Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
When Strangers Judge Paradise
The Heritage Foundation released its annual Index of Economic Freedom last week; Hong Kong and Singapore, as usual, take the top slots. Writing in the International Herald Tribune, Philip Bowring finds this "baffling" and argues that Singapore's freedoms look significantly freer from the outside:
It is clear is that the rankings of Hong Kong and Singapore are based to a significant degree on ignorance of their domestic economies. In its 10-point assessment, the Heritage Foundation puts a high premium on freedoms for foreigners to trade and invest and enjoy low taxes, and remarkably little on the freedoms of the local inhabitants....
In Singapore, it is the government itself that stands in the way of the unfettered private enterprise that the Heritage Foundation's criteria are supposed to favor. The major real estate, banking, transport, manufacturing and utility companies listed on the stock market are all government-controlled entities. They may be efficient, but is this an economy free of government intervention? The index also claims that "the market sets almost all wages." But actually "wages are based on annual recommendations made by the tripartite National Wages Council."
Whole thing here.
|1.9.06 @ 12:25PM|#
I was always suspect of the claim that a country that beats the hell out of you for gum on the sidewalk could somehow prize and epitomize economic freedom. I have always thought that something was off with those evaluations.
KipEsquire|1.9.06 @ 12:30PM|#
How's the saying go? "Nice place to do business with, but I
wouldn't want to live there..."
See also, "China."
|1.9.06 @ 1:15PM|#
Judging from my time in HKG a few weeks ago, "Economic Freedom"
means freedom from pesky pollution controls and making the legal
work week 6 days long (9 hours/day).
Yeah, no wonder Big Business *loves* China and SE Asia.
|1.9.06 @ 1:29PM|#
We can go into the usual debates about private "monopolies and oligopolies" in the case of Hong Kong, but one point is clear - it's extremely suspect to talk about "economic freedom" in a country and gloss over the actual economic rights of its citizens.
Warren|1.9.06 @ 1:33PM|#
Browning scores a touch. Market manipulation, whatever the
mechanism is an intrusion on economic freedom. The appearance of
valuing outside investors over the native population also strains
credibility. I'm not as impressed with the 'Country X rated higher
than Country Y can't be right' analysis. Such surprises are a key
feature of the index, inviting deeper evaluation.
I am of the mind that economic freedom is only half the story. An
Index of Social Freedom is in order. I think it would be equally
instructive.
|1.9.06 @ 1:38PM|#
For Germany and Sweden to be considered tied for 19th/20th int
he economic freedom rankings, there has to be a
huge amount of countries with pathetic economic
liberties. Looking at the list, I see there are.
Anyone who complains about how harsh things are economically in
Hong Kong or Singapore should check out the CIA's World Factbook.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ Granted, you don't
necessarily want to take the CIA's word for it, but I also don't
hear about anyone complaining their numbers are biased
either.
The countries that have the most economic freedom according to the
Heritage Foundation are basically the same ones that have high per
capita GDP's. Granted, per capita GDP is not the same as per capita
income, but they are highly correlated. Countries like Botswana and
Chile started out at a much lower base than the other countries
near the top in economic freedom, and thus their per capita GDP
numbers aren't as high yet. I believe that Botswana had the world's
highest annual GDP growth rate for about 30 years from something
like 1960 to 1990.
Hong Kong and Singapore used to be dirt poor third world
"countries", but their emphasis on wealth creation over
redistrubition paid some huge dividends, and their approach to how
to create that wealth was very different. The important thing it
seems is to actually try to create wealth (national wealth is a
synonym for national economy), and not to redistribute exisiting
wealth.
It should also be noted for anyone who misses it, the Heritage list
is not about freedom in total, just economic freedom.
|1.9.06 @ 1:38PM|#
Another thing worth considering about social freedom is that somebody would make money make money if it were legal to sell subversive newspapers, banned books, sex toys, decadent Western movies, violent video games, and pictures of women without headscarves. Impinging on social freedom also means curtailing certain enterprises.
Warren|1.9.06 @ 2:02PM|#
thoreau,
Absolutely. There's a good deal of overlap. But I still think the
way a country deals with pot, porn, and pagans, tells you quite a
bit about it. I suspect such a social index would also correlate
with a measured standard of living. Singapore would score very
poorly. I think Hong Kong would do well. I'm trying to think of
countries that would score high social freedom and low economic,
the Philippines maybe
|1.9.06 @ 2:03PM|#
Economic freedom and personal freedom are one and the same. Any
other way of analyzing is falling into a false dichotomy.
As the article points out, the situation in Singapore/Hong Kong is
"Free for me, but not for thee." Some quote about the inadequacies
of statistics and surveys would be appropriate here.
|1.9.06 @ 2:05PM|#
It seems obvious that the Heritage list is meant as an investment tool for outsiders (presumably Americans?). Ah, I see they mention it right in their methodology.
Warren|1.9.06 @ 2:19PM|#
Economic freedom and personal freedom are one and the same.
Any other way of analyzing is falling into a false dichotomy.
How you figure? A country could have strong property rights, a
relatively free market, but still require women to where burqas,
forbid alcohol, mandatory mass, etc. True, your economic freedom is
diminished if you aren�t allowed to open a bar or stuff bills into
a dancing girl's undies, but could never the less, still be
high.
|1.9.06 @ 2:49PM|#
Warren, I think they are inextricable because, if you forbid
buying and selling alcohol, for example, that's a restriction on
trade and property rights. Restrictions on women mean restrictions
on their property rights, ability to work in the marketplace, a
man's ability to hire women, etc. Mandatory Mass restricts what you
can do with your time on Sunday, which can affect the way you run
your 24/7 convenience store, etc. You get hemmed in, in a lot of
little ways.
You could still get rich, but your ability to achieve would still
be a lot less than it might have been if you were freer to
use your time, resources and ability to associate as you'd
prefer.
|1.9.06 @ 2:53PM|#
I see the philosophical linkages between social and economic
freedom. And as I said above, I also see the practical
linkages.
But there are still some obvious practical distinctions. Compare,
say, the Netherlands with Singapore. Despite the similarities
(especially if a third option enters the picture, say, China or
Russia) there is no denying the contrasts.
|1.9.06 @ 2:59PM|#
On a base, philosophical level, dead elvis is right on. I think
it was Hayek who said there can be no social freedom without
economic freedom. Economic regulations are simply restricitions on
the way an individual can use their own time and energy to provide
for themselves. Redistribution is simply taking a portion of one
person's life and giving to another. It doesn't get much more
personal than that.
That said, as a practical matter the distinction is important and
useful.
|1.9.06 @ 3:10PM|#
Shouldn't we be having a 200-post frenzy on the whole "can't anonymously annoy people on the internet" law? :)
|1.9.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Though, apparently, the bill is being misconstrued: Details from BoingBoing - scroll down to the latest updates.
|1.9.06 @ 4:11PM|#
Mr. Bowring was "baffled" by these results? The Heritage
Foundation is a right wing think tank, for cripes sake. Ever since
the tale of that spoild American brat getting caned for graffiti,
I've heard more than a few of my conservative acquiantences hold it
up as a utopia; corporal punishment for miscreants, capital
punishment for drug users, censorship, and a government willing to
use whatever force it needs to perserve "order."
Face it, folks. To many American conservatives, Singapore is a land
of milk and honey. The only thing that would make it a Bill Bennett
wet-dream is if the population were made up of evangelical
Christians, instead of "heathens."
|1.9.06 @ 4:12PM|#
Edit: Ever since the tale of that spoiled American brat getting caned for graffiti hit media back in the 90s...
|1.9.06 @ 4:39PM|#
How you figure?
I'll admit, I'm pretty sure I used the term 'false dichotomy'
incorrectly. Perhaps I should have said, an analysis based on
seperating the two freedoms is flawed because it is based on a
flawed premise.
I think most people think of personal/economic freedom as seperable
based on the notion that someone does not identify with their
profession. But if the way I make my living is tied with who I am
as a person, you can't restrict one without restricting the other.
I am a musician; if someone tells me what I can and can't do
regarding playing my instrument (as my union is very keen to do),
it's an affront to my personal liberty, not just an economic
restriction.
Of course, somebody out there is saying that being a musician is
different than most professions. Personally, I think most people
underestimate the extent to which they personally identify with
their profession, because most people want very badly to think of
themselves as more than or better than just their job.
|1.9.06 @ 4:47PM|#
making the legal work week 6 days long (9 hours/day)
You make it sound like that's being a virtual slave. A lot of
Americans work that much and some work much more (think about sole
proprietors of small businesses, for example) and 50+ years ago it
was even more common than it is today. Heck, talk to young
investment bankers...they'd be gleeful at the idea of a workweek
that was only 54 hours.
|1.9.06 @ 4:54PM|#
dead elvis,
No, you are correct about the economic/personal restriction tie-in.
While they may be a bit more "personal" to you as a musician
instead of say a 9-5 software developer it still applies. What if I
am a game designer who is working on some fantastically real "gore
effects" for a fighting game. Suddenly, the government of
Walla-Walla decides that not only is blood bad for kids to see, but
for adults too! Bam, out of a livelyhood I go, or at least one I
was happy with.
Personally, I would love to work on growing new strains of
recreational marijuana but current government restrictions on both
personal use and commercial use are impeding that line of business
for me. So, I guess I will just panhandle on the corner till the
coppers say I have to move.
|1.9.06 @ 5:02PM|#
>Heck, talk to young investment bankers...they'd be gleeful
at the idea of a workweek that was only 54 hours.
Believe me, I work those kind of hours too. But the compensation
for that young investment banker is a *lot* better than that poor
schlub working on the bamboo scafolding of a building 50 stories
up.
And since when were Hong Kong and Singapore "poor countries"?
Certainly they've become the tigers they are now in the couple
decades. But these were city states created whole cloth by the
Brit's.
|1.9.06 @ 5:21PM|#
A country could have strong property rights, a relatively
free market, but still require women to where burqas, forbid
alcohol, mandatory mass, etc.
Warren,
Certainly someplace like this could exist...somewhere in a
science fiction novel...or in reality for about 8 seconds. But
let's say for a second that it did exist.
Any such place would have defacto market restrictions on a social
level. Any place that restricts behavior to the degree your example
does would fail (by folks understanding) to have a "free
market".
I admire your attempt to posit, but I'm sorry. I'm not buying it. I
think you need to consider the ramifications and details of your
idea.
At the very least, it's obvious a large number of products and
services would probably be illegal. Doesn't sound relatively free
to me.
And any place that socially restrictive would no doubt be subject
to capricious whims of the 'enforcers' of this magical land. Thus
making market stability a flaky bit of business.
fyodor|1.9.06 @ 6:13PM|#
Assuming one owns one's own body, then restrictions on what can
be done with it or put into it are clearly property rights
violations.
That said, it's true that things like taxes and wage controls cover
a wider swath of the economy than restrictions on specific
activities, and they're easier to measure to boot.
|1.9.06 @ 6:59PM|#
It is true that liberty is liberty, regardless of how you want
to subclassify it. That said, it is in my opinion silly to say that
many things that are normally thought of as restricitons on civil
or social liberties have the same deleterious impact on the economy
as things normally thought of restrictions on economic
liberties.
Examples of restrictions on economic liberties: capital gains tax;
non-commons government spending; new EPA restrictions that destroy
90% of the value of your property without any compensation;
government restrictions on who you are allowed to hire or fire or
when or why; restrictions on your ability to bargain your way into
your first job (i.e. minimum wage).
Examples of restricitions on civil or social liberties: refusal of
government to allow you to use six certain inexcusable words on tv
or radio; government interference in the marriage "market";
warrantless searches (i.e. no probable cause) of your person, home,
or phone conversations; French ban on headscarves; government
regulations on types of allowed acts in the bedroom between
consenting adults (e.g. oral sex); restrictions on adult voting
based on color, gender, religion etc.;
Clearly the first group has much more impact on
the economy than the second.
This is not to say that there aren't many restrictions where it
becomes much harder to differentiate between civil liberties and
economic liberties: various drug prohibitions; illegal adult
prostitution; ban on pornography; bans on bumper stickers/t-shirts
that say "shit happens"; Iranian subsidization of (news)paper,
resulting in the ability to withdraw such subsidy for any
publication it chooses to; ban on violent content in movies/video
games; etc.
fyodor|1.9.06 @ 7:23PM|#
This is not to say that there aren't many restrictions where
it becomes much harder to differentiate between civil liberties and
economic liberties
Well now, THAR's the rub!! Or put another way, some restrictions
have greater impact on wealth creation than others. But that's
different than drawing an artificial line between "economic" and
"social" liberty or lack thereof.
|1.9.06 @ 7:33PM|#
happyjuggler-
I largely agree that there are very significant practical
differences between economic liberties and other civil liberties. I
pointed out that there is overlap because (and I know Eric will
hate it when I say this) many H&R posters seem to value
economic liberty more highly. Or at least they see it as a higher
political priority (political and personal priorities are not
always the same, obviously).
My point is that if a regulation destroys a job, it destroys a job,
and somebody now has to find a new one. Somebody's life has just
been seriously fucked with.
Also, some of the industries targeted by the social conservatives
(and also some "for the children" liberals) rake in billions of
dollars every year. Particularly entertainment. So the potential
economic stakes of social policy can be significant.
Finally, there are some significant issues that can't be put in
just one of the two categories, because the social and economic
aspects are both tremendous: Drug prohibition is a social
experiment that fuels a massive underground economy, which in turn
yields dire social consequences. Immigration policy has huge social
and economic ramifications, no matter what your stance might be on
it.
My point? Keep in mind that social policies can have big economic
consequences. That's all.
|1.9.06 @ 9:47PM|#
When I think of a lot of economic freedom and not much political freedom, the first word that comes to my mind is "Pinochet." Discuss
|1.9.06 @ 9:59PM|#
An Index of Social Freedom is in order. I think it would be
equally instructive.
If such an index was to be based on what a person can get away with
in practice rather than what's technically allowed by law, I think
it would find that the socially freest places in the world are
third-world countries where the local authorities don't care about
enforcing most of the petty laws and regulations on the books - and
in the off chance that they do care, can usually be dealt with
through a small bribe.
|1.9.06 @ 10:19PM|#
Eric II, good call. Somalia would probably rank up pretty high on that social freedom list considering that there kind of is no government to restrict what you do. Although the whole lack of any police and court system is a bit too free for my tastes.
|1.9.06 @ 10:43PM|#
Somalia's obviously an extreme case. But there are a number of
places where the police will go in earnest after murderers,
rapists, carjackers, etc. (and which sometimes have lower violent
crime rates than the US), but don't care too much about enforcing
things like speed limits, drinking ages, and land use regulations,
and which keep any "war on drugs" they have going low-key,
particularly with regards to users rather than dealers.
Though unfortunately, these places also often rank low with regards
to economic freedom, and also with regards to other factors needed
to deliver prosperity, such as the quality of their infrastructures
and educational institutions. And paradoxically, one of the factors
that keeps a lid on the amount of nanny state tyranny seen in such
countries - the corruptibility of local authorities - also does a
number on their ability to produce sustained economic growth.
|1.9.06 @ 11:02PM|#
When I think of a lot of economic freedom and not much
political freedom, the first word that comes to my mind is
"Pinochet." Discuss
When I think of dictatorships, brutal or otherwise,the first thing
that comes to my mind is economically destructive.
The fact that a dictator who chose to murder significant numbers of
his political opponents also happened to choose a viable economice
system is something of a miracle.
The few dictatorships that have decent economic systems usually
seem to become more politically free as the people become more
prosperous.
The many countries that have lousy economic systems seem to have a
hard time holding democracies together, assuming they ever got that
far.
|1.10.06 @ 8:41AM|#
How free were people in Pinochet's Chile to form unions, hold meetings, and protest their conditions?
Dave W.|1.10.06 @ 9:13AM|#
Anonymous seems to have some wrong ideas about the way I
think.
Here is what Dave W. actually thinks:
"[Somebody else:] And Dave W., no amount of treaty rules are going
to ensure the existence of a fair and open marketplace in third
world countries. The more rules, the less likely that anything will
be accomplished.
[Me:] I disagree. here is a practical way to change things with
regulation:
red tags go on all merch from countries that treat labor
worst
yellow tags for merch from countries that treat labor somewhat
good
Green tags for countries that do at least okay vis-a-vis
labor.
Then let the market decide. I guarantee you that third world
countries will respond by doing whatever it takes to maximize sales
in a world where consumers have this basic, low threshold level of
info.
Comment by: Dave W. at July 21, 2005 02:17 PM"
New gloss:
when I see people like half bee and the others recognizing that
social problem is an important part of freedom. Acknowledging that
it matters how the rank-and-file workers get treated, I have to
think back to the old thread from July with my colored flags
idea.
This scheme was conceived as a minimally-intrusive way to help
Americans identify and support economuc freedoms in other nations,
while preserving ultimate private choice for each and every
customer. A lot of people disagreed with this scheme when I
proposed it back in July 2005. I was surprised by the negative
reaction at the time.
However, you guys are doing really similar stuf on this thread --
trying to figure out what freedom really means, in all of its
economic, social, theoretical, practical, abstract and concrete
glory. You guys are then trying to take your conception of freedom
into your private business dealings as free consumers. Of course,
even on this thread, there are ppl who admit that they don't feel
they have any responsibility in any oppression that may exist in
faraway places (eg, nice to economically exploit China, but bad to
live there). Importantly, these Hank Rearden Juniors are fully
respected under my scheme. (See, the part about the red tags).
Maybe time to reconsider some of what ol' Dave W. actually has to
say here.
|1.10.06 @ 1:59PM|#
Dave, who decides the flags and what criteria? Is this going to be a system where the only countries to get Green flags will be those with heavy social services and heavy unionization in government?
|1.10.06 @ 2:01PM|#
Also, as a general question, how precisely will buying, say,
fewer goods from China benefit prisoners engaging in slave-labor
there? Will they get more days off? Will they be released?
