
Seems to me, a key insight is that the market for prostitutes is highly segmented into virtually non-competing components.
Posted by: Bob B | November 23, 2008 at 11:02 AM
A revolution to get rational policies? Sounds a tad bizarre.
On the labour "controlled for another's gain", isn't that just wage labour?
Posted by: James Schneider | November 23, 2008 at 02:03 PM
"if we really want...": the trouble is, you are just the sort of chap who won't know the outcome, because the Revolution will decide that it has no need for the likes of you.
Posted by: dearieme | November 23, 2008 at 02:44 PM
«if we really want rational policy-making, we might need a revolution.»
The problem is not policy-making, it is voting. The government is not really swindling the voters, it is delivering what they want.
And what they (elderly middle class aunts) is sentimentalism and hypochrisy, reactionary oppression and political correctness, low salaries and high assert prices, and all the rest, and the government tries hard to please.
Posted by: Blissex | November 23, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Classic:
I’ve never seen the attraction of prostitution. If a man wants quick unfulfilling sex with a woman who despises him, he should get married.
Posted by: jameshigham | November 23, 2008 at 03:07 PM
"The government is not really swindling the voters, it is delivering what they want."
That's probably true. As I've noted online before, on one of my frequent grocery shops to a vast Tesco Extra, I noticed among the display of "top selling" paperbacks a Penguin book: Confessions of a Working Girl, by Ms S, which seemed an interesting alternative to the neighbouring mainstream P/Bs on family, romance and adventure.
A check showed the price even more discounted at amazon so I sent for a copy. It turned out to be a well-written tale of how a student had avoided building up a student loan by working her way through college at a local massage parlour, located down the end of the road where she lodged, and which was really a cover for a brothel. The author relates the err .. substantive parts with verging on clinical clarity. In all, the book wasn't an erotic read. Chunks, in fact, read like an operations manuel for other girls who might also want to avoid building up loans to finance their own experience of higher education.
It turns out that there's now a sequel volume on her career progression after completing her college studies. Here is the spiel from amazon:
Miss S is a highly successful London-based paid companion. She began her career as a part-time working girl in a brothel whilst she was a student, before moving on to agency work as an escort. She is now fully independent. Miss S is intelligent, articulate, hard-working and ambitious. Above all, she loves what she does.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extra-Confessions-Working-Girl-Miss/dp/0141038527
In short, an exemplary example of career progression all due to free market capitalism.
Have you also come to love those evocative euphemisms: paid companion and compensated dating? As a paid companion, I doubt that Ms S will be troubled by Ms Jacqui Smith's proposed law.
Peace be upon William Donaldson (alias Henry Root), who was once drescribed by Kenneth Tynan as "an old Wykehamist who ended up as a moderately successful Chelsea pimp.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donaldson
Posted by: Bob B | November 23, 2008 at 03:21 PM
The problem with economice policies at the mo are that they are trying to return us to a flawed position.
Posted by: tbrrob | November 23, 2008 at 06:03 PM
"Classic:
I’ve never seen the attraction of prostitution. If a man wants quick unfulfilling sex with a woman who despises him, he should get married."
Only trouble is - it doesn't work (unless you add an appropriate religious conviction I suppose).
Posted by: reason | November 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The attraction may not be the quick unfulfilling sex with a woman who despises him, it may be that after paying for said sex, the man is free to go, unlike a married man.
Posted by: iron308 | November 28, 2008 at 08:22 PM
A professional London Escorts agency booking service with more than 50 girls available 24/7 for high class elite girls for in call and out call availability. For professional dating of London Escort girls.
Posted by: Escort London | June 14, 2009 at 06:26 PM