THE MESSY ROOMMATE THEORY OF NATO. The discussion of messy roommates yesterday presupposed an economic theory applying to small groups. In our hypothetical, assume the messy husband would clean the house once a month whether it was needed or not, and the wife can’t stand to let the house go more than a week without a cleaning. Other things being equal, one could expect the wife to be the only one to clean the house. In any event, the husband may be perceived to have a bargaining advantage in negotiating household chores. Richard Zeckhauser and Mancur Olson wrote a pioneering paper back in the sixties on what they called the Messy Roommate Theory of NATO. The article argued that European countries could see that the United States seemed to have a greater interest in defending Europe than did the Europeans themselves and that therefore it was not surprising that the United States bore a disproportionate share of the burdens of NATO. The European countries would therefore be “free riding” to an extent on the United States, just as the messy husband would be “free riding” on the efforts of the neat wife. What Bryan Caplan said to begin the discussions I posted on yesterday was that there is no reason to assume that the neat roommate’s values are correct and the messy roommate is free riding. From the messy husband’s point of view, to clean more than when it is absolutely necessary is a waste of time no matter who does the cleaning.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- ADAPTING GATSBY. (1)
- Mary Jane Schaefer: I think these are crucial, important decisions, what to leave out of any literary work, maybe any...
- DAMIEN HIRST—AN ART MARKET BUBBLE?. (1)
- Kate Bush: I hope you enjoy my visit to the Damien Hirst show as much as I did The Technical Impossibility of...
- THE MOST IMPORTANT EPISODE OF THE SIMPSONS ? (COMMENT). (1)
- Nick: Homer does has success as the team’s best hitter until Mr. Burns places a bet with a rival factory owner...
- THE “RIGHT TO EDIT”. (1)
- Lee: A relevant Simpsons clip.
- ULYSSES—VIRGINIA WOOLF LIKED THE BOOK, DESPISED THE AUTHOR. (3)
- A DEFENSE OF INVASIVE SPECIES. (3)
- Dick Weisfelder: Today’s Toledo Blade has an article on the importation of live Asian carp to Canada to serve...
- Lee: The downside is that red squirrels are way cuter than their gray cousins. Hitchens on the subject.
- THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT). (5)
- frank martin: Have been in a an Al only Roto league since 91… started at Ohio University were we all went to...
- DEATH OF A BUMBLEBEE. (1)
- Nick: By contrast, I remember witnessing the entire thing. I was surprised by Annalisa’s reaction and...
- ANOTHER VOTE ON UMBRIDGE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: When I look back at one of the Potter books, it’s usually this one. There are just a lot of...
- THE SCARIEST VILLAIN IN HARRY POTTER? (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: Didn’t we all meet her somewhere in grade or high school?
- ADAPTING GATSBY. (1)
Meta
Didn’t de Gaulle pursue a nuclear arsenal for France because he wasn’t certain America would be willing to clean house in case the Russians came calling? I imagine that’s not much of a stretch considering the stakes.
Edit: I realize now I should have said his stated reason for getting the bomb was fear of being left in the lurch. This is politics, after all.
Don’t forget “grandeur!”
I always thought de Gaulle was right that French threat to use nuclear weapons in its own defense was inherently more credible. I have come to appreciate how important grandeur was and is.