So essentially these results suggests that common goods are better to be financed by taxes rather then by donations.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1330137111987712000 …
Interesting thought, but question of course is whether governments spend to be effective or whether to look good for the electorate?
-
-
That is of course a valid argument, however, the number of people they have to impress/who's life they have to improve with the spending is bigger than that of a donor who primarily wants to impress his friends. 1/2
-
Looking through the lens of selectorate theory (https://www.amazon.de/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=76734814931&dchild=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkuP9BRCkARIsAKGLE8W7Fle-PGSjPc47kwV1q3pq7qR2b_0dzIrb_4g2qnQrhj_QY4-QXpsaAq1nEALw_wcB&hvadid=352839453770&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9060641&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15356745539016641856&hvtargid=kwd-301669470655&hydadcr=27552_1736761&keywords=dictators+handbook&qid=1605966523&sr=8-1&tag=googhydr08-21 …) this suggests that the likelihood for the money spent to improve the common good is higher, when subject to democratic control. (that doesn't negate that PR stunt spending certainly occurs as well) 2/2
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.