Civilians’ views of P4P

I ran across some discussion about P4P over on Slate (arising, of course, from the problems of you-know-who).  It’s interesting to read, and I post about it here, not because I necessarily agree with it, or because it necessarily represents “conventional wisdom” about P4P — but because it represents what at least some “elites” think about P4P.

Are they right?  Wrong?  I don’t know.  But it’s the sort of perspective we should at least be aware of and consider.  If nothing else, a corrective to the Pretty Woman glamorization of P4P.

Some snippets:

An economist’s view of P4P

From an article in Slate.  Prompted by the recent problems of you-know-who.

Anonymity, again

I’ve discussed before (see here and here, for example) my opinion that anonymity for the staff of a P4P board does little to prevent corrupt behavior — e.g., using his position to get favorable treatment from the ladies, such as discounts, freebies, or just silencing her from reporting his inappropriate behavior during the session.  It occurred to me recently that one reason some people get confused about this issue is that they don’t stop to consider some of the factors that can differentiate situations . . . and that shed light on the potential effectiveness of an anonymity regime.

Two factors that come to mind: (1) is the lady a willing and cooperative participant, because of perceived benefits to her, or is she being coerced into doing something she doesn’t want to do; and (2) who initiates/suggests the quid pro quo, the lady or the staff person?  (Of course, if the answer to #1 is that she’s being coerced, presumably the staff person is initiating the quid pro quo, but cooperation might be suggested by either of them.)