What is the proper size of government? If you answered small or big you’re a damn fool. My hypothesis is that contrary to what a neoclassical economist or labor union representative might tell you, the question of government’s proper size is only partially normative. The size of government is largely a function of geography, population demographics, and economic variables influenced mostly by human nature and institutional inertia and minimally by the political party in power. In other words, you can vote for whomever you like, but until you address the abovementioned variables – and good luck with that – the size of government is a mathematical function out of your control.
If we’re measuring government debt/deficit/revevnues as a percentage of GDP or as the proportion of U.S. government employees relative to the U.S. population, then by definition these other variables determine the size of government. If we’re measuring government by the number of laws or regulations in place, and I think this is how most people think of government, then we’ve again exposed to the relationship between population, geography and the size of government. Find a small population of indigenous people in Peru and you’ll see many norms; travel to Chicago and you’ll see many more norms in addition to laws, rules and regulations; go to the moon and you’ll find no such rules to guide social interaction. Human interaction and the frequency and manner in which it occurs dictate the level of social oversight regardless of any formal government or political party. Call it what you will, but it is human nature to form social coordination. The geography variable, or the density of individuals in a given location, only increases the chances that humans will interact. I suspect that if you measure the size of government by the number of formal laws, and compare NYC to Omaha, NE, NYC would come out on top. In turn, some might see NYC as having a big, liberal government and Omaha as having a more conservative and small government. Chalk it up to the political differences if you wish, but I would argue it’s the number of people and density of people that hold the explainatory power. Also, NYC has had more time to accumulate laws.
The interesting aspect of this hypothesis is what it says about where government is and where it might be going. We currently have hundreds of thousands of laws in place and these have developed along with population growth – I suspect we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new laws dealing with international trade and travel (global interaction) and the internet (cyber interaction). So I anticipate government will grow and refuse to fight it. Evoking the constitution to say that government should be constant and small for all of eternity is ridiculous - people will develop norms and laws outside the constitution to cope with the increasing interactions in the population that so frequently (and ironically) result in a violation of individual rights. Defend the constitution as you will, but understand, that when it was written, it reflected a world that minimally understand the upper bounds of geography and population. The final lesson would be that to truly shrink the size of government, don’t become politically engaged, just have fewer children.
This post covers a ton of issues. One response I want to make is that while government may be linked to the population, geography, and number of human interactions that take place, that doesn't mean that there's an absolute size of the government we can arrive at based on these interactions. Rather, I'd say that the size of government can fluxuate in size significantly and still stay within the boundries dictated by those factors listed. This is what conservatives and liberals fight about: where, within those bounds, the government's size should fall.
ReplyDeleteThe end of government is to function properly. It can function properly with many laws or very few laws. For example, if the government let the markets go nothing catastrophic would happen. Prices might find their true value and the natural laws within capitalism would take over. In this way, I don't see how government's size is directly linked to your factors. The government could take a big role or small role in the economy, but it would still function well.
Despite what I have said, I generally agree with you. However, I think there are more factors involved than those you cited. Imagine a nation with a population that was very well educated and raised with strong moral convictions of freedom and equality. No matter how dense the population of this nation got, their individual beliefs would do a majority of the regulation, and there would be no need for a billion laws.
Yes, we are definitely operating at the margins in terms of political decisions, but it does make all the difference to both our immediate lives and the long-term direction of the Nation. Much like when we are deciding between competing technologies, say blue-ray vs. HDVD, that have most everything in common, but are separated, and in fact defined-by minor differences, we see how decisions at the margin can make all the difference. Thank you for your insight.
ReplyDeleteThe other factor is time and accumulation of laws. We have such a mish-mash of laws that come (and seldom go) with the technologies, economies, political parties, etc. that we have more laws than are needed to allow government to function properly, as you put it. Put another way, our government is not parsimonious - it is large because of time and the challenge of repealing laws.