Mind the (Gender) Gap

This week, as the second presidential debate unfolded, as Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney sought to close the lead of President Barrack Obama among women, an unfortunate choice of words used in relating a story about his search for women to fill his cabinet as governor of Massachusetts set off an internet frenzy around the phrase "binders full of women".

Despite that, it appears Mr Romney has been able to narrow the gap with women in the key battleground states that will decide the election, although nationally, the gap remains sizeable. Around 1980 was when the women's vote swung in favour of the Democrat Party, and vice versa for men according to Ronald Ingleheart and Pippa Norris. They pointed out that

The emergence of the modern gender gap in America is due to the way that women moved towards the Democrats since 1980 while men moved towards the Republicans on a stable, long-term and consistent basis, thereby reversing the pattern of voting and partisanship common in the 1950s. 

They theorised that as women grew more educated, career-oriented and independent, they began to abandon their conservative leanings in favour of a more progressive message from the liberally-minded Democrats. In  every US presidential race since 1988, every single Democratic candidate has been supported by a majority of women voters up until Barrack Obama's election in 2008.

Meanwhile in the eight presidential elections since and including 1980, the Democrats have only twice secured a majority of male voters--in the 1992 and 2008 elections when the US economy was in bad shape.

Using the World Values Surveys, Ingleheart and Norris show how that the women's vote has consistently shifted more and more towards the more progressive parties in most advanced countries, some post-communist countries and a few developing nations.

By 1995, a solid pattern had emerged. The key to George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 was in narrowing this gender gap, which Romney is emulating.

Meanwhile in Australia, PM Julia Gillard has changed the definition of misogyny by branding the leader of the opposition as such in parliament.

Her 15-minute speech which went viral worldwide helped to convince the Macquarie and Merriam-Webster dictionaries to adopt her usage of the word and define misogyny as "an intense prejudice against women" instead of merely "hatred towards women".

As the head of a Labor government, Ms Gillard has enjoyed a substantial advantage among women voters as the preferred prime minister of Australia, while here rival, Mr Abbott has enjoyed a similar advantage among men.

It was at the end of the 1990s that Australian voting patterns followed America in developing this gender gap, based on the analysis of Ingleheart and Norris back in 1999. This seems to have continued.

Obama Seeks to Curb Outsourcing

With 2012 being an election year, President Obama set out to frame his re-election bid in November around the economy. Having cited employment and productivity gains of late, he then targeted his ire on tax incentives offered to multinational companies for outsourcing business activities overseas.

The following is an excerpt from his State of the Union Address:

If you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies...that decide to bring jobs home.
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go toward lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.
It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

 Just as he decried the uneven playing field that countries like China have created by undervaluing their currency, he advocated the use of the tax system to provide credits and government subsidies to industries (particularly in the clean energy and advanced technology sectors) as a way of ensuring that America was "built to last". All this was part of the solution in addressing what he called "the defining issue" of his presidency--keeping the American dream alive.

Well, well, well, it seems that Washington is no longer enamored with the Washington Consensus. As it pushes for free trade agreements across the globe to lower trade barriers for its products and to enforce the intellectual property rights of its companies, it is clear that the administration has no qualms about engaging in market interventions at home to boost the competitiveness of its local industries.

Gross National Happiness, Tax Cuts and Income Inequality

It is going to cause grief and discomfort to the statisticians, but British PM David Cameron indicated this week that he was adamant at developing national indicators of happiness to guide public policy. So perhaps instead of bar charts and graphs, government ministers might issue smiley faces and frowny faces depending on what the mood of the citizenry might be.

In this age of austerity, this might not be such a good idea as many public services are going to be subject to the hatchet. On the other hand, if the science of happiness is anything to go by, increasing happiness might be a function of simply reducing inequality (meaning the absolute level of wealth is not what matters, but the relative level). If this is what will bring happiness to the greater number of people, then the last decade of growth that benefited the top tier of society may have had the adverse effect of reducing national happiness in America.

Paradoxically, the party that wants to extend tax cuts to this top tier has been restored to power in the lower house of Congress by the simple fact that many felt Obama gave a handout to the banks and the powerful lobbyists. Their theory of course is that tax cuts will bring growth which will lift all boats (increasing absolute wealth for all, never mind the way the wealth is distributed). That theory may come back to bite them if they repeal the health care measures passed by the last Congress which is aimed at ensuring a minimum threshold of income protection for millions (improving relative wealth). As in Britain, the threat of service cuts makes for a heroic posture, but time will tell if it really pays off in the end.

