Here's my latest Q&A column - if you have
any questions for me, you can message me on Facebook, or email them here j.knight423@btinternet.com
Q)
When people have been moaning about our mediocre MPs being overpaid, some
people have historically argued the opposite: that if we actually raised MPs' salaries
we might attract better quality. My question is, what does economics suggest
would be more likely, that higher salaries would attract better MPs or that it
would just make our current run of the mill MPs even more overpaid?
A) In all probability it would be both.
However, while we can all agree that overpaid mediocrity is a bad thing, I'm
not sure that raising MPs' salaries to attract better politicians would
necessarily be as desirable as you may think.
The reason being, you have to factor in
the opportunity costs of having talented people in Parliament. Opportunity costs are the foregone opportunities that
occur as a result of something taking place. For example, choosing to go
bowling with the lads costs not just the price of the game, it costs in terms
of what you might have done instead; a quiet night in with your wife, or a meal
out with your family or a trip to the cinema with other friends.
Similarly there are opportunity costs to
having very bright and talented MPs in that what is foregone is whatever they
would do if they were not an MP. If a talented businesswoman becomes an MP then
the UK UK
It is far from obvious that a talented
businesswoman and a brilliant scientist would do more good in the House of
Commons than they would in their fields of expertise - in fact, my off-the-peg
hunch is: almost certainly the opposite. Consequently, then, there may even be
a good argument for keeping MPs' salaries low in order to dissuade very
talented people from entering Parliament and costing society what they would
have contributed instead.
