The Sociological Imagination

Tullock argues that each member of an organization is a rational utility maximizer, and he examines how this affects both organizational objectives and the execution of these objectives.  What is most interesting, especially for a sociologist, is that the analytic unit is the dyadic relationship between inferiors and superiors; superiors and inferiors; and peer and peer within an organization.  Tullock demonstrates just how powerful the rational actor analytic can be – when applied to anything.

Tullock’s point of view regarding the ability of hierarchical organizations, particularly government organizations, is quite pessisimistic.  Due to the pervasive self-seeking throughout an organization, there is likely to be a disconnect between promulgated organizational functions, and what actually takes place in organizations.  Tullock, in fact, suggests that only in a utopian world will an organization be efficient – i.e., will an organization’s rewards, punishments, and operating procedures be structured so that individual interests square with an organization’s formal objectives.  What is more, Tullock writes that self-interest so suffuses each dyadic relationship, between inferior and superior, for example, that only “hyper-vigilant performance evaluation” will ensure tolerable work performances.  This, of course, is the root cause of organizational inefficiency.  Not only are dependable performance evaluation methods scarce, the opportunity cost of using these methods is nearly equivalent to “doing the work of your underling.”

While this book is remarkably informative, it is a rather chilling read.  Why?  Because many, if not all, government and non-profit organizations, which provide social welfare benefits and services, for instance, rely extensively on supervisors to oversee and ensure that the disadvantaged are being offered the most appropriate services.  But, as Tullock indicates, supervisors cannot be certain that the knowledge s/he needs to coordinate services is what s/he will receive from their underling.  And if they are to be certain, they will, ultimately, have to re-do their supervisees’ work. 

Tullock’s The Politics of Bureaucracy is similar to Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy.  Tullock’s work falls under the rubric of positive political theory: Logically consistency, but wanting in empirics.  Lipsky’s work is exclusively empirical: Careful research, but the theoretical lens is absent.  After reading Tullock, and comparing him to Lipsky, I recognize that it is time to see some street-level bureaucrats.  I will take the analytical lens provided by Tullock with me, however.

Question: Is my reading of Tullock adequate?

Brian A. Pitt

1.) An experimental inquiry into the social construction of property rights: I’ve always been fascinated with the work done in experimental economics. I actually got to meet Bart Wilson a couple years ago and participate in several experiments. Who says economists don’t appreciate the social construction of economic life?

2.) American judge grants political asylum to German homeschooling family: Oh those progressive Europeans, throwing parents in jail for not submitting to the government’s education system. Aside from taking a shot at Europe, it’ll be interesting to see what kind of precedent this sets in immigration law where “human right” is defined here at a negative right.

3.) Academia is liberal: Duh. They claim its institutional discrimination. I love the quote from one of the authors telling conservatives to stop whining: “The irony is that the more conservatives complain about academia’s liberalism,” he said, “the more likely it’s going to remain a bastion of liberalism.” I wonder if he would say the same thing about this report?

4.) Scott Brown action figures: Before you even ask, yes, they do have a Cosmo version

5.) World prison population list: We’re #1! We’re #1! Oh wait… that’s not cool. I wonder how much of it stems from the war on poor inner city young black males drugs?

Like Fabio Rojas, I have always believed in a unified social science curriculum.  Perhaps unlike Fabio Rojas, and many other graduate students, marriage and family were not strong factors influencing where he decided to attend.  But, they were for me.  Therefore, I have taken the liberty of posting about places I where I would love to study, from the humanties and the social sciences, for at least, one year – in no particular order:

1. George Mason University Economics – Though I can “do math,” although not quite intuit math, I would endure being mathematically-hazed for a while in order to be afforded the opportunity to learn price theory under Walter E. Williams, learn field methods under Virgil Storr, take courses with Dan Klein, Peter Leeson, Peter Boettke, Richard Wagner, Bryan Caplan, and have the opportunity to obtain a certificate in computational social science.
2. Cornell Sociology – I get “giddy” about the thought of studying under Richard Swedberg, Michael Macy, and Douglas Heckathorn.
3. New School Sociology – Though there a few, if any, opportunities for graduate students to teach, there are few sociology programs that delve into the Socialist Calculation Debate in the Sociological Theory Sequence.
4. Brandeis University – The History of Ideas Program
5. Rochester Political Science – This program is somewhat math-heavy.  But, doesn’t everyone get excited about studying in the former home of William H. Riker, and learning rational choice – sans price theory and applications.
6. Tennessee History – Robert Norrell is one of the most erudite late 19^th and early 20^th century historians around.
7. Indiana Sociology – Home of one of the top young American sociologists, conversant in field and quantitative methods, Fabio Rojas.
8. Indiana Political Science – Home of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, The Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, and The Tocqueville Program.

Where would you like to attend for a semester or two?

Brian A. Pitt

1. One who adheres to the conviction that war, the death penalty, and murder are never right.
2. One committed to limiting government activity and spending.
3. One who bears in the mind the crucial difference between Governance and Government.
4. One committed to upholding the Constitution, although recognizing that ratifying it was as much about “finding common ground” as it was about securing the liberties of US citizens.
5. A believer in secession; a strong disbelief in racism.
6. A proponent of intellectual, cultural, lifestyle, and ethnic diversity – in all government sponsored organizations.
7. A supporter of free markets – as opposed to protectionism, occupational licensure, minimum wages, etc.
8. One who is convinced that responsibility is concomitant to freedom – e.g., just as TANF recipients, ceteris paribus, do not receive additional fiscal support with the addition of a child, no bank is too large to go bankrupt.
9. One who supports the legalization of all drugs – not just the drugs ostracized by the Parternership for a Drug-Free America.

 My buddy Josh abhors political posts.  But, given that many believe that libertarians are simply “right-wingers” who support drug legalization and marriage for everyone, I thought that I would post, and ask, about the convictions of a left-leaning libertarian.

So what are they?

Brian A. Pitt

Brayden King has an excellent post on writing.  I especially enjoy the analogy Professor King makes between writing and golf.  It should be widely read by all prospective graduate students.

There is always a tension that I struggle with.  When I am reading, I am of the opinion that I should be writing.  And when I am writing, I estimate my knowledge of the subject matter to be too deficient to draft an insightful literature review.

So, what is the optimal amount of writing and reading for a PhD student?

 Brian A. Pitt