{"id":22455,"date":"2020-03-09T12:46:45","date_gmt":"2020-03-09T16:46:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=22455"},"modified":"2020-03-09T12:46:47","modified_gmt":"2020-03-09T16:46:47","slug":"what-does-a-balinese-cockfight-have-to-do-with-public-policy-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=22455","title":{"rendered":"what does a Balinese cockfight have to do with public policy analysis?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a course on policy analysis<\/a>, we have been investigating these policy questions: Who should decide which kids attend which schools? (E.g., Should parents choose in a marketplace of schools? Should all kids be required to attend the nearest public school?) And on what basis should these decisions be made? My students have begun to investigate other policy issues of their own choice, using similar tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have been applying a scientific paradigm, in this sense: We ask why<\/em> questions, and the \u201cwhy\u201d is causal. What causes people to put their kids in certain schools? What causes schools to have certain outcomes? What might cause a government to choose a given policy for school assignment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answering these questions seems relevant to policy because we can decide what the state should<\/em> want and then how to set up institutions so that those outcomes are more likely, given what individuals are likely to do in the situations that confront them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lots of factors can cause people to act in certain ways, including emotion, error, and instinct. But we have often assumed that people act in order to accomplish ends<\/em>. Parents try to get their children into a given school so that their kids will be on a path to safety and wealth. Governments segregate schools to preserve white supremacy or else integrate them to promote a certain form of equity. These explanations assume purposive behavior toward ends. We could call them \u201cfunctionalist\u201d explanations. We are asking, \u201cWhat is\u2014and what should be\u2014the function of public schools?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context, I have assigned Clifford Geertz\u2019 classic text, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” Daedalus<\/em>, vol. 101, no. 1, Myth, Symbol, and Culture (Winter, 1972), pp. 1-37.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geertz and his unnamed spouse\u2013both of them \u201cmalarial and diffident\u201d\u2014arrive in a village in Bali, Indonesia in the late 1950s to study it. They encounter many institutions and practices e.g., farming and Hindu temple festivals. Among these, cockfighting is prominent and also somewhat alien, since most Americans don\u2019t participate in cockfights. It creates puzzlement for Geertz and his readers and seems to need an explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our puzzlement grows as we realize that cockfighting: 1) occupies a lot of energy and time; 2) persists even though it is illegal; 3) involves betting that is \u201cirrational\u201d in the sense that it is carefully contrived to cause a net loss of utility; and 4) conflicts with several pervasive Balinese norms. For instance, Balinese culture is integrated on sexual lines, but cockfighting is just for men. Balinese culture is very courtly, but cockfighting is violent and extremely competitive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You could ask lots of \u201cwhy\u201d questions. Why do Balinese people engage in cockfighting? More specifically, why are the betting odds for the main event always set at 1:1 and why are there also side bets that are never 1:1? Or why do people from the same factions never compete in the main fight?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And you could pose functionalist explanations. The function of cockfighting in Bali is \u2026?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here is a different question. What is<\/em> a Balinese cockfight? That question has many possible answers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n