Gender, motherfucking, quotas

Meanwhile, Maksim Katz picks up the most dubious populist ideas that even the FBK disdained - he recently released a video about the benefits of gender quotas. However, there are a couple of references to studies at the end, plus an appeal to Sergei Guriev, who finds gender quotas useful. In this regard, let me remind you that I had a video dedicated to positive discrimination . Not gender, mostly ethnic and racial, but the mechanisms of action are the same. Mostly based on the economist Thomas Sowell's book (Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study), plus some Rawls and Nozick as a theoretical frame.

Sowell just breaks down many of the arguments that Katz puts forward with reference to Guriev. For example, the thesis that quotas are a temporary measure that will be canceled after "fairness" is established. Sowell writes that nothing of the kind: quotas were indeed often adopted under the guise of a "temporary measure", but in no country in the world where quotas were adopted, they were not canceled. On the contrary, they only expand and deepen. Why? Yes, because nowhere simply did not achieve the desired result. Such a result is something like "so that there are exactly as many people everywhere as there are % in the composition of the population." But they didn't even come close. However, instead of the conclusion "quotas do not work", the authorities conclude "we just need more quotas". That is, do not believe the arguments about temporality: once you introduce this dirty trick, you will get rid of it later.

Further, it is argued that quotas contribute to the fight against sexism. Approval of the format "we ban sexism - it will not happen." But Sowell argues that the exact opposite is true: quotas only lead to increased racial/ethnic animosity. Quotas create a sense of resentment by making the benefits of "oppressed groups" seem undeserved. As a result, after the introduction of quotas, inter-caste violence in India only intensifies, and in Sri Lanka, the introduction of quotas eventually led to a civil war between Tamils and Sinhalese.

In general, I think that the difference between Sowell and Guriev is in the fundamental approach. Sowell believes that the very task of "to have exactly as many people everywhere as % of the population" is madness. Society is complicated. Representation of different groups in different professions, politics, etc. depends on many different factors, not just "stereotypes" or "systemic injustice". Getting into this process with the club of the state, we get unforeseen negative consequences like resentment. Guriev, on the other hand, looks at the world through the eyes of a bureaucrat (until recently he was a representative of the international bureaucracy): here we have the desired picture of statistics, let's carry out a policy in order to adjust reality to it, without taking into account the broad empirical context of what is happening.

A simple analogy: there are two athletes, one pumped muscles for 10 years in natural, the second achieved the same in a year with the help of doping, both press 200 kg. From the point of view of the bureaucratic approach, both achieved the same result, only the second is faster, and therefore more efficient. But there is a broad empirical context: the second one has dead kidneys, naughty liver, and collapsing joints. However, if you are a supplier of doping (the state, international bureaucracy, etc.), then all this is up to you, the main thing is a beautiful result.

In reality, we have Scandinavian countries that have come to gender equality “naturally”, through social evolution, and there are countries that are trying to repeat similar indicators, mixing an explosive cocktail of doping (state policy) and not giving a damn about their health. In order to maintain a chemical sports result, you have to constantly increase the share of doping (expand the quota policy). Treat dead kidneys and livers in order to go into battle again (states have to invent new policies to deal with the bad side effects of the old one). In general, you give a healthy lifestyle without state doping and political addictions.

Mihail Pojarsky 2021-05-13