Via Political Science Weblog: a paper presented last month at the Stanford Business School argues that those who signed the recall petition in Venezuela suffered economically as a result. They use the Maisanta database and then link those names to both national household survey and manufacturing firm data. It’s a really interesting (not to mention time consuming) way of getting some hard data.
Chang-Tai Hsieh, Edward Miguel, Daniel Ortega and Francisco Rodriguez (2007), “The Price of Political Opposition: Evidence from Venezuela’s Maisanta,” unpublished paper
Do individuals who join the political opposition pay an economic price? We study this question using unique information on individual political activity from Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, the Maisanta database. The names of millions of pro-opposition supporters who signed recall petitions (seeking to remove Chávez from office) during 2002-2003, and the names of progovernment supporters who signed counter-petitions, were made public. Media accounts detail how this information has been utilized by both sides: by the Government to punish opposition supporters and firms, and by the overwhelmingly pro opposition private sector to discriminate against government supporters in hiring. After linking this political database to both national household survey and manufacturing firm data, we find that pro-opposition individuals experience significant drops in total earnings after 2003. There is extensive churning in the labor market: pro-opposition individuals disproportionately leave public sector employment and progovernment individuals leave private sector employment. Pro-opposition firms have falling total employment, less access to foreign exchange, and rising tax burdens (possibly due to selective audits). The misallocation of resources associated with political polarization between 1999-2004 contributed to a decline of 5% in TFP in our sample. To the extent other regimes can identify and punish the political opposition, these findings may help explain why dislodging authoritarian regimes often proves difficult in less developed countries.
There are all sorts of interesting tidbits in the paper:
This is evidence that Opposition supporters had deteriorating labor market outcomes after 2003. The magnitude is -3.8% of average pre-Maisanta income for opposition supporters, not a trivial effect (p. 15).
…
According to our results, a firm in which all board members signed against the opposition could expect to pay 0.5% in additional taxes as a fraction of total revenue relative to neutral and pro-government firms (Table 7). This is a very large effect since the average tax rate across all firms is a bit over 1%, so this implies an increase of almost 40% in taxes paid by pro-opposition firms” (p. 19).
Since it is not common to see empirical analyses about this topic, I would love to see a rebuttal by an economist with access to the same data.
34 comments:
Once again, Greg, it's all about context. Some of the results here could be sound (although they certainly demand scrutiny, given the polemical character of some of the authors), but you won't understand much if you fail to take into consideration what had happened immediately prior to the signature-gathering for the referendum. The opposition had shut down the oil industry for two months in 2002 to 2003, causing the biggest economic contraction in recent Venezuelan history (and a huge spike in poverty and hunger). Under conditions of mass praetorianism, in which political opposition is often expressed through outright sabotage of key sectors of the economy, you better believe that the state is going to think twice about hiring back people who might engage in such activity again.
The ones who hold primary responsibility for the "lista de Tascon" are the opposition leadership itself, who put their own immediate political goals before the interests of the nation, to quite disastrous effect.
I'll let everyone decide for themselves whether context excuses the results.
I'll let everyone decide for themselves whether context excuses the results.
I'll let the Venezuelan people decide, given that they are a hell of lot more familiar than you with the effects of business-led economic sabotage.
Justin made my day with this, his best line ever:
"The ones who hold primary responsibility for the "lista de Tascon" are the opposition leadership"
Impeccable logic compañero. Your understanding of the context, and your use of logic is just extraordinary.
For the true ideologue, the ends justifies the means. Any means.
Thanks Greg, I quickly read through it and it is interesting. Although it pretty much confirms what is widely known. The sad thing is the government doesn't even hid it. If you inquire why you were declined a govt. loan, job, etc... they ask "did you sign the petition?"
This is what it looks like
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509152101
BTW, if your interested in your very own copy of the Maisanta database let me know.
For the true ideologue, the ends justifies the means. Any means.
Well, you should know, Miguel, since you're quite the ideologue.
The point is actually quite elementary. If the opposition leadership decides to lead a campaign of economic sabotage against the country, there will be unfortunate consequences.
It takes two to tango, fellas. Unfortunately, this rather elementary fact tends to conveniently escape the minds of ideologues.
Here is an old article you might be interested in
http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=213263
If interested, I have the telephone recording from the said converstion it is about 45 min.
A recall petition and economic sabotage are different things.
None, however bad, justifies Government sponsored discrimination.
