Skip to main content

Economic Freedom and Economic Growth - Hypothesis


Let's have a lazy experiment.

Hypothesis 1: The greater the share of the economy that allocates resources based on trade versus planning the faster the economy will grow.

Hypothesis 2: The less the government regulates the society it claims to rule the faster the economy will grow.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Definitions: Trade means resource allocation according to the movement of supply and demand. Planning means resource allocation according to a government plan. Economic growth means increasing access over time to goods and services. Regulation means government rules restricting economic activity.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

First metric: Planning versus Trade (PT) to summarise economic activities for production and distribution of goods and services. P & T are inversely proportional, with seven different results showing the share of total economic activity consisting of P versus that consisting of T.

PPP
PP / T
P / T
P | T
P \ T
P \ TT
TTT

Second metric: Freedom (F) to summarise the freedom of people to set up businesses, produce and trade on their own initiative.

F1 : Tightest regulation and repression
F10 : No government regulation or repression at all

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

CANDIDATES: Now we hit on several made up countries so that we can test the metrics in a purely theoretical space first.

Fweeh Mahkahtiya : P \ TT : F 9

The Technate : PPP : 1

The Anarchate : PP / T : 3

The Free State : TTT : 10

My estimate would be that over any given 100-year period the relative rate of growth of each of these four countries would be, from fastest to slowest; The Free State; Fweeh Mahkahtiya; The Anarchate; The Technate.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

If those four countries were real we could use some annual GDP growth data to test their long-term economic performance. In real life it's hard to test this hypothesis as economic policies change every few years, sometimes in ways that can dramatically change a country's score.

Therefore a lot of normalising over time will probs be required. I am not looking forward to this, but since macro- is so beloved by people who don't understand economics I understand why so many economists go in for this stuff.

In the meantime there's always the Economic Freedom of the World Report. They also have a page where one can look over their data.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...
Post a Comment
Read more