-Henry David Thoreau
There is a long thread in American political thought that associates "big government" (presumably a government financed by relatively high taxes and which controls certain markets and extensively regulates most others) with a decrease in the civil liberties (also known as "negative rights") enjoyed by its people. Though always influential, the theory has enjoyed a renaissance since the beginning of the Reagan era. But, beyond the simple “power will be abused” mantra, does the “small government” crowd have anything harder to point to (besides, obviously, comparisons to dictatorial communist regimes like North Korea and Cuba which no one advocates anymore)? To put the question more concretely, are decreases in the economic and regulatory prominence of the government associated with decreases in civil and political liberties in OECD countries?
The SDI index that I have proposed in earlier posts corresponds well with what most people would call “big government” – high and progressive taxes, high social, health, and education expenditures, strong organized labor and legislative labor protections (although organized labor is not itself a feature of the state, its strength often depends on state support and enforcement of the laws of union organization and collective bargaining). So we can try to answer this question by seeing if there is a correlation between SDI and various indicia of civil liberties (or the lack thereof).
In an attempt to provide a single figure to represent the degree of political and civil freedom enjoyed by the citizens of a particular country, I have calculated an “Authoritarian Regime Index” (ARI). The figure is comprised of scaled scores of the following:
30% - Incarceration Rate
30% - Law and Order Expenditures as a % of GDP
15% - Degree of Restriction of the Press calculated from Reporters Without Borders Ratings
25% - (-1) * The Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy
Note: Complete data was only available for:
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
UK
US
Therefore, only these countries are used in the analysis. I do not think this sample set presents any obvious problems in terms of comparability nor do I think it leaves out any country which would significantly tip the scales in one direction or the other. If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know.
I have given the Economist's democracy index only a 25% weight because its criteria may overlap somewhat with the other three variables I use. Of course, there is certainly an amount of arbitrariness in this and all indices. But since I do not have the appropriate raw data available myself, I am giving both the Economist (an economically center-right publication) and Reporters Without Borders (more left-leaning, I think) the benefit of the doubt. And on the whole I think my weighting represents a fair balance of the criteria relevant to the level of political and civil "freedom" the people of a country enjoy.
ARI - 18 Country Sample (higher = authoritarian)
So, on to the big question. What is the relationship between SDI and ARI? If the R is positive, then "bigger" government is correlated with a decrease in civil and political liberty, as the "small government" people would predict. If it is negative, "big government" is instead correlated with greater civil and political liberty, and the "small government" crowd has a real empirical mystery to account for.
SDI and ARI
R = -0.788 (where 0.5 is the cutoff for a "strong" correlation)
Surprise, surprise. Using the countries I looked at, those countries with "bigger" government actually tended very strongly to be "freer," at least as I defined "free." As always, I would be very interested to hear any critiques or objections to my methods. But with a result this strong, it is virtually unimaginable that any suggested change would materially alter this clearly observable relationship.
Just as anecdotal seasoning for your most interesting post:
ReplyDeleteMy classmates here at the International Mine Action Training Center come from a variety of backgrounds (mostly ex-military, British, Irish, South African) and the predominant joke to which I'm treated as the only American is that I am from the one and only "Land of Freedom."
It would seem that the irony of your ARI-SDI findings are not lost on those who have served to protect their own country's principles and strategic interests alongside US soldiers convinced that their nation was the only to provide safe haven for "freedom lovers."
I am nowhere near indie rock enough to have colleagues at the International Mine Action Training Center, but I will say this in agreement with your post: Singapore.
ReplyDeleteMy dear Artem, this is where you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteBy virtue of our short and infrequent but enjoyable encounters, you and I could be considered colleagues. And thus you do have people inside IMATC.
Everyone will tell you, I spread my indie rock cred around, like tartar sauce on an expensive crab cake.