Only people like Alberto Gonzalez, and the little camarada persistente, think that a crime is the right response to a crime.
Now that you've gotten your fairy tale out of the way, anonymous, allow me to introduce you to the real world.
In the real world, deliberate acts of economic sabotage that lead to huge spikes in poverty and hunger have political consequences. In this case, the consequence was that the state was left with little choice but to remove the possibility of further sabotage. No doubt that, in the process of removing that possibility, some innocent people have been adversely affected. But let's be very clear about this. The primary responsibility for such unfortunate consequences lies with YOUR OWN leadership.
In the aftermath of the coup, Chavez offered an olive branch to the opposition, reinstating the opposition management of PDVSA. How did the opposition leadership respond to such an overture? They simply took advantage of it, launching the biggest disaster of a "paro" in Venezuelan history.
So, please, spare me your tears about the consequences of your OWN leadership's actions. You really ought to start owning up to the fact that your side has been thoroughly duped by your own leadership for more than five years now. (You can start owning up to basic facts by attending your first session of "Escualidos Anonymous" with Francisco Toro).
What does one thing have to do with the other?
How does that justify government sponsored discrimination?
The new mantra seems to be: "People are allowed to do evil things, so long as it's for good purposes. The ends are everything, the means nothing."
I wonder what someone like Ghandi or Mandela or Camus would think ...
If the opposition leadership decides to lead a campaign of economic sabotage against the country, there will be unfortunate consequences. It takes two to tango .... No doubt that, in the process ... some innocent people have been adversely affected. But let's be very clear about this. The primary responsibility for such unfortunate consequences lies with YOUR OWN leadership.
Notice that at no point does JD bother to argue that reprisals against petition signers doesn't happen. (Do we even know petition signers were involved in "sabotage"? Certainly millions of people weren't directly "involved" -- is it OK to use collective punishment for the decisions of small elite?) Instead, we get an argument that these actions are justified and the blame falls entirely on the regime's opponents (how dare they sign a petition!).
Wow. But, hey. At least we've moved away from denial ("the regime isn't repressive") to justification ("it's OK because they deserve it"). That's some measure of progress, I suppose.
I know JD thinks I'm an idealogue. But I've a very good sense that (if given the opportunity), while I would do my best save him from a firing squad, he would be among the first to volunteer to shoot me.
What does one thing have to do with the other?
Do I even have to answer that question?
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding the most elementary of points, let me try to spell it out for you.
The notion of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service is predicated upon two basic and INTER-DEPENDENT principles. One is that the civil servant will perform his job INDEPENDENTLY of whether he likes the elected government or not. The other is that the state will, in turn, not discriminate on the basis of political preference.
It is rather obvious as to why the two principles are completely interdependent. If large numbers of civil servants --and the opposition leadership that influences them-- think their dislike for an elected government gives them license to shut down key sectors of the economy (to the detriment of the country as a whole), the entire rationale of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service comes crumbling down.
If an opposition LEADERSHIP is so ridiculously irresponsible that it actually counsels internal sabotage of the state, it leaves the state little choice but to discriminate on the basis of political preference.
Unfortunately, Miguel is just too dense to figure out that a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service rests on the two above-mentioned principles and CANNOT survive in the absence of their acceptance by the entire political spectrum.
We're not talking about people who got fired for refusing to do their job. We're talking about people who got fired for signing a petition.
Actually, what we're mostly talking about is discrimination in hiring (and procurement) on the basis of political preference.
Let me ask you a basic question, Miguel, in order to determine whether or not you have any sense whatsoever when it comes to the functioning of state institutions.
Does the survival of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service rest upon a political opposition's acceptance that it cannot engage in internal sabotage of the state?
It's a yes or no question.
Does the survival of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service rest upon a political opposition's acceptance that it cannot engage in internal sabotage of the state?
Yes.
OK. Now it's your turn:
Can a state engage in systematic firings simply on the basis of a political litmus test (e.g. the Bush firing of US attorneys) regardless of actual at-work behavior?
It's a yes or no question.
By "regardless of at-work behavior" I specifically mean, assuming that the person does his/her job, is competent, and has done nothing unprofessional or "disobedient" (in a bureaucratic sense).
Does signing a recall petition constitute sabotage?
Sorta busy. I'll respond a bit later in explaining just how obvious it is that Miguel and Greg understand neither the politics of Venezuela nor the context in which state decisions have been made.
