“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe.
“Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer.
"My 80% friend isn't my 20% enemy" Ronald Reagan.
Explain why governments might intervene to reduce income inequality.
Governments might intervene to reduce income inequality due to various reasons. Income inequality refers to the unequal distribution of income among individuals or households within a society. When there is a significant gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor, it can lead to social and economic challenges.
Here's a simple explanation of why governments intervene to address income inequality:
Social Stability: High levels of income inequality can create social tensions and unrest. Large disparities in income can lead to feelings of injustice and discontent among the population, potentially resulting in social and political instability. Governments intervene to promote social harmony and maintain a peaceful society.
Poverty Alleviation: Income inequality often implies that certain individuals or groups have limited access to essential resources, such as food, healthcare, education, and housing. Governments intervene to reduce income inequality by implementing policies aimed at alleviating poverty and providing support to those with lower incomes. For example, they may introduce social welfare programs, such as income transfers, subsidies, or targeted assistance.
Economic Growth and Productivity: High levels of income inequality can hinder overall economic growth and productivity. When a significant portion of the population has limited purchasing power, it can dampen consumer demand, leading to reduced economic activity. Governments may intervene to reduce income inequality, as more equitable income distribution can stimulate economic growth by boosting consumer spending.
Equality of Opportunity: Governments often emphasize the importance of equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic background. Income inequality can limit access to quality education, healthcare, and other resources, which can perpetuate social and economic disparities across generations. By addressing income inequality, governments strive to ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.
A relevant economic diagram that illustrates the impact of income inequality is the Lorenz curve and the Gini coefficient. The Lorenz curve is a graphical representation of income distribution, while the Gini coefficient is a summary measure of income inequality. The steeper the curve and the higher the Gini coefficient, the greater the income inequality within a society.
By analyzing the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient, policymakers can assess the extent of income inequality and design appropriate interventions to reduce it. Government interventions might include progressive taxation, minimum wage policies, investment in education and skills training, and implementing regulations to promote fair competition in the labor market.
Discuss the relationship between economic freedom and economic outcomes in a market system
Let's take a balanced approach by discussing both the positive and negative aspects of the relationship between economic freedom and economic outcomes in a market system:
Economic Freedom and Positive Outcomes:
a) Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Economic freedom fosters an environment where individuals can freely engage in entrepreneurship and innovation, leading to economic growth and job creation.
Example: "In countries with high economic freedom, like South Korea, entrepreneurs have been able to start successful businesses and drive technological advancements, resulting in economic prosperity and increased employment opportunities."
b) Efficient Resource Allocation: Economic freedom allows market forces to allocate resources efficiently based on supply and demand, ensuring optimal utilization and productivity.
Example: "In a market system with economic freedom, price signals help guide producers in allocating resources effectively. This leads to efficient production and distribution, benefiting both producers and consumers."
Potential Negative Aspects of Economic Freedom:
a) Income Inequality: Unrestricted economic freedom can contribute to income inequality, as it allows for the accumulation of wealth by a few individuals or groups.
Example: "In some cases, economic freedom has led to a concentration of wealth among the top earners, exacerbating income inequality and creating social disparities."
b) Market Failures and Externalities: In a completely free market, certain goods and services, such as public goods or environmental conservation, may be underprovided due to market failures. Additionally, negative externalities like pollution may not be adequately addressed without government intervention.
Example: "While economic freedom encourages efficiency, it may overlook external costs such as pollution. Without regulations, businesses may not be motivated to address environmental concerns, leading to negative consequences for society."
Quotation: "Capitalism does a number of things very well: it helps create an entrepreneurial spirit, it gets people motivated to come up with new ideas, and that's a good thing." - Bernie Sanders
It's important to strike a balance between economic freedom and necessary regulations to address income inequality, market failures, and externalities. Governments often play a role in ensuring fairness, protecting consumers, and implementing policies to address societal concerns.
By acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects, societies can aim for a market system that promotes economic freedom while addressing the challenges associated with income inequality and market failures. This balanced approach can help achieve sustainable economic growth and social well-being.
Financialization refers to the increasing influence and dominance of financial markets, institutions, and activities in the economy. It involves the growing importance of financial transactions, speculation, and the pursuit of short-term profits in shaping economic decisions. While financialization has become a prominent feature of modern economies, it is considered a fallacy because it prioritizes financial activities over real productive activities, leading to detrimental effects on the economy and society. Let's explore this concept further with simple examples, quotes, and explanations:
Focus on short-term gains: Financialization often emphasizes short-term profits and quick returns on investments, rather than long-term productive investments. Economist John Maynard Keynes warned, "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation." This suggests that when financial activities overshadow productive investments, it can lead to economic instability and hinder sustainable growth.
