Knowledge Problem

Michael Giberson

“Energy czar” is a term with a pedigree in the United States, being applied at least as early as December 1973 to William E. Simon, who Nixon appointed to head the Federal Energy Administration. The Time article in the link observes that Simon was advocating a 50 mph national speed limit and a mandatory allocation program for home heating oil even before the Arab Oil Embargo and related energy market disruptions.

Nixon-era general wage-price controls evolved into more elaborate energy industry intervention in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. It took the U.S. economy a decade to shake off the effects of these policies and others like them. Some of the policies – like corporate average fuel economy mandates – are still with us. For a reminder of 1970s-style energy czarism, see this FRBNY Quarterly Review article from Winter 1980-81, “Oil price decontrol and beyond.” The article details the complexities of the federal government’s efforts to control domestic crude oil prices, and the effort shows just how hard it can be for the government to manage a piece of industry.

In 1981 Atari came out with “Energy Czar,” a policy simulation game by Chris Crawford. A review of the program describes it: “Atari’s Energy Czar is a colorful and entertaining way of introducing users to the problems of the U.S. energy economy. It offers first hand experience in formulating energy policies, exploring energy policy bias, and will help users to discover the difficult trade-offs that must be made between energy needs.”

The review observes that, “in the beginning, Energy Czar can be frustrating. A newcomer to the program may often lose without understanding why.” Fortunately, the game Energy Czar came with a manual. The reviewer “recommend[ed] reading the manual thoroughly before attempting to play,” adding, “You’ll be surprised at the amount of interesting and useful information Atari included in the manual.”

Unfortunately, the position of “car czar” doesn’t come with a manual. May I suggest Chapter 7, “The process of creative destruction,” in Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy?

Michael Giberson

What is with all of the czar talk?

Most prominently in the news:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted the notion of a ‘car czar’ Tuesday to supervise an auto industry bailout, saying Big Three executives haven’t adapted well to changing conditions,” reports the Associated Press.

Who wants a czar? I believe the appropriate response is, “how exactly did that czar-thing work out for Russia?”

From Wikipedia on Tsar (or Czar):

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who has the same rank as a Roman or Byzantine emperor (or, according to Byzantine ideology, the most elevated position adjacent to the one held by the Byzantine monarch) due to recognition by another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

The modern languages of these countries use it as a general term for a monarch….

“Tsar” was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

• Bulgaria in 913-1018, in 1185-1422 and in 1908-1946
• Serbia in 1346-1371
• Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor’s sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland ).

I just don’t get the appeal of the term. Maybe someone better versed in European history can clue me in on just which czar it was that inspires the “let’s do something” folks to get all misty-eyed.

Wikipedia has more, this on “metaphorical uses” of the term czar:

Like many lofty titles, e.g. Mogul, Tsar or Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority, in English since 1866 (referring to U.S. President Andrew Johnson), with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style, fitting since “Autocrat” was an official title of the Russian Emperor (informally referred to as ‘the Tsar’).

In the United States the title “czar” is a slang term for certain high-level civil servants, such as the “drug czar” for the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, “terrorism czar” for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, “cybersecurity czar” for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and “war czar” to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most recently “car czar” to describe the overseer of the proposed 2008 automotive industry bail-out plan.

And to the list: drug czar, terrorism czar, cybersecurity czar, war czar, and car czar, you can add recent mentions of energy czar, climate czar, food czar, trade czar, etc. etc.

The last czar to rule Russia, Nicolas II, abdicated in 1917 and was executed by the Bosheviks in 1918. So tell me again, just what is it about czars that makes some people think we need more of them?