Over at Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok recently presented a graph showing a positive correlation between UN measures of gender development and the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom Index. Of course, Alex presented the usual caveats about causation and correlation, but he concluded “at a minimum the graph indicates that capitalism and gender development are compatible contrary to many radicals”
This prompted me to check out how the Economic Freedom index was calculated. The relevant data is all in a spreadsheet, and shows that the index is computed from about 20 components, all rated as scores out of 10, the first of which is general government consumption spending as a percentage of total consumption. Since the Fraser Institute assumes that government consumption is bad for economic freedom, the score out of 10 is negatively correlated with the raw data.
Looking back at Alex’s post, I thought it likely that high levels of government expenditure would be positively rather than negatively correlated with gender development, which raised the obvious question of the correlation between government consumption expenditure and economic freedom (as defined by the Fraser Institute index). Computing correlations, I found that, although it enters the index negatively, government consumption expenditure has a strong positive correlation (0.42) with economic freedom as estimated by the Fraser Institute. Conversely, the GCE component of the index is negatively correlated (0.43) with the index as a whole. By contrast, items like the absence of labour market controls were weakly correlated with the aggregate index.
It immediately struck me that this could be the basis of some snarky pointscoring. But on reflection, I thought that it would be more useful to look seriously at the issues raised by this result.
First, it’s necessary to explain the results. A large slab of the index consists of things like the absence of military interference in the rule of law. There’s also an entire section of the index devoted to sound money (low and stable inflation). These are both features characteristically provided by strong democratic governments, and not by weak ones, regardless of whether they are interventionist or laissez-faire. It seems pretty clear that a principal components analysis would show a dominant component associated with the characteristics of developed mixed economies, characteristics that include high levels of public expenditure, combined with relatively light-handed forms of government intervention in the private sector, compared to those characteristic of weak governments in less developed countries.
This is scarcely surprising. State capacity tends to rise with income, so in wealthy countries the state can achieve more, with less obtrusive use of power, than in poor countries. It is strong and not weak states that produce economic freedom.
The same principles that lead to support for separation of powers within the state with clearly defined roles for the judiciary, legislature and executive (including the military!), also yield support for a mixed economy against the alternatives of comprehensive central planning and unfettered corporate power. The mixed economy produces more economic freedom for the average person than does the minimal state. Despite its own presumption to the contrary, the Fraser Institute’s analysis supports this conclusion.
My third ever CT post addressed similar questions wih respect to a different “Index of Economic Freedom” and came up with similar conclusions.
See also Peter Lindert, Growing Public, Cambridge UP. Like you and the FI (inadvertently) he finds that assumptions about the cost/drag of guvmint are ill-founded, because they’re based on bad assumptions about the structure and effects of welfare policies.
Note that “big government” in the Fraser Institute report consists of 3 components: 1) general government consumption spending, 2) transfers and subsidies, and 3) enterprises and investment. The Quiggin “big government” includes only the first. What happens if you take the inverse of all three? Also, high taxes seem related.
6 years ago, I debated IEF’s at a pre-blog site called Suite 101 with Bryan Johnson (an author of the Heritage Foundation/WSJ IEF.)
I slapped together a web page of resources and criticisms at:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/ief.html
It was never really meant to be public, but had some good criticisms.
One thing to remember about the several IEFs that various conservative and libertarian thinktanks have created is that for a brief period siz years ago they WERE touted as guidebooks for economic development: to the point that a fair amount of legislation based on them was introduced into the US Congress. Fortunately, that went nowhere. At the time I said they were (like the Laffer Curve) propaganda and not science. I’m a layman, but I backed that up with a simple survey of 6 recent economic development textbooks, none of which referenced IEFs.
Let me propose a different interpretation - one I don’t necessarily agree with, but which may be valid:
Size of government may be correlated with other indicators, such as a stable currency, but it is in countries which manage to maximize those other indicators while minimizing the size of government where there is the most “economic freedom”.
This could be similar to inflation vs. unemployment - it is possible to have high inflation and low unemployment or low inflation and high unemployment, but it is even better if both are low.
The mixed economy produces more economic freedom for the average person than does the minimal state.
If I understand correctly, this isn’t what your argument says. The argument says (correctly) that economic freedom tends to be correlated strongly with government expenditure, because both are correlated with being a developed nation.
But it’s unclear where the comparison to unfettered capitalism comes from, since undeveloped nations are hardly bastions of unfettered capitalism either. In fact, one major problem of weak states is that they can’t offer the rights-protecting guarantees of the minimal state (or, alternatively, that they are captured by elites who use them to perpetuate their dominance.)
Ah, good, another stick to beat the market fundamentalists with.
Really, though, that strong states produce the greatest economic freedom should be accepted wisdom by now. Clearly, complete state planning (Soviet Union) does not work well. Just as clearly, complete chaos (Congo, Afghanistan) works far less well. Somewhere in between (USA, Singapore, Hong Kong, and even France) works quite well by any current or historical standard. That leaves (or should leave) the debate confined to the question of how much regulation, both for an economy as a whole and for specific markets.
