Arresting Contagion Summary

I would like to preface this paper by acknowledging the fact that I have a very limited understanding of the United States government’s legislature, policies, and economics. Arresting Contagion is a book based off of an economic analysis of the early spread and containment of animal diseases. I am an animal science major and therefore will assert my opinions primarily based off of this knowledge, and my limited understanding of the policies of our country.
Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode have presented a multidisciplinary approach to examine the history of animal disease control in the United States, that incorporates environmental history, political history, legislative history, veterinary history, medical history, economic analysis, and
The adherents to the school of public choice are generally critical of government regulations. In this view, rent-seeking interest groups and bureaucrats push interventions to limit competition, thereby creating inefficiencies. On the other hand, the followers of the public interest school advocate regulation to address market imperfections and business abuses (Olmstead & Rhodes, 2015, p. 7). Throughout the book, Olmstead and Rhodes connect back to these foundational ideas, demonstrating how the Bureau of Animal Industry framed its efforts based off public interest even as its deterrents justified their opposition using the language of public choice economics. I commend the Bureau of Animal Industry for their efforts with upholding public interest. It’s difficult for me to understand why people only want to do what is in their best interest instead of upholding the greater good. I can appreciate where the public choice view is coming from though. America was built with the idea that the Constitution limited federal powers to regulate trade and health, limiting the federal government’s power in general. At this point in time in the late 1800’s and before the creation of the Bureau of Animal Industry, trade and health policies were left up to each individual state to decide. Many of the small government, anti-regulatory and free market arguments that threated the goals of the Bureau of Animal Industry to control and eradicate animal disease play directly into the principles that defined American politics at this time. Attempts at private market solutions to deal with threats to livestock and human health repeatedly failed. Government regulations such as meat inspection and quarantines were “efficiency-enhancing” health measures as opposed to “rent-seeking ruses” for protectionism as claimed at the time (Olmstead & Rhodes, 2015, p.