Hey pocket listeners, our new book Think Like a Freak will be published on May 12th as a hardcover, ebook, audio book, large print edition, you name it. And if you pre-order it in any format from any store, you can get the first chapter now delivered to your email inbox. Just go to www.freakonomics.com. There's a lot more information at www.freakonomics.com, including our book tours schedule.
It starts in New York City where Leva and I will speak and sign books at Symphony Space and at Barnes & Noble. We will also visit Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, London, and the Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts in Wales. Again, all the details are at www.freakonomics.com. Chris Smith writes about politics for New York Magazine.
You've been at New York Magazine, come here? It's 1988. Who would you say is the most influential mayor in New York City history? Who easily, LaGuardia, both because of the time he was mayor and the fact that so many mayors, not just New York City, tried to model himself after him.
We are going to try and demonstrate that a non-partisan, non-political, honest, clean government is possible in our city. The Rello LaGuardia was New York's mayor from 1934 to 1945, a long and eventful period, the Great Depression, Second World War. To lift the spirit of the citizenry, LaGuardia would sing to them. He'd read them the funny pages.
That's what big painting is doing. Now, give me speech. Oh, the nice society people, you know. All the nice society people.
Ha ha! Says the more district attorney and pay children. What does it all mean? It means that dirty money never brings any luck.
How about another iconic New York City mayor? Well, so many different backgrounds, so many different points of view, religions, cultures, joined together in one place. Giuliani makes a good case in terms of saving the city, of arriving at a pivotal time in the city's history, inheriting terrible crime statistics and making the city governable, again, in a law and order sense. And a lot of that being imitated, the data analysis, the data-driven approach to crime that he and Bill Bratton, then and now the police commissioner, introduced, has been imitated all over the world.
We began with crime. We began with crime because it was the most basic problem that we had to solve. Because Chris Smith knows so much about New York City politics, I wanted to see if I could stump him. I wanted to know if he could name another of New York's most accomplished mayors.
Alright, let me read to you a list of accomplishments from one of our past mayors. This person built Grand Central Terminal, still stands, presided over the opening of the subway, still runs, licensed the first taxi cab, they're still going, built 19 new firehouses, 110 school buildings, including 11 new high schools, built 35 miles of new warfage, including 51 new peers. Any idea who that master builder was? Hmm, John Highland, set low.
Those good guesses, and more, you got any more guesses? Uh, Vincent in Pilitaria. And you know, I, the four dozen colorful names, but bad guesses. So who is the man who did all that, and who also secured 277 acres of park space, finished construction of the New York Public Library, opened the Queensborough and Manhattan bridges, and installed the world's first high pressure water service to fight fires?
George McClellan? Ah. You have him in your baseball card collection of Great New York City mayors? George Mac, I call him.
Okay, so most people haven't heard of Mayor George McClellan. His father, also George McClellan, was a Civil War general. The younger McClellan was mayor of New York from 1904 to 1909, just one term. And look at everything he got done in one term.
Now, granted, many of those projects were initiated by his predecessors. But even so, what a closer this guy was. George McClellan's fingerprints are all over the city, and yet he's largely forgotten. Today's program is about mayors, how they get stuff done out of necessity, and yet, unlike certain more visible chief executives, they're often overlooked.
Chris Smith tells us that people even underestimate the power of New York City's mayor. Short of declaring war, you know, New York City's mayor has a greater direct influence on more lives than even the president. On today's show, you'll hear from mayors from all over the country. The real brand runs right throughout Turkey, so we've got the river, we've got the longest urban stretch of Route 66 in the country, so a lot of great vibe here.
We have the number one airport in the world for origination and destination, the top port in the country, the largest mistreatment. Okay, now you're just pissing us off here. I have to say. I think the red socks are going to win the division.
I do hope the Yankees are better this year because it's not as much fun winning the rail series when the Yankees are so bad. But we ask whether cities are a good template for the way governments should work. A city is where you come face to face with all of the possibilities and the problems that are presented in our country. I think perhaps most dramatically, about five years ago, we crossed the threshold with more than 50% of humanity in our lives in cities.
If you're down, if you're feeling dispirited, if you're feeling nothing works, have a second look at cities. From WNYC, this is for economics radio, the podcast that explores the inside of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dopner. Today's show is about mayors.