Nudge Theory Makes Its Way Across the Pond

First it was the Obama White House that adopted nudge theory by appointing Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar, examining all new regulatory proposals. Now it is the coalition government of PM Cameron which has provided a home for it in 10 Downing Street with the setting up of a nudge unit as reported by Andy McSmith of the Independent UK.

The fact that this new theory which is sometimes referred to as libertarian paternalism by its founders appeals to both conservative and liberal leaders alike is evidence that it in fact serves as the real Third Way. It is paternalistic in the sense that it supports the idea that people may not necessarily act in their own self-interest at times, an insight revealed by behavioral science. 

But on the other hand the manner by which to correct this according to the theory is not by imposing a "one-size-fits-all" solution that often limits choice. Instead nudge theorists look at ways to improve the "choice architecture" or to frame the decisions for individuals in such a way that they come to make better informed decisions.

Cognizant that nudges are present all around us, and that they can be used for good as well as for ill, the idea behind applying nudge theory is to correct bad nudges that might lead to predatory practices that abuse the rights of consumers or to improve the poorly designed nudges with respect to personal individual decisions that could have profound public and social impacts such as the amount of savings to set aside for retirement or the kind of health insurance to purchase.

These nudges are cheaper for society in the long-run and lead to greater personal and societal happiness as well, which is probably why the leaders of both the US and the UK are both seeking to apply them, given the tight fiscal situations they are facing which require major reforms in the coming years.

Second Chances Don't Come Easy

In the rough and tumble love/hate game that often entangles lovers, a falling out often occurs which then recedes into a distant memory. Later on, nostalgia can reawaken their bond as memories of the old hurt inflicted dissolves away into rememberances of the good times they shared.

So it is with politics.

Just as in relationships, when the spouses, sons and daughters of fallen or discredited leaders seek to reclaim the mantle of their prominent forebears, the nagging question that often remains in the mind of every conscientious voter is, why ought I give him (or her) another chance at this?

Often times as in romantic relationships, emotions trump reason. But not always. In the lead up to the Democrat presidential nomination, former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton would have succeeded based on a nostalgia for the prosperous 90s when her husband Bill Clinton ran the White House. Had it not been for the impressive campaign waged by Sen Obama, things might have turned out differently for Mrs Clinton.

One could argue that although able to distinguish herself as a US senator, she was not able to differentiate herself from her husband, making his perceived weaknesses and frailties a liability for her unique brand. It might be easier in third world countries where patron-client networks prevail to perpetuate political dynasties. In the West where positions of power are more contestable, two conditions are needed for a political offspring or offshoot to "make it" in the eyes of voters.

One is to distinguish themselves as individuals. Two is to offer a substantial difference. The first one has to do with stepping out of the shadow of their prominent forebears without necessarily tarnishing their good name. The second is more important in countering perceived shortcomings of their patriarch.

John and John Quincy Adams were the first father and son to both serve as US presidents. John Sr succeeded George Washington and served for only one term due to the unpopularity of some of his decisions during the Anglo-French War. His son distinguished himself in international diplomacy before turning to politics.

George W Bush distinguished himself as governor of Texas first before being considered for higher office. He also countered perceived weaknesses in the image of his father George, Sr who promised "no new taxes" during his campaign, but reneged while in office. George Jr did this by following the mould of Ronald Reagan who cut taxes during the height of the Cold War (leading to the chronic deficits that his father had to correct, ironically).

In the Philippines, a former US colony with arguably the longest experience of democracy in Asia, despite an anti dynasty provision in its constitution, a small number of dominant families seems to rotate in occupying the halls of power. Senator Benigno Aquino III son of former president Corazon Aquino is running to succeed Mrs Gloria Arroyo daughter of the late former president Diosdado Macapagal. His running mate Sen Manuel Roxas II is a grandson and namesake of another former president.

Despite his lead in the polls (which many credit to public sympathy for his late mother, the icon of the people power era who passed away last year after a bout with cancer), he is facing a stiff challenge from his colleague in the Senate Manuel Villar who was the frontrunner before Aquino joined the race.