Financial sector dominance: Financialization can lead to an over-reliance on the financial sector for economic growth, potentially at the expense of other sectors. Economist Hyman Minsky cautioned, "In capitalist economies, the financial system is supposed to serve the needs of the real economy, not the other way around." However, when financial activities take precedence, it can create an imbalance, diverting resources away from productive sectors like manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure development.
Risk and instability: Financialization often involves increased complexity and risk-taking in financial markets. Financial instruments and practices become convoluted, making it difficult to assess true risks. Nobel laureate economist Robert Shiller observed, "Financial innovation is a little like technology innovation: not all of it has value." The pursuit of financial innovation without proper regulation and oversight can lead to financial crises, as seen in the 2008 global financial crisis, when risky financial practices caused severe economic downturns.
Growing inequality: Financialization tends to exacerbate wealth and income inequality. Financial activities can disproportionately benefit a small segment of society, such as high-income individuals, large corporations, and financial institutions. Economist Thomas Piketty noted, "When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the 19th century and seems quite likely to do again in the 21st, capitalism generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities." The concentration of wealth in the financial sector can widen the wealth gap and hinder social mobility.
Neglect of real economy: Financialization can divert resources and attention away from the real economy, where goods and services are produced. Financial markets can become detached from the underlying value and productivity of the real economy. Economist Ha-Joon Chang remarked, "Financial markets, far from being simply 'efficient' mechanisms for allocating capital, are inherently unstable and crisis-prone." Neglecting the real economy in favor of speculative financial activities can lead to economic imbalances and distortions.
In conclusion, financialization as a fallacy arises when financial activities and priorities overshadow real productive activities and the long-term health of the economy. The focus on short-term gains, dominance of the financial sector, increased risk and instability, growing inequality, and neglect of the real economy are all detrimental consequences of financialization. Recognizing and addressing these issues is crucial to ensuring a more balanced and sustainable economic system that benefits society as a whole.
Markets are considered efficient in certain aspects because they have the potential to allocate resources efficiently, respond to changes in supply and demand, and facilitate mutually beneficial transactions between buyers and sellers. This efficiency arises from the following factors:
Price mechanism: Markets utilize the price mechanism, where prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. This mechanism helps in efficiently allocating resources as prices adjust based on changes in supply and demand conditions. For example, when the demand for a particular product increases, its price rises, signaling producers to increase production to meet the demand. This responsiveness allows resources to be directed to where they are most valued, leading to efficiency.
Competition: In competitive markets, multiple buyers and sellers compete with each other, leading to increased efficiency. Competition incentivizes businesses to improve their products, reduce costs, and innovate, ultimately benefiting consumers. For example, when multiple companies produce similar goods, they are motivated to offer better quality or lower prices to attract customers. This competition can drive efficiency improvements over time.
Profit motive: In a capitalist system, the profit motive serves as an incentive for individuals and businesses to make efficient decisions. When individuals seek to maximize their profits, they are driven to allocate resources in the most productive and efficient ways. For instance, if a business realizes that a particular product line is not generating sufficient profits, it may reallocate resources to more profitable areas, contributing to overall efficiency.
Flexibility and adaptability: Markets are often more flexible and adaptable compared to centralized planning systems. They can quickly respond to changes in supply, demand, and consumer preferences. This adaptability allows resources to be reallocated efficiently, ensuring that goods and services align with consumer needs. For example, if a new technology emerges, markets can swiftly adjust by reallocating resources to support its development and meet the changing demand.
However, while markets can be efficient in certain respects, it is important to recognize their limitations and the factors that can hinder their efficiency. Let's understand this concept with simple examples:
Market concentration: In some industries, a few large companies can dominate the market, resulting in market concentration. These companies may have significant market power, enabling them to set prices, limit competition, and control supply. For example, imagine a telecommunications industry where only a handful of companies operate. This concentration can lead to reduced choices for consumers and hinder new entrants from competing. The efficient markets fallacy does not account for the potential negative effects of market concentration on competition and consumer welfare.