Okay, so we happen to be in New York City and you've heard of yours. And I've heard of yours. Eric Garcetti is the mayor of Los Angeles. You went to LSE, you are a jazz pianist, a photographer, you are a lieutenant in the US Navy.
I read your qualifications. I have to please don't take this the wrong way. Aren't you deeply overqualified to be a mayor? I think a mayor has to be ready for almost anything.
I mean, the only thing that's predictable in this job is its unpredictability. You might be talking to a homeless resident of your city, somebody who's living on the streets, and then meet the Crown Prince of Spain right afterwards. So you have to, I think, have a pretty wide range of experiences. So I still think I'm underqualified.
We talked to Benjamin Barber, who's an academic political theorist who wrote a book called If Mayors Ruled the World. I understand you may have read the book or no. I just sleep with it right next to me too, inspiring. But yes, I know Benjamin well, he's coming and visiting me out here.
Benjamin Barber, I'm a senior research scholar at the City University of New York, professor emeritus at Rutgers University at political theorist and an author of 18 books, the most recent of which is If Mayors Ruled the World, Dysfunctional Nations Rising Cities. In the book, Barber argues that cities are paragons of good governance, potentially, at least and at least compared to nation states. And that is largely due to their Mayors. Mayors, Barber says, are inherently bipartisan.
They can't afford not to be. And above all else, they're focused on solving actual problems. Mayors, of course, love this book. You know, Mayor Walsh, the first day in office, this picture in the front of the Boston Globe, he's sitting with a copy of that book right in front of him.
And Mayor Garcetti has it. Mayor de Blasio has it. Mayor is reading it. It's a great thing.
What is it that Benjamin Barber so admires about the modern mayor? This is a great story. I tell of Teddy Colick, the longtime mayor of Jerusalem, who's his Zionist in quite one side in his views, but had to deal with the city full of Jews, Muslims and Christians. He tells the story on himself of a day in the 1980s in which Jewish, Rabbi, Muslim, Imans, and Christian pre-lights were in his office arguing as they often did about access to the holy sites in Jerusalem.
And they were ranting at each other and going on and on. And he finally interrupted them and he said, gentlemen, gentlemen, spare me your sermons and I will fix your sewers. And that is a telling, you know, a point about what mayors do. They fix sewers.
They keep the trains running. They get the snowcloud. They pick up the garbage. And that is their job.
So pragmatism is essential. Okay, Mr. Mayor. Yes.
Hey, Stephen Dubner. How are you? Stephen, how are you? Marty Walsh became Boston's mayor this past January.
Talk to him shortly after his first day in office. So first of all, congratulations. How do you like the mayor so far? My five weeks and one day have been great.
Before he was mayor, Walsh served in the Massachusetts state legislature for 16 years. Tell me something you've learned so far about the reach of the mayor's power that you hadn't quite anticipated. Very different than being a state legislator. We kind of, we process things.
We work far away towards an ultimate goal. And by the time we get to a final vote, it's quite a bit. As a mayor, you can make impact immediately. You know, just one small thing.
I was driving down the street and it was a big pothole on the street, non-pot street, I made a phone call and five minutes later it was filled. Kind of where the rubber hits the road. Tony Harp is the new mayor of New Haven, Connecticut. Like Marty Walsh, she spent many years in the state legislature.
Also like Walsh, she appreciates her new job. You know, I think the difference is that in the Senate, you set policy. You can even write a budget, but you actually don't do implementation. Harp didn't like not being able to implement.
She said she'd often spent a lot of time and effort on a project, getting it funded, for instance, only to watch it fizzle out once it got out of her hands. Well, it is frustrating. You kind of have an idea how you see it rolling out, how you sit working and then to find out later that for one reason or another, sometimes the money doesn't even get to this trade at all. The same goes for Richard Berry, mayor of Albuquerque.
He too was a state legislator. As a legislator, it's much more deliberative. There's a lot more policy discussions. And as a mayor, you have the ability to be more agile and you can make things happen quicker.
