Tony Soprano and Robert Nozick
A long-standing debate between libertarians and others concerns the extent to which a state is needed to enforce cooperative rules. Many libertarians argue that informal, self-sustaining agreements can achieve desirable outcomes even without the state acting as a third-party enforcer. See here for a particularly interesting version of this argument and various counter-arguments.
Bo Rothstein's fascinating paper on efficient institutions concludes with a great story from the TV series "The Sopranos," which speaks directly to this issue and is worth quoting at length.
In a state of rage, the mob leader himself, Tony Soprano, with a gun in his hand goes after a low level gang member that has betrayed him and kills him. Usually, he would of course have used an underling for an operation like this, but this time ... he is so overtaken by emotions that he forgets the golden rule that mafia bosses should never do any of the dirty work themselves. As it happens, he is seen by an “ordinary citizen” chasing after the victim. This eyewitness goes to the police, not knowing that it is the local mafia leader that he has seen. The “ordinary Joe” tells the police that he is just sick and tired of all the violence in his neighbourhood and that he as a law-abiding citizen wants to help the police to clean up the neighbourhood. When the police commissars show him a bunch of photos of known criminals, he directly identifies the perpetrator - still not knowing who the person he identifies is. After he has left the police station, the police commissars are in a state of joy since they now seem to have what they need to put Tony Soprano behind bars.
In the next scene, the eye-witness is sitting comfortably in what seems to be a middle-class home listening to classical music. A woman his age, probably his wife, is sitting close to him reading the newspaper. Suddenly she starts screaming and then shouts at him to read an article in the paper. The article makes it clear to this honest and law-abiding citizen that the person he has identified at the police station as the perpetrator is the well-known local mafia leader Tony Soprano. The law-abiding citizen then throws himself at the phone, calls the police commissar who’s direct number he has, and in a terrified voice says that he did not see anything and that he will not become a witness.
The interesting thing is the book our law-abiding citizen was reading before his wife showed him the newspaper article. An observant spectator has about one second to see that it is the philosopher Robert Nozick’s modern classic Anarchy, State and Utopia - an icon for all ultraliberal, anti-government and free-market proponents ever since it was published (Nozick 1974).
The message from the people behind the Sopranos show seems clear: In a “stateless” Robert Nozick type of society, where everything should be arranged by individual, freely entered contracts, markets will deteriorate into organized crime. The conclusion is again, that there can be a market for anything as long as there is not a market for everything. Or in other words, if everything is for sale, markets will not come close to what should count as social efficiency.
Who knew that the writers of the show were academics manque?
By the way, Rothstein's Quality of Government Institute maintains an extensive data base on institutional indicators across countries and over time. It should be an important resource for people working on these topics.
UPDATE: Thank to Mike2 for posting a link to this YouTube video, which makes the point rather nicely.
Read more at Dani Rodrik's Weblog













Bingo.
And this is the best point to be made regarding your previous post about good governance.
I don't think that the failure of the financial industry in the United States disproves the assertion that "democracy, rule of law, political competition, and low levels of corruption" are the keys to a country's economic success. Fair regulation -- which might be considered either part of the "rule of law", or of the "low levels of corruption" criteria -- is also required, precicely to prevent "free" markets from devolving into organized crime.
Our experience in the past decade or so proves this point, in my opinion. We had (and still have) all those qualities. But "good governance" became organized crime in the absence of fair and diligent regulation.
-- ARG
May 20, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment and good post Dani.
May 20, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertarians such as Nozick are ambiguous about the conception of "Man in the state of Nature". One is not sure where in the spectrum from Rousseau to Hobbes Nozick places this baseline human nature.
For example, "can man make private agreements without the help of government?" Is that ‘can’ a strict logical possibility or is it tied to some particular notion of Man’s natural social interactions absent governing constraints.
Having thought about this a bit it seems to me that if Man were a totally antisocial creature (incapable of cooperative behavior) then governments would not be possible either. Given this, it follows that Man has an inherent mutually advantageous cooperative element in his nature.
The trick is actually to determine how much government intervention is necessary to ensure that 1) Liberal ideals of individualism are given a chance to express themselves and 2) social order and justice prevail.
Therefore there has to be some dialectic between the two.
A third element and perhaps the most important challenge to Nozick (and Rawls for that matter) is the Communitarian challenge. Insofar as the individual person is to a large extent a product of society we need to pay attention to the health of the community as a whole and not exclusively obsess about (as Taylor calls it) Atomic individualism.
May 20, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always we get into trouble when we lurch to the logical extreme. What is workable and best for the larger good of most people is complicated. Yes, people do need individual freedom. And yes, we do need a government to prevent wretched excess. The libertarians float in a dream world of the theoretically perfect. They forget the flaws of the human condition.
May 20, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
May 21, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, the Bevilaqua hit.
May 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink