The Debate on Planning

The battle lines of ideological wars are drawn on many fronts, not the least of which is the domain of popular political debate. What happens in Washington and. other citadels of power may be influenced by special-interest lobbying, stupidity, and the desire for political authority, but in the end there must be a rationale that-lends policy an air of legitimacy.

For some years economists and legal theorists from the University of Chicago have been in the vanguard of the war against government regulation of the economy. Their research consists mainly of empirical investigations into the consequences of regulation, and assessments of whether the costs exceed the benefits. For example, Professor Sam Peltzman has studied the consequences of the 1962 Kefauver Act, which came in on the heels of the thalidomide scare and was intended to ensure greater safety in drug use. Peltzman shows that the costs of such safety—i.e., severe reductions in the development and marketing of new drugs that could have saved lives—have outweighed the benefits of keeping unsafe drugs off the market. Many similar studies (of the FDA, FCC, and FTC, for example) also suggest that regulation is more harmful and costly than not.

TM

About the Author

Tibor Machan

Featured Tags

The battle lines of ideological wars are drawn on many fronts, not the least of which is the domain of popular political debate. What happens in Washington and. other citadels of power may be influenced by special-interest lobbying, stupidity, and the desire for political authority, but in the end there must be a rationale that-lends policy an air of legitimacy.

For some years economists and legal theorists from the University of Chicago have been in the vanguard of the war against government regulation of the economy. Their research consists mainly of empirical investigations into the consequences of regulation, and assessments of whether the costs exceed the benefits. For example, Professor Sam Peltzman has studied the consequences of the 1962 Kefauver Act, which came in on the heels of the thalidomide scare and was intended to ensure greater safety in drug use. Peltzman shows that the costs of such safety—i.e., severe reductions in the development and marketing of new drugs that could have saved lives—have outweighed the benefits of keeping unsafe drugs off the market. Many similar studies (of the FDA, FCC, and FTC, for example) also suggest that regulation is more harmful and costly than not.