For example, recently we were able to craft and put forward a bill to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in Albuquerque. We were able to get that done much quicker because we didn't have to wait for the legislative session and in the process that goes with that. So I think the agility is a big part of it. And you can bring initiatives to play and get them implemented quicker and more effectively.
And you can do a lot of bold things. There's a reason that mayors love their job. And there's a reason I think people turn into mayors to get things done because mayors have shown the propensity to get things done. Now one reason that mayors look so good to Benjamin Barber is that our federal government looks so bad.
Nert, Myroden Gridlock, outdated. In his book, he writes that the very idea of the nation state is an aponestic. It argues that nation states even where they work well, even where they're not frozen in time, even where they're not polarized and incapable of taking action, were born in an era of national societies where the problems the world faced were mostly contained by national jurisdictions. And as we've argued before on this program, the president of the United States isn't nearly as powerful as many people might imagine or hope them to be.
But it goes beyond the straight comparison of President to mayor. As Barber points out, city governments are more nimble even when dealing with complicated issues. Eric Garcetti, LA's mayor, says he's seen this firsthand with climate change policy. The C40 is actually the 40 cities in the world that are combating climate change and doing it probably more effectively than the G20.
I do think that there is going to be an increasingly robust space for cities to talk to each other. I always like to say mayors are just like a band of thieves. We like to steal the very best from one another. I watch what a mayor in London is doing and say that would be great here.
We stopped smoking in LA and then New York did it. There's bike share in New York. We'll steal that and do an LA. So these things, I think, really are global.
Cities are much more nimble. They're ready to act. And they have the platforms to do it in a way that national governments can't. Coming up on Freak and I'm at this radio, if mayors are such great hands-on executives, why have so few of them made it to the White House?
You make a lot of enemies as New York City mayor. Even if you're very successful, you tend to piss a lot of people off. And what if mayors ruled the world? I support the idea of communication across cities.
So I think sharing ideas certainly is a good idea. A parliament is by definition essentially a legislative branch. And I think the beauty of mayors is that they are deeply executive. So I'm not particularly eager to transform these wonderfully focused executives into parliamentarians.
From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner. OK, here's a quiz. How many US presidents started out as mayors?
Fifteen, twelve, about three. Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge. Why so few? Chris Smith again, the political writer from New York Magazine.
Probably a couple of reasons that mayors, because they have to pick up the trash and run police departments and do a lot of the quotidian important things, tend to be more focused on managerial qualities than grand visions, the kind of things that play well in presidential campaigns. In campaigns, yeah. Yeah. So, particularly in the case of New York City mayors, you make a lot of enemies as New York City mayor.
Even if you're very successful, you tend to piss a lot of people off. And that baggage, you know, when you take it to a Democratic party or a Republican party in rarer instances, just in political terms, I think that's held back a lot of New York mayors. Is it easier to not tick people off as the governor of the state, whether it's New York or elsewhere? I mean, obviously, governor's been, yeah.
Yeah. Why isn't? Both because you're interacting less in the day-to-day lives of your constituents, because you also generally, you know, in major northeastern states, certainly have to balance a lot of different political and practical desires, you know, upstate New York, very different than New York City. Because that's interesting, just the idea of the A characteristic of a mayor, whether successful mayor or not, is someone who inevitably will do things that will upset people because that's the job versus now.
But wouldn't you think that- It's also a harder job to succeed. You know, I think that even if the mayor- Because the measurables are more measurable in a way. Exactly, yes. You'd think that the traits that make someone successful as a mayor would be incredibly valuable, however, at a state or federal level.
Being an executive, getting things done, understanding that you're going to tick off certain constituencies in order to serve the greater good. And yet, it seems like when we look at this moment in time, at least, in the U.S., at state and federal governance, we see, on the one hand, people who love to shout at their enemies across the aisle, but it's not like they're shouting in service of great accomplishment. Are they? It seems like if you had to measure what's getting done on a daily basis, I think that most mayors are getting a whole lot more done than most governors and federal officials, yeah?
Yeah. But this is probably another reason why mayors, particularly New York City, haven't gone on to higher office historically, is that the conditions that allow them to be autocratic here don't exist at the national level. Very much more at the national level about building some, you hope, sense of compromise. You've got to work with the Senate and the House in a way that doesn't exist at the local level.
