I’ve been alerted to the fact that some people don’t think I’ve written enough about government failure. Others, perhaps, think I haven’t written enough about market failure. Likely if you think one way or another you haven’t read enough of my posts or other work. It’s all here.
I’d say, on the whole, I’ve been harder on government than markets. That’s because it is, in part, my job (or has been when so funded) to consider government policy and point out how it can be improved. Sometimes I find and believe that market signals can be harnessed to enhance efficiency (Medicare competitive bidding). In other cases, I’ve been convinced that government can beneficially play a larger role (Mark Pauly’s idea to remove adverse selection from the insurance market, or largely so).
Look, not every 500-1,000 word blog post can include your preferred view of markets or government. Some will seem to lean one way or another. Trust me, you don’t want to read a blog post that hems and haws and tries to balance everything. It’d be too long, and you wouldn’t learn much. Think I’ve been too hard on markets or government? Just wait. I’m an equal opportunity critic.
