The Problem I Have with Activists Sometimes
It was in the editorial section of today's paper, but it could've been
in any paper on any day: an impassioned call to shut down factory
farms, boycott their products, and go organic instead. The writer,
who runs a local animal-rights group, talked off family farms being
bought out by multinational food companies, which convert land and
chickens into a massive assembly line to harvest eggs for our
breakfast tables. He spoke of hens and eggs left in feces, cages so
small their occupants couldn't even turn around, and other atrocities
that are hard to stomach over breakfast.
And so I was disappointed when I finished the article, and even reread
it, and found in it calls to only two actions: shut down the factory
farms, and go organic. The first seems like an awfully blunt
solution, like using a machete instead of a scalpel. And the second
doesn't really solve the problem, since most of the country isn't
going organic, no matter how many persuasive animal rights editorials
are written.
Here is a problem that is crying for a more reasoned, economics-based
government solution. For here is a market failure: each producer, no
matter how big or small, lacks sufficient incentive to care for the
animals that are harvesting the goods it is selling to the
marketplace. This is no different than car manufacturers lacking
sufficient incentive to voluntarily make more fuel-efficient cars, or
meat-packing plants lacking sufficient incentive to spend a few extra
bucks to make sure their production processes are safe to workers and
to consumers.
Notice I said "sufficient incentive." It's not like there's no
incentive. If activists write enough graphic letters, factory farms
will lose some business from offended consumers. There now exists a
market for fuel-efficient cars, while those that guzzle are becoming
less popular. And a scandal at the meat-oacking plant, whether a
work-related fatality or a contaminated batch of beef patties,
certainly hurts that firm enough that it would want to avoid such a
scandal in the first place.
But the incentive is insufficient to get each player to move more
fully in the direction of actions that would be in the overall greater
good. And that's where government regulations can help get us to that
better equilibrium. Remember those supply and demand curves you drew
in econ class? Think of the supply curve as being artificially low,
because the market price doesn't adequately reflect the real price of
a producing a good. Resetting the curve by enforcing government
regulations which will force producers to bear additional costs pushes
the supply curve up, and a new equilibrium is reached. Prices will be
higher, and amount consumed lower: a more appropriate level of price
and quantity, given the non-financial social costs we're trying to
minimize.
This is why I am sometimes upset with activists. I fault them not for
thinking too big, but for not thinking big enough. Protests,
boycotts, and support of alternative products are a drop in the bucket
compared to getting the supply and demand curves right. I wonder if
some protestors don't just want to put up a good fight for the cameras
or for their own consciences, but don't want to take the time to
understand how to truly right a wrong. Or maybe they don't want to be
perceived as "selling out" by trying to work within the mainstream for
broader change and not just change on the fringe.
Or what of the far-sighted producers who voluntarily do the right
thing? Is it because they've gotten religion? Or is it because it
makes for good press, and distinguishes their products in the market,
allowing them to look good and to capture the segment of the consumer
base that is into this kind of stuff? I applaud people like Gary
Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farms, a vocal champion of the organic
movement, who is willing to sacrifice the cache of his own product so
that the benefits of going organic can become more mainstream.
So what’s it going to be? If you want to give people the right to choose, you have to let some people go organic and some not. If you think people shouldn’t have the right to choose, you can be radical and try to blow the whole thing up – and what does that accomplish? Or you can figure out the right level of government regulation so that firms and individuals will make decisions that minimize the negative consequences of their actions. To introduce another analogy, in regards to gas-guzzling SUV’s, we can get owners to voluntarily buy Terrapasses (status quo) or blow up all the SUV’s (activist’s dream); or we can lobby for government regulation that requires SUV producers and consumers to pay their fair share of the pollution their vehicles impose on society.
Clarion calls to take down factory farms or go organic may sound good
on the editorial page, but I'm skeptical that they're the best way to
safeguard the rights of animals or meat packers, or ensure that we are
good stewards of our environmental resources so that future
generations can enjoy them as well. I applaud the zeal of activists.
I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their
motives, even though I'm sure some are more interested in being
countercultural than in actually changing the culture. I just wish
they'd advocate solutions that can really make a difference.
