Daniel Klein

Working Paper No. 334 Stockholm City’s Elderly Care and Covid19: Interview with Barbro Karlsson

Stern, L. & Klein, D. B.

Publication year

2020

Published in

Ratio Working Paper

Abstract

Upwards of 70 percent of the Covid19 death toll in Sweden has been people in elderly care services (as of mid-May 2020). We summarize the Covid19 tragedy in elderly care in Sweden, particularly in the City of Stockholm. We explain the institutional structure of elderly care administration and service provision. Those who died of Covid19 in Stockholm’s nursing homes had a life-remaining median somewhere in the range of 5 to 9 months. Having contextualized the Covid19 problem in City of Stockholm, we present an interview of Barbro Karlsson, who works at the administrative heart of the Stockholm elderly care system. Her institutional knowledge and sentiment offer great insight into the concrete problems and challenges. There are really two sides to the elderly care Covid19 challenge: The vulnerability and frailty of those in nursing homes and the problem of nosocomial infection—that is, infection caused by contact with others involved in the elderly care experience. The problem calls for targeted solutions by those close to the vulnerable individuals.

Unfolding the Allegory behind Market Communication and Social Error and Correction

Publication year

2013

Published in

The Adam Smith Review 7

Abstract

One aspect of the present paper is to draw out the Adam Smith in Friedrich Hayek. I suggest that common economic talk of market communication, market error and correction, and policy error and correction invokes a spectatorial being and appeals to our sympathy with such being. Behind such common economic talk, I suggest, are implicit allegories wherein an allegorical figure runs a system of superior knowledge, communication, and voluntary cooperation. Theoretical discussions of social error invoke the notion of agent error applied to the allegorical being. Similarly, theoretical talk of social correction invokes the notion of agent correction applied to the allegorical being. The allegory behind such talk is vital and necessary because without it the talk of social or market communication, error, and correction cannot be sustained. Unfolding the allegory clarifies the meaning, limitations, and value of such talk. Making what had been implicit explicit helps economists to avoid overstating their generalizations or making those generalizations sound more precise and accurate than they are. Meanwhile, scholars have pointed out that spectating impartially involves something of a paradox – distant-closeness, or cool-warmth. Concurring, I explore the connections between the features of the allegorical being and the doings of the economic agents. I suggest that the cogency of such theorizing depends on such correspondences, and that they are matters of culture, of both the context within which the theorizing is done and of the context theorized about.
Related content: Working Paper No. 133

Book

Knowledge and Coordination a liberal Interpretation

Knowledge and Coordination: A Liberal Interpretation

Publication year

2011

Published in

Abstract

Too often in economics the understanding of how things work by and large–not axiomatically or categorically–and the idea that we generally cannot know the economic system well enough to intervene into it beneficially are done less than justice. Yet they were Adam Smith’s central messages for public policy, and they authorized a presumption of liberty, thus exceptions to liberty should be treated as exceptional and bear the burden of proof.

In Knowledge and Coordination, Daniel Klein reexamines the elements of economic liberalism. He interprets Friedrich Hayek’s notion of spontaneous order from the aestheticized perspective of an allegorical Smithian spectator. Klein addresses issues economists have had surrounding the notion of coordination by distinguishing the concatenate coordination of Hayek, Ronald Coase, and Michael Polanyi from the mutual coordination of Thomas Schelling and game theory. Clarifying the meaning of “cooperation,” he resolves debates over whether entrepreneurial innovation enhances or upsets coordination. Entrepreneurship is interpreted in terms of discovery, or new knowledge. He points out that beyond information, knowledge entails interpretation and judgment. Rejecting homo economicus, Klein offers a distinctive formulation of knowledge economics, entailing asymmetric interpretation, judgment, entrepreneurship, error and correction. This richness of knowledge joins agent and analyst, and meaningful theory depends on tacit affinities between the two, even common contacts with an allegorical spectator. Knowledge and Coordination illuminates the recurring connections to underlying purposes and sensibilities, of analysts as well as agents.

Knowledge and Coordination is an imaginative and insightful take on how, by confessing the looseness of its judgments and the by-and-large status of its claims, laissez-faire liberalism makes its economic doctrines more robust and its presumption of liberty more viable.

Knowledge Flat-talk

Klein, D.B.

Publication year

2010

Published in

The Independent Review

Abstract

Articulate knowledge entails the triad: information, interpretation, and judgment. Information is the reading of the facts through a working interpretation. Much of modern political economy has miscarried by discoursing as though interpretation were symmetric and final. This move has the effect of flattening knowledge down to information – here dubbed “knowledge flat-talk.” Economic prosperity depends greatly on discovery, but discovery is often a transcending of the working interpretation, not merely the acquisition of new information. Models typically assume that the modeler’s working interpretation is common knowledge. But often the sets of relevant knowledge of the relevant actors do not approximate the common knowledge assumption. We need better understanding and appreciation of asymmetric interpretation and its dynamics.

