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.

Nudge or Shove? Debating the Merits of Behavioral Economics in Policymaking

In designing policies that reduce negative externalities or public "bads" (as opposed to public "goods") such as the ills associated with the rise of obesity or carbon pollution, governments have borrowed many instruments from the behavioral economist tool kit.

The recent health care measures in the US that mandate the printing of caloric content of food in menus and packages is one example; so is the use of peer pressure in the billing systems of regulated energy companies that use informational cues (smiley faces) to instruct customers of their relative efficient use of power (compared to that of other customers).

These approaches try to influence irrational decision-making by some without necessarily limiting the choices of those for whom they are intended and without imposing unnecessary costs on others whose decisions are perfectly sound and rational. A more direct and appropriate approach to resolve these problems according to Lowenstein and Ubel in a recent NY Times piece entitled Economics Behaving Badly would be to increase the relative cost of consumption whether of fatty processed foods  by withdrawing subsidies to their key ingredients like corn oil or that of energy by putting a price on carbon.

The two pillars of the behavioural economist school argue that policymakers have taken the politically expedient route of utilising the light touch or "nudges" espoused by their field when the more direct but unpopular approach of applying subsidies and taxes prescribed by traditional economists or "shoves" would guarantee the desired outcomes more effectively.

Not so, counter Sunstein and Thaler, authors of the influential book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Both traditional and behavioural approaches are needed to influence decisions by rational and irrational actors. The fault they say lies in the politics of the situation, not the economics of it.