Monopolies: A monopoly occurs when a single company has exclusive control over a particular market. This lack of competition can result in inefficiency and reduced innovation. For instance, imagine a pharmaceutical company that holds a patent for a life-saving drug without any competing alternatives. This monopoly power allows the company to set high prices, limiting access to the medication. The efficient markets fallacy does not address the potential harm caused by monopolistic behavior and the need for regulations to promote competition.
Inequitable distribution of resources: The efficient markets fallacy assumes that resources are distributed fairly and efficiently in a capitalist economy. However, in reality, the distribution of resources can be highly unequal. For example, wealth and income disparities can arise, with a small portion of the population holding a significant share of resources while others struggle to meet their basic needs. This inequitable distribution can lead to social unrest and hinder overall economic growth. The efficient markets fallacy does not adequately consider the need for interventions and policies to address the inequitable distribution of resources.
Externalities and public goods: Efficient markets do not always account for externalities, which are the costs or benefits that affect third parties not involved in market transactions. For instance, pollution from factories imposes costs on the environment and public health. Without government intervention, the market may not internalize these costs, leading to inefficient outcomes. Additionally, markets may underprovide public goods like education or healthcare, which have broader societal benefits. The efficient markets fallacy fails to address the need for government intervention to address externalities and ensure the provision of public goods.
In summary, the "efficient markets" fallacy fails to address the issues of market concentration, monopolies, inequitable distribution of resources, and the provision of public goods. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for understanding the need for regulations, competition policies, and interventions to promote fair competition, address market failures, and ensure a more equitable distribution of resources in a capitalist economy.
What is the "trickle-down" fallacy, and how does it relate to the distribution of wealth in a capitalist system?
The "trickle-down" fallacy is the belief that when the wealthy and corporations accumulate more wealth, it will eventually "trickle down" to benefit everyone in society. This theory suggests that if the rich have more money, they will invest, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, which will ultimately improve the well-being of everyone, including those at the bottom of the income ladder. However, this theory ignores several important aspects of wealth distribution in a capitalist system. Let's understand it with simple examples:
Tax cuts for the wealthy: Advocates of the trickle-down theory often argue for tax cuts for the rich, believing that they will use the extra money to invest and create jobs. However, in practice, the wealthy may not necessarily invest their additional wealth in ways that benefit the broader economy. They might opt to invest in offshore accounts, buy luxury goods, or engage in speculative activities like stock trading, which may not lead to significant job creation or widespread economic growth.
Wage stagnation: Trickle-down economics assumes that as the wealthy accumulate more wealth, they will increase wages for workers. However, in reality, wages for many workers have stagnated or grown at a slower pace compared to the rising incomes of the wealthy. For example, over the past few decades, productivity has increased significantly, but the gains have primarily gone to executives and shareholders, while workers' wages have not kept pace. This demonstrates that the benefits of wealth accumulation often do not trickle down to workers in the form of higher wages or improved living standards.
Rising income inequality: Trickle-down economics fails to address the issue of income inequality. Over the past few decades, the wealth gap has widened, with the top earners capturing a disproportionately large share of economic gains. This suggests that the benefits of economic growth and wealth accumulation are not evenly distributed across society. Instead, they tend to concentrate in the hands of a few, exacerbating income and wealth disparities.
Lack of investment in public goods: The trickle-down theory assumes that the wealthy will invest their additional wealth in ways that benefit the broader society. However, in practice, a significant portion of wealth accumulation may not be directed towards public goods, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs. Instead, the wealthy may focus on maximising their personal wealth through financial instruments, real estate, or other investments that primarily benefit themselves, further exacerbating societal inequality.
In summary, the "trickle-down" fallacy suggests that the benefits of wealth accumulation by the rich will automatically benefit everyone in a capitalist system. However, this theory ignores the reality that wealth does not necessarily trickle down to the broader population. Instead, it often perpetuates income inequality, fails to address wage stagnation, and may not result in significant investment in public goods. Understanding these limitations is crucial for developing policies that promote a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities in society.
How does the 'inevitability of inequality' fallacy ignore the role of social and institutional factors in perpetuating the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities in a capitalist system?
The "inevitability of inequality" fallacy suggests that inequality is a natural and unavoidable outcome of a capitalist system, implying that it is inherently fair and just. However, this fallacy ignores the significant role of social and institutional factors that contribute to the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities. Let me break it down with some simple examples:
Unequal starting points: In a capitalist system, individuals have different starting points due to factors like family wealth, education, and social connections. These disparities make it harder for those with fewer resources to compete on an equal footing. For instance, imagine two children who want to become doctors. One child comes from a wealthy family with access to the best schools and tutors, while the other child comes from a low-income family and attends underfunded schools. The unequal starting points put the second child at a significant disadvantage, limiting their opportunities for success.
Discrimination and bias: Social factors such as discrimination based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status can perpetuate inequality. Discrimination may lead to unequal treatment in hiring practices, education, or access to resources. For example, imagine a qualified job applicant who is denied a position because of their gender or ethnicity, while a less qualified candidate from a privileged background is chosen. Discrimination hinders individuals' ability to succeed and reinforces inequality in society.
Power imbalances: Capitalist systems often concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few individuals or corporations. These powerful entities can influence policies, regulations, and institutions to their advantage, further perpetuating inequality. For instance, consider a large corporation that has significant political influence. They may lobby for policies that favour their interests, such as tax breaks or deregulation, while undermining measures that could reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation or workers' rights.
Lack of social mobility: Inequality can persist if social and institutional factors make it difficult for individuals to move up the social ladder. For example, imagine a society where access to quality education is primarily determined by wealth. If children from low-income families are unable to receive a good education, it becomes challenging for them to break the cycle of poverty and improve their economic prospects. This lack of social mobility reinforces existing inequalities over generations.
These examples demonstrate that the "inevitability of inequality" fallacy overlooks the social and institutional factors that contribute to the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities in a capitalist system. By recognising these factors and working towards creating a more equitable society, we can address and reduce the systemic barriers that perpetuate inequality.
Both the US and UK preselect their adult elites early, by admitting a few 18-year-olds into brand-name universities. Everyone else in each age cohort is essentially told, “Sorry kid, probably not in this lifetime.”
The happy few come disproportionately from rich families. Many Ivy League colleges take more students from the top 1 per cent of household incomes than the bottom 60 per cent. Both countries have long agonised about how to diversify the student intake. Lots of American liberals worry that ancestral privilege will be further cemented at some point this month, when the Supreme Court is expected to outlaw race-conscious affirmative action in university admissions.
Whatever the court decides, US colleges have ways to make themselves more meritocratic. They could learn from Britain’s elite universities, which, in just the past few years, have become much more diverse in class and ethnicity. It’s doable, but only if you want to do it — which the US probably doesn’t.
Pressure from the government helped embarrass Oxford and Cambridge into overhauling admissions. (And yes, we have to fixate on Oxbridge because it’s the main gateway to the adult elite.) On recent visits to both universities, I was awestruck by the range of accents, and the scale of change. Oxbridge colleges now aim for “contextual admissions”, including the use of algorithms to gauge how much disadvantage candidates have surmounted to reach their academic level. For instance: was your school private or state? What proportion of pupils got free school meals? Did your parents go to university?
Admissions tutors compare candidates’ performance in GCSEs — British exams taken aged 16 — to that of their schoolmates. Getting seven As at a school where the average is four counts for more than getting seven at a school that averages 10. The brightest kid at an underprivileged school is probably smarter than the 50th-best Etonian.
Oxbridge has made admissions interviews less terrifying for underprivileged students, who often suffer from imposter syndrome. If a bright working-class kid freezes at interview, one Oxford tutor told me he thinks: “I will not let you talk yourself out of a place here.” And to counter the interview coaching that private-school pupils receive, Oxford increasingly hands candidates texts they haven’t seen before.
Oxbridge hosts endless summer schools and open days for underprivileged children. The head of one Oxford college says that it had at least one school visit every day of term. The pupils are shown around by students from similar backgrounds. The message to the kids is: “You belong here.”
It’s working. State schools last year provided a record 72.5 per cent of Cambridge’s British undergraduate admissions. From 2018 to 2022, more than one in seven UK-domiciled Oxford undergraduates came from “socio-economically disadvantaged areas”. Twenty-eight per cent of Oxford students identified as “black and minority ethnic”; slightly more undergraduates now are women than men. Academics told me that less privileged students are more likely to experience social or mental-health problems, but usually get good degrees. These universities haven’t relaxed their standards. On the contrary, by widening the talent pool, they are finding more talent.
Elite US colleges could do that even without affirmative action. First, they would have to abolish affirmative action for white applicants. A study led by Peter Arcidiacono of Duke University found that more than 43 per cent of white undergraduates admitted to Harvard from 2009 to 2014 were recruited athletes, children of alumni, “on the dean’s interest list” (typically relatives of donors) or “children of faculty and staff”. Three-quarters wouldn’t have got in otherwise. This form of corruption doesn’t exist in Britain. One long-time Oxford admissions tutor told me that someone in his job could go decades without even being offered a donation as bait for admitting a student. Nor do British alumni expect preferential treatment for their children.
The solutions to many American societal problems are obvious if politically unfeasible: ban guns, negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, elite US universities could become less oligarchical simply by agreeing to live with more modest donations — albeit still the world’s biggest. Harvard’s endowment of $50.9bn is more than six times that of the most elite British universities.
But US colleges probably won’t change, says Martin Carnoy of Stanford’s School of Education. Their business model depends on funding from rich people, who expect something in return. He adds: “It’s the same with the electoral system. Once you let private money into a public good, it becomes unfair.”
Both countries have long been fake meritocracies. The US intends to remain one.
I recently argued that the UK’s economic performance has been disastrous for 15 years. The consequences are plain to see: people are struggling to make ends meet; taxes are high, yet public services are overloaded; fights over a shrinking economic pie are leading to widespread strikes. All this is taking place at a time of low unemployment, so we cannot simply wait for the business cycle to rescue us.
If we could somehow improve the UK’s productivity growth rate, all of these problems would become easier to solve, and we could return to the business-as-usual of each generation being able to earn more than their parents, while working less and enjoying better conditions.
But how?
Start with a diagnosis of what ails the UK economy. The view from the right is that the UK is suffering from excessive taxes and red tape. This seems implausible. Taxes are certainly high by historical standards, but they have only recently spiked, yet productivity and growth have been disappointing since 2007. And there are plenty of richer economies with higher taxes.
Nor is red tape to blame. According to the OECD, UK product market regulations are among the most competitive.
The critique from the left focuses on inequality, but this is an old and mostly separate problem. Like any mixed-market economy, the UK is an unequal society, but income inequality in the UK is slightly lower now than at the time of the financial crisis and has barely changed over the past 20 years. A more relevant manifestation of inequality is the one between global titan London and regional capitals such as Manchester, which remain far behind in terms of value added per worker.
Then there’s the centrist critique: blame Brexit. Now I am as prone to highlight the idiocies of Brexit as anyone, but unless Nigel Farage has discovered a time machine, a referendum decision in 2016 cannot be blamed for poor productivity performance starting around 2007. Brexit has solved nothing, and by creating barriers to trade with our most important trading partners, along with endless uncertainty, it is demonstrably making the situation worse. But the UK’s economic problems became apparent long before the referendum.
The slightly tedious truth is that taxes, regulation, inequality and Brexit can all take a little bit of blame, alongside a gaggle of other culprits. (Professor Diane Coyle of Cambridge university has memorably likened the case to an Agatha Christie mystery: everybody did it.)
To pick a few of these culprits at random, the quality of management in British companies is the worst in the G7, according to research by economists Nick Bloom, Raffaella Sadun and John Van Reenen. The country skimps on investment; total investment was the lowest in the G7 over the four decades preceding the pandemic. As a result, energy and transport infrastructure is run down. The Transpennine railway project is a case in point: a decade of dithering, nearly £200mn wasted and a project which was supposed to have opened in 2019 still exists largely in the imagination. Why? Politicians were more interested in announcing plans than in planning.
Low investment from the private sector is now a more acute problem than in the public sector. Is this managerial incompetence? A lack of business finance from a too-concentrated retail banking sector? A logical response to the chronic political uncertainties of the past 15 years?
Then there is the education system. It works well at the top, where British universities are still magnets for talent, but schooling is patchy and many young people, especially from deprived backgrounds, are poorly served.
Kate Bingham, who chaired the UK’s Covid vaccine development programme, recently wrote in the FT that “short-term pressures are crowding out long-term solutions”. She was pleading the case for the UK’s life-science industry, but she could easily have been describing the British condition. Short-termism is now ubiquitous. For such a venerable polity, we have developed a shocking inability to think beyond the next few weeks.
The few examples of policy excellence in the past 15 years have been times where our politicians or civil servants have risen to the challenge in a moment of crisis: I would suggest the Brown-Darling plan to prevent the banking system collapsing in 2008, the Johnson administration’s vaccine task force in 2020 and Johnson’s full-throated early support for Ukraine in 2022. Even when the UK government excels, it is not thanks to patient long-term reform and investment.
It is easy to produce a list of sensible ways forward: modernise taxes to raise more revenue with fewer distortions; improve relations with the EU and streamline UK-EU trade, especially in services; liberalise planning rules to create jobs and cheaper, better homes. But all policy wonks and most politicians know this; nothing ever happens.
It is sobering to re-read the LSE’s Growth Commission report of 2017. Many of its proposals were not policy proposals, but institutional reforms to keep the politicians away from policy proposals: Bank of England independence, but for everything. Contemplate the recent accomplishments of Whitehall and Westminster, and you see where the Growth Commission was coming from.
While researching this column, I found a video of the commission’s co-chair, John Van Reenen, in which he described “what we need to do over the next 50 years”. It seemed an impossibly daunting timescale. Then I realised the video had been posted almost exactly 10 years ago. We could have started then. We didn’t, and we’ve gone backwards. We could at least start now.
This year has been a good one for the West. The alliance has surprised observers with its united front against Russian aggression. As authoritarian China suffers one of its weakest periods of growth since Chairman Mao, the American economy roars along. A wave of populism across rich countries, which began in 2016 with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, looks like it may have crested.
Yet away from the world’s attention, rich democracies face a profound, slow-burning problem: weak economic growth. In the year before covid-19 advanced economies’ gdp grew by less than 2%. High-frequency measures suggest that rich-world productivity, the ultimate source of improved living standards, is at best stagnant and may be declining. Official forecasts suggest that by 2027 per-person gdp growth in the median rich country will be less than 1.5% a year. Some places, such as Canada and Switzerland, will see numbers closer to zero.
Perhaps rich countries are destined for weak growth. Many have fast-ageing populations. Once labour markets are open to women, and university education democratised, an important source of growth is exhausted. Much low-hanging technological fruit, such as the flush toilet, cars and the internet, has been plucked. This growth problem is surmountable, however. Policymakers could make it easier to trade across borders, giving globalisation a boost. They could reform planning to make it possible to build, reducing outrageous housing costs. They could welcome migrants to replace retiring workers. All of these reforms would raise the growth rate.
Growing pains
Unfortunately, economic growth has fallen out of fashion. According to our analysis of data from the Manifesto Project, which collects information on the manifestos of political parties over decades, those in the oecd, a group of mostly rich countries, are about half as focused on growth as they were in the 1980s (see chart 1). Modern politicians are less likely to extol the benefits of free markets than their predecessors, for instance. They are more likely to express anti-growth sentiments, such as positive mentions of government control over the economy.
When they do talk about growth, politicians do so in an unsophisticated manner. In 1994 a reference by Gordon Brown, Britain’s shadow chancellor, to “post neo-classical endogenous growth theory” was mocked, but it at least indicated serious engagement with the issue. Politicians such as Lyndon Johnson, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan offered policies based on a coherent theory of the relationship between individual and state. gdp’s small coterie of modern champions, such as Mr Trump and Liz Truss, offer little more than reheated Reaganism.
Apathy towards growth is not merely rhetorical. Britain hints at a wider loss of zeal. In the 1970s the average budget contained tax reforms worth 2% of gdp. By the late 2010s policies made half as much impact. A paper published in 2020 by Alberto Alesina, a late economist at Harvard University, and colleagues at the imf and Georgetown University measured the significance of structural reforms (such as changes to regulations) over time. In the 1980s and 1990s politicians in advanced economies implemented a large number, making their economies sleeker. By the 2010s, however, they had lost their oomph: reforms practically ground to a halt.
Our analysis of data from the World Bank suggests that progress has slowed still further in recent years, and may even have reversed (see chart 2). The American government introduced 12,000 new regulations in 2021, a rise on recent years. From 2010 to 2020 rich countries’ tariff restrictions imposed on imports doubled. Britain voted for and implemented Brexit. Other countries have turned against immigration. In 2007 almost 6m people, on net, migrated to rich countries. In 2019 the number was down to just 4m.
Governments have also become less friendly to new construction, whether of housing or infrastructure. A paper by Knut Are Aastveit, Bruno Albuquerque and André Anundsen, three economists, finds that American housing “supply elasticities”—ie, the extent to which construction responds to higher demand—have fallen since the housing boom of the 2000s. This is likely to reflect tougher land-use policies and more powerful nimbys. Housing construction across the rich world is about two-thirds its level in that decade.