Related content: Working Paper No. 140

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Concatenate coordination and mutual coordination

Klein, D. & Orsborn, A.

Publication year

2009

Published in

Abstract

We tell of the evolving meaning of the term coordination as used by economists. The paper is based on systematic electronic searches (on “coord,” etc.) of major works and leading journals. The term coordinationfirst emerged in professional economics around 1880, to describe the directed productive concatenation of factors or activities within a firm. Also, transportation economists used the term to describe the concatenation of routes and trips of a transportation system. These usages represent what we term concatenate coordination. The next major development came in the 1930s from several LSE economists (Hayek, Plant, Hutt, and Coase), who extended that concept beyond the eye of any actual coordinator. That is, they wrote of the concatenate coordination of a system of polycentric or spontaneous activities. These various applications of concatenate coordination prevailed until the next major development, namely, Thomas Schelling and game models. Here coordination referred to a mutual meshing of actions. Game theorists developed crisp ideas of coordination games (like “battle of the sexes”), coordination equilibria, convention, and path dependence. This “coordination” was not a refashioning, but rather a distinct concept, one we distinguish as mutual coordination. As game models became more familiar to economists, it was mutual coordination that economists increasingly had in mind when they spoke of “coordination.” Economists switched, so to speak, to a new semantic equilibrium. Now, mutual coordination overshadows the older notion of concatenate coordination. The two senses of coordination are conceptually distinct and correspond neatly to the two dictionary definitions of the verb to coordinate. Both are crucial to economics. We suggest that distinguishing between the two senses can help to clarify “coordination” talk. Also, compared to talk of “efficiency” and “optimality,” concatenate coordination allows for a richer, more humanistic, and more openly aesthetic discussion of social affairs. The narrative is backed up by Excel worksheets that report on systematic content searches of the writings of economics using the worldwide web and, using JSTOR, of Quarterly Journal of Economics, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, and Economica.

Related content: Working Paper No. 116

Book

Marknad och moral – en antologi

Berggren, N.

Publication year

2008

Published in

Marknad och moral – en antologi

Abstract

Book in Swedish. Translated title: Markets and Morality

Trots marknadsekonomins välståndshöjande förmåga finns hos många ett tvivel på att marknadsekonomin också är moraliskt godtagbar. Men vad säger forskningen egentligen? Finns det incitament och mekanismer i ett fritt näringsliv som leder till ett moraliskt agerande och hur kan de i så fall förstärkas? Vilken effekt har förändrad lagstiftning?

I Marknad och moral – en antologi presenterar fyra världsledande forskare sin syn på hur marknader kan – och inte kan – betraktas som moraliska. Steven Shavell analyserar hur lagar och moraluppfattningar på ett kompletterande sätt ger människor incitament att agera på ett sätt som också gynnar samhället i stort. Viktor Vanberg diskuterar hur marknader påverkas av det institutionella ramverk, den lagstiftning, som omger dem. Daniel Klein tar upp frågan om företag tenderar att bedra sina kunder eller om marknader snarare stimulerar mekanismer som säkerställer god kvalitet och säkerhet. Deirdre McCloskey, till sist, argumenterar för att ekonomisk verksamhet (och analys) behöver ett vidgat perspektiv: från egenintresse och rationalitet till att också omfatta dygder och rentav kärlek.

Ett genomgående budskap är att marknader i hög grad får sin karaktär och genererar konsekvenser beroende på hur de formella och informella lagar och regler som inramar marknadsekonomin ser ut. När dessa konsekvenser är gynnsamma för de allra flesta är också marknaden moraliskt godtagbar.

Antologin Marknad och moral är skriven inom Ratios forskningsprojekt Marknad, moral, tillit och tillväxt.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Is There a Free-Market Economist in the House?

Klein, D. & Stern, C.

Publication year

2007

Published in

Abstract

People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data are broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-the-road,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views.

Sociology and Classical Liberalism

Publication year

2006

Published in

The Independent Review

Abstract

We advocate the development of a classical-liberal character in sociology. Even social democrats should recognize classical liberalism as a venerable tradition. They should recognize that its antistatist sensibilities remain a vibrant and valuable part of the general political culture. To say that classical liberalism is underrepresented in sociology would be a vast understatement. Forbidden might be more fitting. The lack of classical liberalism, in our view, has worked to the detriment of sociology and the public purposes that sociology presumably should be fulfilling. First, we relate recent controversies within the sociology profession to show that some sociologists are very critical of the profession’s ideological character. Second, we summarize the results of our survey of ASA members, providing hard data that shows the almost complete absence of classical liberals in the organization. Third, we sketch a few substantive ideas to indicate the promise
of classical-liberal sociology.