But all this has been clear for a while. Why are all the debates still so absolutist?
here’s some anecdotal data that relates gender, economic freedom, big government and conservative attitudes:
according to census data, in the 1950’s, over 100,000 women of color in the Washington DC area were employed as domestic help. By 1980, following three decades of expansion of the US federal government, this figure had shrunk to near zero. Presumably most women of color who might otherwise be domestic were now had government jobs. I don’t believe that white southern
Congressmen and their staffs have ever forgiven the Democrats for making good help so hard to find.
DD, looking back at your post, I think we may be dealing with the same index and, as you say, drawing much the same conclusions. The CT hivemind (© SDB) strikes again!
Freedom leads to prosperity, prosperity leads to democracy, democracy leads to larger government…
There is an outstanding and worthwhile question that follows - what does big government lead to? Schumpeter (who was writing about such things even before Quiggin) suggested that the end result would be socialism and stagnation.
Some say we’ve reached about the right level (social democrats like most CTers I imagine), some say we’ve gone to far (that would be the liberal democrats like me) and some say we haven’t gone far enough (bob brown et al). That’s all fine as a contemporary political debate. But there is another fun question - is there any inevitable (or at least likely) historical trend?
Basically - will social democracy fail? If so - why? And what will replace it?
But is big government good for academic freedom?
quoting:
Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much
Richard Vedder, AEI Press
June 2004
Economist Richard Vedder wrote, and the American Enterprise Institute Press has just published, this fine book-length analysis of college costs, the reasons they have risen so much, and what can be done about it. In a nutshell, he finds U.S. colleges and universities deeply inefficient and unproductive places that pass along most of these weaknesses to their clients (and taxpayers) via rising tuitions and appropriations. He suggests a number of possible remedies, every one of which will outrage the mandarins of American higher education but almost all of which deserve respectful attention from state and federal policy makers. He examines both tuition-related issues and the (mixed and not entirely persuasive) case for public subsidies. “A good case can be made,” Vedder writes, “that governments should largely get out of the higher education business, ending state subsidies and tax advantages for private donations. Moreover, the evidence is strong that massive governmental infusions of funds, along with tax-sheltered private contributions, have contributed to the cost explosion in higher education.” Though higher ed is not Gadfly’s usual beat, this is an important book that should have been written a decade ago and that Congress ought take very seriously when, next year, it starts afresh to renew the Higher Education Act. It weighs in at 260 pages, the list price is $25, the ISBN is 0844741973, and you can obtain additional information by clicking here.
Critics of publicly-financed higher education in Australia and the UK make almost exactly the opposite claim, namely that public financing is responsible for the chronic underfunding of the system.
John Quiggin - the American experience and the British/Australian experience are not necessarily contradictory. In all three countries, public funding has prevented any sort of change which might increase economic efficiency, and has sometimes allowed increased inefficiency. In the US, which does not have a national health system, education is the most sacred of budgetary sacred cows, and this universities are lavishly funded - more than enough to cover for their inefficent performance. In Britain and Australia, when the budget crunch comes, as it inevitably does, National Health has priority over universities, and so the universities are in reduced circumstances. However, the universities receive enough funding, with enough strings attached, that it’s nearly impossible for them to make the sorts of radical changes which would allow them to use their meager allotments more efficiently, without risking being driven into penury. Here in California, we may be reaching this point, with k-12 education replacing National Health as the more sacred cow.
Here’s a possible (partial) explanation of why active government might correlate positively with economic freedom. The more a government taxes and regulates the economy, the stronger civil society becomes. (“Civil society” means the array of nonprofit, non-governmental associations.) In turn, civil society is a bulwark of freedom, because associations prevent abuses of state power and teach people to be skilled and active citizens.
My information is out of date, but in 1990-91, in a sample of 23 developed and democratic countries, there were strong positive correlations between the average number of associations people belonged to (according to the World Values Survey) and (a) the government’s share of GDP; (b) the Heritage Foundation’s index of taxation; and © the Heritage Foundation’s index of government intervention. Robert Putnam also found positive correlations between the size of countries’ governments and (a) trust and (b) group membership: see Bowling Alone (the book), p. 281. And Henry Milner has found a powerful positive relationship between the size of government and adults’ political skills and knowledge.
Putnam argues that the very large differences in associational membership and trust among U.S. states cannot be explained by the size of state governments. That’s because the level of taxation vanishes in regression models constructed to explain social capital. However, it’s unmistakable that states like Minnesota, with a tradition of strong and good government, have three times as much “social capital” as states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where government is smaller, poorer, but often more oppressive.
I have commented before on the empirical problem this poses for (right-)libertarians. Libertarianism is dedicated to three main pillars:
1. Increasing social freedoms.
2. Increasing ecconomic freedoms.
3. Reducing government spending.
In the past 30 years, social freedoms have increased, eccomonic freedoms have increased, and government spending has increased. This tends to lead libertarians to either be optimists, by focusing on 1 and 2, or pessimists by focusing on 3. What it should lead to is a reevaluation of the premise that increased government spending is incompatible with social and ecconomic freedoms.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review