IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v19y2022i1p58-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leave Size of Government Out of the Measurement of Economic Freedom—Put Quality of Government In

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Ott

Abstract

Freedom is usually defined as the opportunity to choose by the absence of inhibitions and the availability of options. Economic freedom is freedom in economic decisions. The Fraser Institute rejects this definition and wants to put a high priority on the absence of inhibitions caused by government activities. The Institute finds that economic freedom can be defined in a formative way, meaning that the constituent dimensions define what it is, and that everybody is free to decide what these dimensions are. The Institute pays attention to five dimensions to be used as items in the measurement. Three items are supposed to contribute to economic freedom: rule of law and protection of property, sound money, and freedom to trade internationally. Two items are supposed to reduce economic freedom: regulation and size of government. The Fraser Institute is reluctant to assess the validity of this measurement of economic freedom as just the opportunity to choose. It is, however, an interesting and informative exercise to do so. I find that the measurement by the Fraser Institute of economic freedom, interpreted as the traditional opportunity to choose, is very reasonable. The measurement can be substantially improved, however, if we leave the size of government out as one of the items. This is understandable because size of government has a positive correlation with the results of the three positive items, and not a negative correlation as assumed. Another argument to leave out the size of government is that the correlation of the size of governments with happiness and freedom in general depends heavily on the quality of governments. This correlation is positive if the quality is good and negative if the quality is bad. These research findings are perhaps trivial, but nevertheless important. It is therefore an attractive option to substitute the size of governments with the quality of governments in the measurement of economic freedom. Another argument, to pay more attention to the quality of government is that the quality is more important than the size, in view of current problems such as pandemics, climate change, and aggression by bad governments.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Ott, 2022. "Leave Size of Government Out of the Measurement of Economic Freedom—Put Quality of Government In," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 19(1), pages 1-58–64, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:58-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1223/OttMar2022.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/1272
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Ott, 2018. "Measuring Economic Freedom: Better Without Size of Government," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 479-498, January.
    2. Helliwell, John F. & Huang, Haifang, 2008. "How's Your Government? International Evidence Linking Good Government and Well-Being," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(4), pages 595-619, October.
    3. Jan Ott, 2010. "Greater Happiness for a Greater Number: Some Non-controversial Options for Governments," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 631-647, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan H. Murphy, 2022. "Economic Freedom without Quality of Government," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 37(Winter 20), pages 21-42.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pan Zhang & Zhiguo Wang, 2019. "PM 2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Jesús Peiró-Palomino & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2018. "Assessing well-being in European regions. Does government quality matter?," Working Papers 2018/06, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    3. Jan Ott & Fred MacMahon, 2019. "Is Freedom Just About the Absence of Inhibitions, or Also About the Availability of Options?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 305-309, February.
    4. Alexander Jakubow, 2016. "Subjective Well-Being and the Welfare State: Giving a Fish or Teaching to Fish?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1147-1169, September.
    5. Paleologou, Suzanna-Maria, 2022. "Happiness, democracy and socio-economic conditions: Evidence from a difference GMM estimator," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Helliwell, John F. & Huang, Haifang & Grover, Shawn & Wang, Shun, 2018. "Empirical linkages between good governance and national well-being," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 1332-1346.
    7. Qiang Li & Lian An, 2020. "Corruption Takes Away Happiness: Evidence from a Cross-National Study," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 485-504, February.
    8. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    9. Andrew E. Clark, 2011. "The Organisational Commitment of Workers in OECD Countries," management revue. Socio-economic Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 22(1), pages 8-27.
    10. Yamamura, Eiji & Andrés, Antonio R., 2011. "Does corruption affect suicide? Empirical evidence from OECD countries," MPRA Paper 31622, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Guzal-Dec Danuta & Zbucki Łukasz & Kuś Agnieszka, 2020. "Good governance in strategic planning of local development in rural and urban-rural gminas of the eastern peripheral voivodeships of Poland," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 50(50), pages 101-112, December.
    12. Gabriel Leite Mota, 2022. "Unsatisfying ordinalism: The breach through which happiness (re)entered economics," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 513-528, June.
    13. Chun-Hung A. Lin & Suchandra Lahiri & Ching-Po Hsu, 2017. "Happiness and Globalization: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1841-1857, December.
    14. William Betz & Nicole Simpson, 2013. "The effects of international migration on the well-being of native populations in Europe," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Dorsett, Richard & Oswald, Andrew J., 2014. "Human Well-being and In-Work Benefits: A Randomized Controlled Trial," IZA Discussion Papers 7943, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Eiji Yamamura, 2012. "The Effects of Information Asymmetry and Government Size on Happiness: A Case Study from Japan," The IUP Journal of Governance and Public Policy, IUP Publications, vol. 0(1), pages 7-20, March.
    17. Nikolova, Milena, 2016. "Minding the happiness gap: Political institutions and perceived quality of life in transition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(S), pages 129-148.
    18. Fischer, Justina AV, 2008. "The Welfare Effects of Social Mobility," MPRA Paper 16339, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2009.
    19. Andreas Bergh & Christian Bjørnskov, 2021. "Does economic freedom boost growth for everyone?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 170-186, May.
    20. Justina AV Fischer, 2010. "Accounting for Unobserved Country Heterogeneity in Happiness Research: Country Fixed Effects versus Region Fixed Effects," CEIS Research Paper 164, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 28 May 2010.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic freedom; size of government; quality of government; validity; convergent validity; content validity; predictive validity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth
    • H10 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - General
    • P10 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:58-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jason Briggeman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.