And so to Obama's frustration, obviously, he'd like to operate more like a mayor, more sort of unilaterally. And so maybe that's the quality that doesn't transfer terribly well. Okay. So to be fair, if I were to force you to answer the question, would you prefer that the system works the way it does, which is that mayors are fairly autocratic and the higher you go, the less you become so, because that's the way our governing system was built?
Or would you say, you know, it would be kind of great if his Benjamin Barber argues that mayors should rule the world, because these are the people who are trained and experienced in executing and getting stuff done and balancing different likes and dislikes and constituencies. Is it necessarily a good thing that the president, for instance, is the figure of compromise? Or do you think from your purchase at political observer that it would be kind of great if mayoral autocracy could be imported a little bit into the White House? Yeah, it'd be great if we're an autocrat I agreed with.
But yes, certainly the blocking and tackling of government, the ability to make bureaucracies work is a quality that you would love to see taken from a city hall to the White House. Ideally, I guess if you could come up with a bunch of cabinet officials who had those mayoral qualities while you had a president who was a consensus builder who enabled those people to do their jobs, that would be the ideal setup. So what is the ideal setup? Ed Glaser is an economist at Harvard we've talked in before in this program.
He is a great talker, full paragraph, just leap from his mouth fully formed and enunciated like a 19th century debating champion. He's also the author of a book called Triumph of the City. Notably, the title of this book is not Triumph of the Nation's State. The remarkable thing about city leadership is the problems are very, very tangible.
The scope of powers tends to be fairly limited and it's limited both by law and by the ability of firms and people to leave by the small geographic size of these areas. And that means running a city is very different from running a country. On top of that, mayors tend to be very constrained in what they can do. They don't set their own tax rates, not even with the aid of the city council.
Cities are always and everywhere in the US. Creatures ultimately are state government. And in some cases, the feds also exercise some form of oversight. So you say that, and we understand this, that the powers and the duties of the mayor are constrained, especially compared to someone like the president.
But that would seemingly confer its own set of advantages as well as disadvantaged. I understand that comparing even five mayors to one president is entirely an apples to oranges comparison. But the argument that we want to discuss today is whether a mayor by nature of his or her job description and limits is in some way in a position to govern better, more efficiently, more rationally than the head of state or federal governments. I certainly consider myself friendly to that proposition.
But I think as far as actually thinking about what we mean in terms of transforming a president to be more mayor-like, we would essentially mean we'd be foregoing all those contentious things that Barack Obama and the Republicans in the House are arguing over it. I mean, we'd be foregoing the possibility of the president trying to act on the minimum weight or if we're going the possibility of the president trying to create radical new health care legislation, all of those things would be impossible if we suddenly said that we wanted our presidents to be like mayors. There is, however, of course, a beauty to what mayors do. They have very clear deliverables, like clear snow, like clean streets, like public safety, and they have a clear set of tools for achieving those goals.
That means that they are relatively easy to grade at the end of the day, relative to a president, and they can stay focused on making sure that commutes into work are human. And I think one piece of evidence, which I think is a very nice one, that corroborates this view is the work of Fernando Ferrero and Joe Jerko with the University of Pennsylvania, who find that it really doesn't matter. This was a paper that I edited when I was still the Court of the General of Economics. It really doesn't matter whether or not a Republican or Democrat is elected mayor.
They seem to do more or less the same thing. And this is, of course, done by a way the regression discontinuity approach, which means we're basically comparing cities where 51% of the voters voted Republican with cities in which 51% of the voters voted for Democrats. So they're otherwise pretty identical. And having a Republican or Democrat in office makes a very, very little difference at the local level, whereas of course it does at the state level and even more so at the federal government level.
And that's precisely because there's no Democratic or Republican way to clean the streets as the old saying goes. So the book that Benjamin Barber has written, if mayors ruled the world, I don't know how familiar you are with the book or at least it's this? Certainly. I read some excerpts.
Okay. So I think the attraction of this idea that we're talking that mayors should quote rule the world, whether we mean that metaphorically or in some tiny way, literally, is the idea that mayors have to be responsible to voters. So for no other reason, then their potential losses are so much more tangible than a federal or state official. So I get that and I think it resonates with anyone.