Politicians prefer splurging the proceeds of what growth exists. Governments are spending a lot more on welfare, such as pensions and, in particular, health care. In 1979 the bottom fifth of American earners received means-tested transfers worth less than a third of their pre-tax income, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By 2018 the figure was more than two-thirds. According to a report in 2019, health spending per person in the oecd will grow at an average annual rate of 3% and reach 10% of gdp by 2030, up from 9% in 2018.
Politics is increasingly an arms race with promises of more money for health care and social protection. “Thirty or 40 years ago it was taken for granted that the elderly were not good candidates for organ transplantation, dialysis or advanced surgical procedures,” Daniel Callahan, an ethicist, has written. “That has changed.” Greater wealth has enabled this. Yet politicians rarely ask whether an extra dollar on health care is the best use of cash. Britons in their 90s receive health and social care that costs the country about £15,000 ($17,000) a year, about half Britain’s gdp per person. Must budgets rise year after year to meet growing demand, even as the price of providing that care is also likely to increase? If yes, where is the limit?
People may see spending on health care and pensions as self-evidently good. But it comes with downsides. More people work in an area where productivity gains, and therefore improvements in overall living standards, are hard to induce. Perfectly fit older people drop out of work to receive a pension. Funding this requires higher taxes or cuts elsewhere. Since the early 1980s government spending across the oecd on research and development, as a share of gdp, has fallen by about a third.
Much of the extra spending comes at times of crisis. Politicians are increasingly concerned with preventing bad things from happening to people or compensating them when they do. The enormous system of credit guarantees, eviction moratoriums and debt forgiveness introduced during the pandemic brought bankruptcies and defaults to a halt. This was radical, but also the thin end of the wedge.
In America, for instance, the federal government has assumed huge contingent liabilities. It guarantees an ever-larger quantity of people’s bank deposits; it forgives student loans; it offers a wide variety of implicit and explicit backstops to everything from airports to highways. We have previously estimated that Uncle Sam is on the hook for liabilities worth more than six times America’s gdp. This year European governments have fallen over themselves to offer financial support to households and firms during the continent’s energy crisis. Even Germany, normally Europe’s most disciplined spender, has allocated funding worth 7% of gdp for this purpose.
No one cheers when a firm goes bust or someone falls into poverty. But the bail-out state makes economies less adaptable, ultimately constraining growth by preventing resources shifting from unproductive to productive uses. Already there is evidence that fiscal help doled out during the pandemic has created more “zombie” firms—those which are going concerns, but which create little economic value. Governments’ huge implicit liabilities also mean higher spending in times of trouble, which reinforces the trend towards higher taxation.
Grey power
Why has the West turned away from growth? One possible answer relates to ageing populations. People who are not working, or are near the end of their working lives, tend to be less interested in getting richer. They will support things which directly benefit them, such as health care, but oppose those that only produce benefits after they are gone, such as immigration or homebuilding. Their turnout at elections tends to be high, so their views carry weight.
Yet Western populations have been ageing for decades, including during the reformist 1980s and 1990s. Thus the change in the environment in which policy is made may play a role. Before social media and 24-hour rolling news it was easier to implement tough reforms. The losers from a policy—a business exposed to greater competition from abroad, say—often had little choice but to suffer in silence. In 1936 Franklin Roosevelt, speaking about opponents to his New Deal, felt able to “welcome” his opponents’ hatred. Now the aggrieved have more ways to complain. As a result, policymakers have more incentive to limit the number of people who lose out, resulting in what Ben Ansell of Oxford University calls “countrywide decision by committee”.
High levels of debt have also constrained policymakers’ room for manoeuvre. Across the g7 group of rich, powerful countries, private debt has risen by the equivalent of 30 percentage points of gdp since 2000. Even small declines in cash flows could make servicing the debt harder. This means politicians quickly intervene when anything goes wrong. Their focus is keeping the show on the road—avoiding a repeat of the financial crisis of 2007-09—rather than accepting pain today as the price of a brighter future.
Quite what would push the West in a new direction is unclear. There is no sign of a shift just yet, beyond the misguided attempts of Mr Trump and Ms Truss. Would another financial crisis do the job? Will a change have to wait until the baby boomers are no longer around? Whatever the answer, until growth speeds up Western policymakers must hope their enemies continue to blunder.