Related content: Working Paper No. 81

The Independent Review, Working Paper No. 83

Free Parking versus Free Markets

Klein, D.B.

Publication year

2006

Published in

Abstract

Working Paper No. 81. Sociology and Classical Liberalism

Klein, D. & Stern, C.

Publication year

2005

Published in

Sociology and Classical Liberalism

Abstract

We advocate the development of a classical-liberal character within professional sociology. The American Sociological Association (ASA) is taken as representative of professional sociology in the United States. We review the ASA’s activities and organizational statements, to show the association’s leftist character. Internal criticism is often very uneasy about leftist domination of the field. We present survey results establishing that, in voting and in policy views, the ASA membership is mostly left-wing and devoid of classical liberalism. We sketch some ideas showing that sociology needs classical liberalism, and classical liberalism needs sociology.

Related content: Sociology and Classical Liberalism

Klein, D.B. & Western, A.

Voter Registration of Berkeley and Stanford Faculty

Publication year

2005

Published in

Academic Questions, Working Paper No. 54

Abstract

There is increasing public discussion about whether the cultural institutions of the United States are ideologically skewed, relative to the general population. The major realms of political culture include the news media, K-12 schooling, academia, governmental institutions, cause-directed organizations, grant-making private foundations, the entertainment industries, and the arts. There is increasing belief that these institutions are dominated by people who vote Democratic. Where evidence is available, it generally backs up the claim that the D to R ratios in such settings are very lopsided. However, the evidence is much less abundant than one might guess. Much of the evidence that does exist is generated by openly conservative organizations, and the research is rarely reported in a scholarly manner. This paper contributes to the task of ascertaining the basic facts about ideological lopsidedness in academia by reporting the results of a systematic study of voter registration of large parts of the faculty at University of California-Berkeley and Stanford University.

Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of Social Scientists

Publication year

2005

Published in

Critical Review

Abstract

Academic social scientists overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the Democratic hegemony has increased significantly since 1970. Moreover, the policy preferences of a large sample of the members of the scholarly associations in anthropology, economics, history, legal and political philosophy, political sci- ence, and sociology generally bear out conjectures about the correspondence of partisan identification with left/right ideal types; although across the board, both Democratic and Republican academics favor government action more than the ideal types might suggest. Variations in policy views among Democrats is smaller than among Republicans. Ideological diversity (as judged not only by voting behavior, but by policy views) is by far the greatest within economics. Social scientists who deviate from left-wing views are as likely to be libertarian as conservative.

Political Diversity in Six Disciplines

Academic Questions, Working Paper No. 53

Publication year

2005

Published in

Abstract

The inclination toward the political left in the American academy has existed as a presumption for decades. Recently, faculty and students, who found themselves marginalized by reason of the party they support or their religious convictions, have been advancing the cause of intellectual diversity. Their appeal would seem compelling, given the mission of higher education, but it has met opposition in an institution where diversity is defined as sex and race preferences that outweigh alternate considerations in admissions, hiring, and other areas. Until recently, one impediment to their push for intellectual diversity has been the lack of an adequately rigorous body of research to identify and quantify the presumed political imbalance to which they were responding. Daniel Klein et al. have now provided that research base in two studies of faculty affiliation. The first, a nationwide survey of six fields in the humanities, and the second, of party registration of faculty at two schools in California, reveal that an overwhelming and monolithic majority of professors support the Democratic Party. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians constitute a negligible minority. Klein’s revelations received broad media coverage after an 18 November 2004 New York Times article (A23) directed readers to the data and conclusions via the NAS web site at www.nas.org. The two studies appear formally in print below for the first time.

Democrats and Republicans in Anthropology and Sociology: How Do They Differ on Public Policy Issues

Publication year

2005

Published in

The American Sociologist

Abstract

Within the fields of anthropology and sociology, how do Democrats and Republicans compare in their opinions on issues of economic regulation, personal choice, and the role of government? Using data from a survey of U.S. members of the American Anthropological Association and the American Sociological Association—with 701 respondents—we find that the differences generally fit the “liberal” and “conservative” stereotypes. Democrats are more permissive on drugs, prostitution, and immigration, while Republicans are more permissive on economic activity. The Democrats are more opposed to military action. However, our survey shows that both Democrats and Republicans are generally supportive or neutral on government activism. Our survey enables a kind of quantification of the differences between the Democrats and Republicans in the two academic fields examined.

Voter Registration of Berkeley and Stanford Faculty

Working Paper No. 54. How Many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford? Voter Registration Data Across 23 Academic Departments

Klein, D. & Western, A.