We all want the people that we elect or choose higher even to be accountable. So if that's the case, why is there such a disconnect between the municipal and state and federal levels? Is it just the way the system was built a few hundred years ago and it's evolved kind of stochastically and we have to deal with it? Or is there some greater or lesser reason for why we need this real accountability and satisfaction on the local level and yet don't on the federal or state level?
Right. So if we think about the history of this, the local governments really came first, the local and state governments. But even though they are politically beholden to the states, the rise of large scale municipal spending preceded the rise of large scale state spending, which both preceded the rise in large scale federal spending. One fact that I've repeated often is that at the start of the 20th century, cities and towns were spending as much on water as the federal government was spending on everything except for the post office and the army.
So this is just water expenditures at the city and town level, which tells you just how big city governments were and they were big and taxpayer signed off on their size, precisely because they were delivering something that was very, very tangible. When you have the rise of the federal government, we can say this is 1900 to 1960, which is associated with at least two things, right? One of which is the increased role of the US in the world, two World Wars and Cold War, both of which were large scale increases in the size of the federal government. And then the second of which was first under Teddy Roosevelt, then under which Wilson and then under FDR, this increasing role of the federal government played in being an agent against recession and an agent for fairness at the national level, an agent fighting inequality, an agent trying to create a social security system.
So if you think of those two things as being the fundamental reasons why the feds came about and then perhaps to a lesser extent doing a little bit around transportation in the eyes and how he is. The big things were this redistribution, anti-recessionary thing and the wars and diplomacy thing. Both of those things, while they can be unbelievably expensive and potentially incredibly important, they're just not amenable to the same degree of precise accounting that we have for these things which came first for these absolutely necessary things that cities do. So I guess I have trouble imagining how you're either going to put diplomacy or debates over redistribution, debates over social security, debates over Medicare in the same league as you can in terms of cities.
Benjamin Barber in his book If Mayors Rule the World argues that we should create a global parliament of mayors to help solve problems that national governments aren't so good at solving. Ed Glaser is not so enthusiastic. I support the idea of communication across cities, so I think sharing ideas certainly is a good idea. A parliament is by definition essentially a legislative branch and I think the beauty of mayors is that they are deeply executive, so I'm not particularly eager to transform these wonderfully focused executives into parliamentarians.
But the spirit of having more discussions across cities particularly to share ideas about and improve the basics of city governance is certainly a good option. In a way though, this global parliament of mayors is already happening. As Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti tells us, mayors already get together regularly to swap ideas. Garcetti, like Ed Glaser, sees cities leading the way and he thinks that Washington sees that too.
Garcetti recently visited the White House with 16 other new mayors. I was one of few that had been sworn in but the incoming mayors from Boston, New York, Minneapolis, Seattle, so on and so forth. And I said to the president then, you know, we're looking for a partnership. If this was the 70s and 60s in the urban centers of America we're burning, we probably would have come to Washington and said, Washington, please save America's cities.
Today we come as America's cities seeking to save Washington because things are so broken at the national level. You know, we can't afford to be partisan at the local level. We want their snowplow, their trash picked up, their street safe. They want to have a chance of the job, a decent place to live.
And it's not 3,000 miles away or a few hundred miles away at the state Capitol. It's here, it's now. So in that sense, mayors have to rule the world. They have to make that change.
If not, you'll get tossed out of office. And at the end of the day, it's more about being a chief executive than kind of a commander in chief. Hey, podcast listeners. Remember, our new book, Think Like a Freak, is out on May 12th.
If you pre-order it in any format, from any bookstore, you can get the first chapter now. Just visit freeconomics.com slash sneak peek. Also we will be doing an episode of frequently asked questions about the new book. So send us your very best questions at radio at freeconomics.com.
And next week on the podcast, imagine the world just as it is today. Computers, cars, even Beyonce, except for two things. There is no alcohol and no marijuana. And then suddenly, on the same day, both of them are discovered.
What happens next? I suspect alcohol would be banned within 10 years if we became available today. If marijuana was discovered today, I think people would probably accept it. That's our thought experiment for the week.
If you were starting with a clean slate, how would alcohol and marijuana be regulated, sold, taxed and ingested? That's next time on Freaknomics Radio.