Nepotism and Global Politics – Econlib

I imagine most readers don’t spend much time thinking about the practice of nepotism. In this post I will not try to convince you that nepotism is good or bad, but I will try to demonstrate that nepotism provides a useful entry point into thinking about contemporary trends in the politics of many countries.

Conservatives often talk about the importance of family, faithand the flag. But how much weight should we give to family, religion and the nation? Consider the following sliding intensity scales:

1. No religion <—–> moderate religion <—–> intense religion

2. Cosmopolitanism <—–> moderate nationalism <—–> intense nationalism

3. Pure egalitarianism <—–> Nordic family values <—–> strong family favoritism

People often describe intense religion as “religious fanaticism,” a phrase with negative connotations. While I am not religious, it is not clear to me why an intense adherence to a set of beliefs that are considered both good and important is a bad thing. In this post I will try to avoid value judgments.

Here I am most interested in the second and third issues, attitudes toward families and nations. A cosmopolitan could call himself or herself a “citizen of the world,” and not claim favoritism toward his or her native country. Someone with moderate nationalism might be strongly opposed to the kind of intense nationalism we see in countries like Russia, and yet to some extent prefer social programs that help domestic residents over those from abroad.

In much of the world it is considered unethical not to show strong favoritism towards people with a blood relationship. In contrast, family ties are weaker in countries such as Northern Europe, where nepotism in hiring is widely considered unethical. Not many people show absolutely no family favoritism, but you can imagine someone who grumbles about being allowed to choose his friends but not his family, and maintains friendly relations with people of similar interests, and not with those who are close relatives.

I grew up in a culture that leaned toward the “moderate” position on all three sliding scales, and I have no interest in supporting or criticizing that position. Instead, I’m interested in thinking about the logic behind each position, especially on the last two sliding scales (attitudes toward one’s nation and family). Why is it so difficult to determine which posture is appropriate? Is the “golden mean” approach I grew up with just lazy thinking? To remind Thomas De Quincey famous joke:

A happy medium is certainly what every man should strive for. But talking is easier than doing; and as my weakness is notoriously too milky at heart, I find it difficult to maintain that steady equatorial line between the two poles of too much murder on the one hand and too little on the other.

Why do the above cases seem different from those in which one of the extremes is clearly preferable? Here it is useful to think about two terms that have very different connotations: prejudice And solidarity.

In America, bias is considered so unethical that there are all kinds of laws that prohibit showing favoritism toward one group over another. In contrast, solidarity has a positive connotation, linked of course to patriotism and family values, but also to trade union solidarity and even loyalty to a sports team. But prejudice and solidarity are two sides of the same coin.

It would be difficult to give you a “rational” reason for my support of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. I haven’t lived in Wisconsin for over forty years, and even when I did, it wasn’t in Milwaukee. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to explain why I’m a Bucks fan. That was the local team on TV when I started following the NBA in 1968, and once I was hooked, I stuck with them. Likewise, people usually (but not always) prefer the religion, nation, and family of their youth.

Nepotism is a strong form of family values, or family favoritism. It may seem obvious to you that nepotism is unethical. But many (most?) people around the world don’t think that way. They might find your refusal to participate in favoritism highly unethical. Sociologists use the acronym WEIRD to describe our culture (Western, educated, industrialized, wealthy and democratic).

In my opinion, the tension between solidarity and bias is increasingly the driving force behind recent trends in politics. Authoritarian nationalism tends to lean toward the middle and right of these three sliding scales, with some important exceptions. Liberalism leans more toward the middle and left of the three scales, again with important exceptions.

The concept of tradition the right probably plays a greater role than the left. In countries like Russia, liberals are criticized (perhaps unfairly) for abandoning religion, family values ​​and patriotism. A liberal might respond that supporting the concept of same-sex marriage is actually consistent with family values. When conservatives criticize things like gay rights, trans rights, and abortion, I think they implicitly have in mind the idea that once you go down that path, you end up with a kind of radical individualism that erodes the solidarity that underlies family and nation. If there is no logical reason for not allowing people to follow a certain lifestyle, then (some might argue) there is also no logical reason for me not to move from the Bucks to the Celtics, or not to move on to move on from rooting for the U.S. Winter Olympic team. for the Norwegian Winter Olympics team.

In some cases there is even tension within a certain ideological framework. My favorite example is the Dutch right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn, who opposed Muslim immigration because he feared it would threaten Dutch “traditional values” of liberalism in areas such as gay rights. French conservatives have complained about women from different cultures didn’t wear bikinis on the beach. So there are important exceptions, cases where people do not line up the same way on all three scales.

[Recall the famous paradox: Should liberals tolerate the intolerant?]

Some experts have noted that workers in many countries are switching from left to right. This can be understood as a response to the collapse of communism. As the socialist dream of the working class seemed increasingly unrealistic, politics shifted to a focus on issues identity. Both left-wing trade union activism and right-wing nationalism can both be seen as emphasizing solidarity rather than bias. From that perspective, the core ideology of the working class has not changed, but the issues have changed. In contrast, liberals often worry a lot about prejudice and place less emphasis on family or national solidarity.

Proposals to tackle global warming suffer from an ‘externality problem’. So it is no surprise that the very same voters who showed union solidarity when they voted socialist in the 20th century are now showing national solidarity when they vote for right-wing parties opposed to carbon taxes. Most of the profits from carbon taxes go to foreigners, while most of the costs are borne domestically.

In summary, politics in the 20th century tended to split along the lines of socialism versus capitalism. In the 21st century, the fault line seems to be attitudes towards the relative importance of prejudice And solidarity.

P.S. Elsewhere I have argued that nationalism and patriotism are two very different things. Here I have left that thorny subject aside.