We only sorta needed yes or no answers, but provide all the lengthy context and insults you require.
Have you ever even been to Venezuela, Greg? I would be quite surprised.
Gotta run. I'll be back soon.
Best,
Justin
Okay, so you acknowledge, Miguel, that the "the survival of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service rests upon a political opposition's acceptance that it cannot engage in internal sabotage of the state."
Now, given that the opposition leadership has never accepted this responsibility (and has, in fact, promoted DISASTROUS campaigns of internal sabotage of the state), why have you neglected to call the opposition leadership to task for creating conditions that are not conducive to the development of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service?
Can a state engage in systematic firings simply on the basis of a political litmus test (e.g. the Bush firing of US attorneys) regardless of actual at-work behavior?
Can a state do that? Yes. Do I think that it would be sound policy? No.
But the point I'm making is not that it would be sound policy to fire a state employee on the basis of political preference. What I'm saying is that, under conditions in which a disloyal opposition leadership promotes internal sabotage of the state, the state is left with no choice but to discriminate in some of its hiring on the basis of political preference.
Greg writes:
Does signing a recall petition constitute sabotage?
No, and that's never been the point. The point is that, if the opposition leadership does not credibly renounce internal sabotage of the state, the state is left with no choice but to discriminate in some of its hiring on the basis of political preference. Whether we like it or not, the recall petition is a gauge of political preference.
If Greg or Miguel were really serious about promoting a meritocratic and non-partisan civil service in Venezuela, they wouldn't decontextualize the issue, thus creating the entirely distorted picture of the Venezuelan state blacklisting people for no apparent reason. Until you're willing to grapple with the fact that, not long ago, the opposition leadership brought the country to the brink of economic collapse through its promotion of outright sabotage of the state's economy, you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what's at issue here.
Cantinflas
Can a state do that? Yes. Do I think that it would be sound policy? No.
if the opposition leadership does not credibly renounce internal sabotage of the state, the state is left with no choice but to discriminate in some of its hiring on the basis of political preference. Whether we like it or not, the recall petition is a gauge of political preference.
These two statements seem to contradict each other. In the first, you state that it's unsound policy to do discriminate. In the second, you imply that this is a good policy, at least for Venezuela.
You decontextualize the issue by ignoring that those who sign a petition asking for a referendum may not have been "anti-Chavez" at all, but merely "pro-referendum." In other words, both the innocent and the guilty are--in your words--legitimately punished for the behavior of some anti-Chavez elites. Few of the leaders of the anti-Chavez movement are suffering from these reprisals. But those who signed a petition (something Chavez's own constitution instituted as a democratic practice) are punished.
In my lifetime, I've signed a number of petitions for causes I disagreed w/ merely because I thought they deserved a vote. So I have signed petitions for things I planned to vote against. By your standards, I'm equally guilty. Shades of McCarthyism ...
But. Since I don't agree w/ JD, I must be an idiot, eh?
These two statements seem to contradict each other. In the first, you state that it's unsound policy to discriminate. In the second, you imply that this is a good policy, at least for Venezuela.
No, you misinterpreted my points, which were clear from the get-go. You asked a question about firing, and I answered it. The point I've been making is with regard hiring, which is a separate issue. With regard to firing, a civil servant can be evaluated on the basis of his work record and thus should not be fired on the basis of political preference (and, by the way, that goes for the private sector as well, which is known to discriminate against Chavistas). With regard to hiring, the state is faced with a different problem altogether: imperfect information. All it knows is that the opposition leadership has a well-established record of promoting internal sabotage of the state and that civil servants aligned with the opposition have a higher probability of engaging in such sabotage (by definition).
You've already acknowledged that the state is placed in a very difficult position when a disloyal opposition refuses to credibly renounce internal sabotage of the state. You've already acknowledged that the "the survival of a meritocratic, non-partisan civil service rests upon a political opposition's acceptance that it cannot engage in internal sabotage of the state."
So as far as I'm concerned, there's little more to debate. You've conceded all the relevant points.
those who sign a petition asking for a referendum may not have been "anti-Chavez" at all
Well, this is just conjecture that is not at all indicative of the predominant pattern. The poltical fight over signature-gathering was every bit as contentious as the referendum itself; any honest Venezuelan will tell you that the vast majority who signed were anti-Chavista. And that's their right.