It was in the editorial section of today's paper, but it could've been
in any paper on any day: an impassioned call to shut down factory
farms, boycott their products, and go organic instead. The writer,
who runs a local animal-rights group, talked off family farms being
bought out by multinational food companies, which convert land and
chickens into a massive assembly line to harvest eggs for our
breakfast tables. He spoke of hens and eggs left in feces, cages so
small their occupants couldn't even turn around, and other atrocities
that are hard to stomach over breakfast.
And so I was disappointed when I finished the article, and even reread
it, and found in it calls to only two actions: shut down the factory
farms, and go organic. The first seems like an awfully blunt
solution, like using a machete instead of a scalpel. And the second
doesn't really solve the problem, since most of the country isn't
going organic, no matter how many persuasive animal rights editorials
are written.
Here is a problem that is crying for a more reasoned, economics-based
government solution. For here is a market failure: each producer, no
matter how big or small, lacks sufficient incentive to care for the
animals that are harvesting the goods it is selling to the
marketplace. This is no different than car manufacturers lacking
sufficient incentive to voluntarily make more fuel-efficient cars, or
meat-packing plants lacking sufficient incentive to spend a few extra
bucks to make sure their production processes are safe to workers and
to consumers.
Notice I said "sufficient incentive." It's not like there's no
incentive. If activists write enough graphic letters, factory farms
will lose some business from offended consumers. There now exists a
market for fuel-efficient cars, while those that guzzle are becoming
less popular. And a scandal at the meat-oacking plant, whether a
work-related fatality or a contaminated batch of beef patties,
certainly hurts that firm enough that it would want to avoid such a
scandal in the first place.
But the incentive is insufficient to get each player to move more
fully in the direction of actions that would be in the overall greater
good. And that's where government regulations can help get us to that
better equilibrium. Remember those supply and demand curves you drew
in econ class? Think of the supply curve as being artificially low,
because the market price doesn't adequately reflect the real price of
a producing a good. Resetting the curve by enforcing government
regulations which will force producers to bear additional costs pushes
the supply curve up, and a new equilibrium is reached. Prices will be
higher, and amount consumed lower: a more appropriate level of price
and quantity, given the non-financial social costs we're trying to
minimize.
This is why I am sometimes upset with activists. I fault them not for
thinking too big, but for not thinking big enough. Protests,
boycotts, and support of alternative products are a drop in the bucket
compared to getting the supply and demand curves right. I wonder if
some protestors don't just want to put up a good fight for the cameras
or for their own consciences, but don't want to take the time to
understand how to truly right a wrong. Or maybe they don't want to be
perceived as "selling out" by trying to work within the mainstream for
broader change and not just change on the fringe.
Or what of the far-sighted producers who voluntarily do the right
thing? Is it because they've gotten religion? Or is it because it
makes for good press, and distinguishes their products in the market,
allowing them to look good and to capture the segment of the consumer
base that is into this kind of stuff? I applaud people like Gary
Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farms, a vocal champion of the organic
movement, who is willing to sacrifice the cache of his own product so
that the benefits of going organic can become more mainstream.
So what’s it going to be? If you want to give people the right to choose, you have to let some people go organic and some not. If you think people shouldn’t have the right to choose, you can be radical and try to blow the whole thing up – and what does that accomplish? Or you can figure out the right level of government regulation so that firms and individuals will make decisions that minimize the negative consequences of their actions. To introduce another analogy, in regards to gas-guzzling SUV’s, we can get owners to voluntarily buy Terrapasses (status quo) or blow up all the SUV’s (activist’s dream); or we can lobby for government regulation that requires SUV producers and consumers to pay their fair share of the pollution their vehicles impose on society.
Clarion calls to take down factory farms or go organic may sound good
on the editorial page, but I'm skeptical that they're the best way to
safeguard the rights of animals or meat packers, or ensure that we are
good stewards of our environmental resources so that future
generations can enjoy them as well. I applaud the zeal of activists.
I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their
motives, even though I'm sure some are more interested in being
countercultural than in actually changing the culture. I just wish
they'd advocate solutions that can really make a difference.
Comments