Publication year

2004

Published in

Abstract

Using the records of the seven San Francisco Bay Area counties that surround University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, we conducted a systematic and thorough study of the party registration of the Berkeley and Stanford faculty in 23 academic departments. The departments span the social sciences, humanities, hard sciences, math, law, journalism, engineering, medicine, and the business school. Of the total of 1497 individual names on the cumulative list, we obtained readings on 1005, or 67 percent. The findings support the “one-party campus” conjecture. For UC-Berkeley, we found an overall Democrat:Republican ratio of 9.9:1. For Stanford, we found an overall D:R ratio of 7.6:1. Moreover, the breakdown by faculty rank shows that Republicans are an “endangered species” on the two campuses. This article contains a link to the complete data (with individual identities redacted).

Related content: Voter Registration of Berkeley and Stanford Faculty

Political Diversity in Six Disciplines

Working Paper No. 53. How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields

Klein, D. & Stern, C.

Publication year

2004

Published in

Abstract

In Spring 2003, a large-scale survey of American academics was conducted using academic association membership lists from six fields: Anthropology, Economics, History, Philosophy (political and legal), Political Science, and Sociology. This paper focuses on one question: To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged? The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents. The results show that the faculty is heavily skewed towards voting Democratic. The most lopsided fields surveyed are Anthropology with a D to R ratio of 30.2 to 1, and Sociology with 28.0 to 1. The least lopsided is Economics with 3.0 to 1. After Economics, the least lopsided is Political Science with 6.7 to 1. The average of the six ratios by field is about 15 to 1. Our analysis and related research suggest that for the the social sciences and humanities overall, a “one-big-pool” ratio of 7 to 1 is a safe lower-bound estimate, and 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 are reasonable point estimates. Thus, the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats. There is little ideological diversity. We discuss Stephen Balch’s “property rights” proposal to help remedy the situation.

Related content: Political Diversity in Six Disciplines

Working Paper No. 31. The People’s Romance: Why People Love Government (as much as they do)

The People’s Romance: Why People Love Government (as Much as They Do)

Publication year

2004

Published in

Abstract

Using Schelling’s analysis of mutual coordination and focal points, I interpret Smithian sympathy as sentiment coordination. When the yearning for sentiment coordination seeks, further, for it to encompass the whole social group and looks naturally to government for the focal points, we have The People’s Romance. This yearning for encompassing sentiment coordination asserts itself by denying individual self-ownership. Government activism and coercion become romantic ends in themselves. The People’s Romance is evident in the writings of communists, social democrats, and others who champion the achieving of a “common understanding,” “common endeavor,” or “shared experience.” The People’s Romance helps to explain a wide variety of political and cultural puzzles. I explore whether The People’s Romance can be compatible with classical liberal goals and values, and conclude in the negative.

Related content: The People’s Romance: Why People Love Government (as Much as They Do)

Klein, D.B. & Majewski, J.

Working Paper No. 30. America’s Toll Roads Heritage: The Achievements of Private Initiative in the 19th Century

Publication year

2003

Published in

Ratio Working Papers

Abstract

Private toll roads shaped and accommodated trade and migration routes, leaving social and political imprints on the communities that debated and supported them. Private road building came and went in waves throughout the 19th century and across the country. All told, between 2,500 and 3,200 companies successfully financed, built, and operated their toll road. Although most of these roads operated for only a fraction of the 100+ period, the combined mileage of private toll roads that operated at any point in time would be in range of 30,000 to 52,000 miles. The paper explores the character, methods, and purposes of the private toll roads, and draws lessons for the privatization of highways today.

Working Paper No. 29. Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard

Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard

Publication year

2003

Published in

Abstract

As many have argued, libertarianism as idea and movement contains strands that often conflict, beg questions, or try our sensibilities. There are multiple libertarianisms. Two leading theorists of modern libertarianism are Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. Both pupils of Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard provide dual libertarianisms that share a common precept but sustain that precept in inverse ways. Both Hayek and Rothbard maintain that, in societies like theirs, the desirable always concords with liberty (or maximal liberty). Rothbard achieved this concordance by molding his sensibilities about the desirable to fit his definition of liberty. Hayek achieved this concordance by molding his definition of liberty to fit his sensibilities about the desirable. These two libertarianisms represent a duality of worthy rhetorical tasks, namely, those of the “bargainer” (exemplified by Hayek) and the “challenger” (exemplified by Rothbard). But libertarians ought to reject the precept of concordance: the desirable does not always concord with liberty. I attempt a blending of Hayek and Rothbard that recognizes the several limitations of libertarianism, sustains Hayek’s sensibilities, yet maintains Rothbard’s cogent definition of liberty. The paper explores various ways in which the proposed blending makes for a reasonable and versatile “mere” libertarianism that successfully participates in mainstream discourse.