Now, please, read on before jumping to any hasty conclusions about what I'm saying here (which is your personal hallmark, I think).
In my lifetime, I've signed a number of petitions for causes I disagreed w/ merely because I thought they deserved a vote. So I have signed petitions for things I planned to vote against. By your standards, I'm equally guilty. Shades of McCarthyism ...
This is exactly the type of logical fallacy that both you and Greg routinely employ in attempting to apply abstract principles as if they could be understood independently of social and political context. Let me spell it out for you, once more time.
The norm in American political life that one should not be discriminated against in state employment on the basis of his or her political beliefs is predicated upon two basic and INTERDEPENDENT principles. One is that the civil servant will perform his job INDEPENDENTLY of whether he likes the elected government or not. The other is that the state will, in turn, not discriminate on the basis of political preference.
Such non-discrimination IS the ideal INSOFAR as the political opposition credibly accepts its responsibility to not engage in internal sabotage of the state. If, in the case of Venezuela, however, the opposition does not accept that responsibility, the U.S. ideal ceases to be a Venezuelan one because, in Venezuela, a key norm upon which the ideal is predicated is MISSING. Get it?
Our ideal of non-discrimination is predicated upon widespread societal acceptance of the basic rules of the game. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan opposition has not played by those rules. And in so doing, it has thrust the Venezuelan state into a position of having to make a choice between two sub-optimal strategies: either 1) hiring on the basis of mere probabilities (i.e. discrimination based on imperfect information), which DOES impose costs on people who shouldn't have to bear those costs (including genuine anti-Chavistas who are willing to play by the basic rules of the game), or 2) being totally indiscriminate in its hiring, which --in the absence of credible commitments from the opposition that it accepts the basic rules of the game-- can be much more costly still (as the recent history of the disastrous "paro" and its resulting spikes in poverty and hunger have shown).
You seem to think Venezuela's chavista bureaucrats are completely incompetent. If they weren't, they would have other criteria they could use in hiring/firing decisions. Instead, you suggest that it's most appropriate for them to simply use a list of names when making those hiring decisions (regardless of how "accurate" that list of names is in determining actual "enemies" of the regime). This suggests that chavista ministers, viceministers, etc. are so absolutely incompetent that they can't discriminate their subordinates on the basis of quality of work, professionalism, diligence, etc. Instead, you must make a reductionist choice between a list of names or "indiscriminate" hirings. Glad to see you have so much faith in the intellectual abilities of the average chavista leadership.
So in the course of a few months, you now no longer argue that Chavez isn't using athoritarian methods (as you once did), but rather to accept them as "useful" and/or "necessary" for the regime's survival. Additionally, you've accepted that the regime's leadership is too incompetent to make personnel decisions other than by appealing to a publicly published list of names. Interesting. So why is such an incompetent regime (by your admission) worthe defending? Is Chavez that good of a folk singer?
(Sorry, Greg, I couldn't resist.)
This is what Chavez had to say about the Lista Tascón when interviewed by CNN last December:
Interviewer: Is it true that the government is using the "Tascon list" to discriminate people?
Chavez: "That is a LIE. Perhaps a mid rank public servant may have ABUSED his position. However I can assure you that we have taken the measures needed to CORRECT this."
Here is what our cantinflerico camarada has to say about the Lista Tascón:
"If an opposition LEADERSHIP is so ridiculously irresponsible that it actually counsels internal sabotage of the state, it leaves the state little choice but to discriminate on the basis of political preference."
Not even Chavez himself tries to justify this. Why? Because it is a crime.
Discrimination violates the most elemental human rights. Justin, give yourself a favor and stop condoning it.
Uh, Miguel, are you sure you should be teaching college students before you've acquired basic reading comprehension skills?
You don't even respond to what I write. In fact, you don't even respond to misinterpretations of what I write. It would appear that you just dream up some nonsense, claim it's what I've written, and then respond to the nonsense you yourself contrive.
Should I send you one of Texas Instrument's old "Speak-and-Spells"? It might really help you out, fella.
OMG, I so ♥ the Speak & Spell!! It was one of my favorite toys as a kid. :-)
Just like Qwest suffered economically after refusing the federal government access to its networks for illegal spying.
Seriously, isn't it reasonable to believe that Venezuelans of privilege are more likely to oppose Chavez and the the level of income redistribution has increased since Chavez was elected?
Post a Comment