The columnist Tony Lopez, an ardent Aquino critic, cites two main reasons why he believes Aquino has been losing support in the polls. One, despite serving for three terms in the lower house and briefly in the Senate, Lopez says Aquino has failed to leave a distinguishing mark on either chamber. Two, he also suffers from perceived weaknesses in the Aquino brand foremost of which is failing to deliver on social justice with the flawed implementation of agrarian reform, Mrs Aquino's centerpiece program.

Yet despite these hindrances, Mr Aquino still has a good chance of clinching the plurality required in a multi-party field to win the presidency. This is due in large part to the alternatives that many see are equally if not more risky propositions. They include aside from Mr Villar, a self-made billionaire with questionable business and political dealings, a convicted former president Joseph Estrada, former Defense Sec Gilberto Teodoro, an ally of the unpopular Mrs Arroyo and a few more who have languished at the bottom of the polls.

For Mr Aquino, whose poll numbers have been slipping lately, to reclaim the momentum, he would need to address the two important issues raised here. Since he cannot do anything about the lack of tangible accomplishments in the past (the claim of not being tarnished with corruption as an achievement in itself notwithstanding), a good way to start would be to roll-out some well thought out policy prescriptions, which he has begun to do. Another would be to demonstrate how he would correct some of the failings that plagued his mother's administration.

One way he can concretely do just that would be to convince his clan comprised of more than 50 members to give up their stake in Hacienda Luisita, a sugar plantation where some 10,000 families work and live. This would signal to the vast majority belonging to the poorer social strata that he intends to make a clean break with the past. It would also signal to his oligarchic friends in the business world that they cannot curry favor with him.

Until he addresses these concerns, his slogan of bringing about people empowerment and the rule of law will continue to be viewed by many with the same scepticism of a star-crossed lover.

Corrupt Yet So Popular

It is quite surprising a phenomenon to witness how that in many countries around the world corrupt leaders often retain public support.

In a recent poll conducted in the Philippines, the late fromer president Corazon Aquino was rated highest by her countrymen among their most loved political leaders (no surprise there), but the man she toppled in a bloodless revolution, Ferdinand Marcos ranked second.

Following in fourth place was the actor turned politician former president Joseph Estrada who was ousted and convicted for his involvement in illegal racketeering. The latter two figured in the top ten most corrupt leaders of the world compiled by the corruption watchdog Transparency International.

The man who topped that list, Mr Suharto, the late former dictator of Indonesia is still widely held in good esteem by his countrymen despite what current media reports suggest about the successful drive against corruption there. What makes these crooked leaders so well-loved among their poor countrymen long after their demise? Is it their charisma? Perhaps. Is it a sense of nostalgia? For what? Is there something that these corrupt leaders attend to quite effectively that honest leaders fail to do?

The answer to that last question is most definitely a yes. What they do is support a system of clientelism to enough of their constituents so that in their eyes, the means through which such patronage is dispensed becomes irrelevant in a country where governments fail to provide an adequate level of support to their populace.

The phenomenon is in no way limited to developing countries. In an advanced economy such as Italy where people still prefer to contract with each other based on personal ties rather than through impersonal markets, their current prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has been hit by sex and corruption scandals, seems to retain wide popular support.

It took the global recession for the long-dominant ruling party of Japan to be booted out in last year's election. The new government vowed to take down the all-powerful triad led by the civil service along with members of the political and business elite who in the past have so successfully colluded to steer the economy in the right direction, but whose complacency was now holding the country back, so it claimed.

Even in countries where impersonal contracting has taken over as a result of a strong judicial system and where governments are adequately resourced, political parties are often found to engage in unsavoury practices. In Illinois for instance, the former governor tried to sell the vacated senate seat of President Barack Obama. One can find instances of such wheeling and dealing in local politics perhaps where such personalistic contracting can still be performed.

A recent Gallup poll in the US found trust in government to be at a low. Ever since the Vietnam War and Watergate scandal that toppled President Nixon, the trust rating has gone down from the previous highs registered since the “New Deal” era of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Many attribute this low rating to the gridlock and extreme partisanship that goes on in Washington. Yet despite these sentiments, polarising and highly partisan figures such as former Alaskan governor and vice presidential contender Sarah Palin retain immense popularity. This is probably due to the fact that they are able to connect with their party base by delivering the “red meat” in terms of policy prescriptions.

In other words, in Western democracies, instances of patron-client relations involving the exchange of tangible goods can still be found within governments and political parties, but it is replaced by and large with principle-based policy back-scratching that appeals to the lowest common denominator among their most loyal constituents.