Will they be more likely to just be shot?
Dave W.|1.10.06 @ 2:23PM|#
Dave, who decides the flags and what criteria? Is this going
to be a system where the only countries to get Green flags will be
those with heavy social services and heavy unionization in
government?
I would hope not. That is why I brought my plan here instead of
some left wing board. Because Reason (unlike the Heritage
Foundation) can be expected to have a balanced perspective on
freedom and understand that maximum freedom needs to balanace
economic and personal freedoms, hard and soft freedoms,
rich-people-freedoms and poor-people-freedoms.
I don't have a full answer for you, but when I hear some
fundamentalist nut say that the *only* freedom that matters is
freedom of rich people to be free of taxes and regulation, then I
know that that individual is out of whack. Similarly, if I hear
some bleeding heart say that the only freedom that matters is
guaranteed access to the good stuff in life, regardless of one's
willingness to work, then I know that individual is out of whack.
Another little game I observe in the comments here (but not by the
Reason authors) is the shiney penny game, where if you give a slave
a shiney penny, he is not a slave anymore, regardless of larger
context. That is out of whack, too.
Freedom means both free markets and free minds. Defining, balancing
and trade-offing between both types can and should be matter for
endless discussion in any rich nation with a decent amount of
leisure time on its hands. My labelling system would provide a
democratic vehicle for such discussion, without impinging on
anybody's right to buy whatever they want.
the fact that I don't have a set of concrete standards
pre-determined for my flags is a feature of my scheme, not a
detriment. Just because I invented my scheme doesn't mean that I
have any better morals or ethics or judgement than anybody else in
the difficult, broad and important debate about what freedom means.
My contribution is finding a way to get people thinking and talking
without trampling all over their rights as consumers. Genius,
really.
Dave W.|1.10.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Will they be more likely to just be shot?
If the decentralized, free consumer market of the US awards higher
profit margins to green flag countries, then China will do whatever
the green flag countries do. It will copy them, errrr,
slavishly.
On the other hand, if the market favors red flag products, then
China would probably liberalize its laws on shooting employees for
minor infractions and shootings would increase.
So, the answer is that it could go either way. Nothing wrong with
customers specifying what they want to see. Its their money!
|1.10.06 @ 3:00PM|#
te fact that I don't have a set of concrete standards
pre-determined for my flags is a feature of my scheme, not a
detriment.
Dave, you don't have a scheme. You don't even answer the
question of who's putting the flags on products.
The government? Then it doesn't matter one iota what all the
market-loving libertarians in the world think, the government will
set its own criteria for its own reasons that will probably have
little to do with economic freedom and everything to do with trade
negotiations.
Private groups? Who's going to voluntarily put "Yeah, the people
who made this do so at gunpoint" stickers on products they
sell?
If the decentralized, free consumer market of the US awards
higher profit margins to green flag countries, then China will do
whatever the green flag countries do. It will copy them, errrr,
slavishly.
You make several unjustified assumptions, here.
Dave W.|1.10.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Dave, you don't have a scheme. You don't even answer the
question of who's putting the flags on products.
Doesn't matter to me. City of Compton, County of Cork, state of
Vermont, nation of US, Treaty Group Of Wealthy NetConsumer Nations.
I am sure each level of gov't has its pro's and con's. None of
these places is perfect, but they are all good enuf to judge places
with very little freedom. Yes, the standards could be bad or wrong,
but then again, you could merely explain that to people who looked
funny at all the red flags in your shopping basket. So, quit
bitchin'.
Certainly imperfect information about how your products get made is
better than the willful blindness (self included) we all engage in
under the current scheme. My (proposed) violation of your right to
buy products without embarrassing stickers is a tiny violin
violation indeed.
Anyway, going back up to the previous posts in this thd, you can
see my intended point, which was that Anonymous has misjudged me on
this one. If Anonymous were me, I'd be getting an apology from
myself about now.
b-psycho|1.10.06 @ 4:54PM|#
Actually, if people just paid attention for once in their lives then that would serve the same purpose as the color coding system. It's relatively easy to tell what country is doing what if you care to find out.
Dave W.|1.11.06 @ 4:11AM|#
It's relatively easy to tell what country is doing what if
you care to find out.
Link please.
|1.11.06 @ 1:48PM|#
So, quit bitchin'.
Works for me; I won't bother responding to any of your future
posts.
seconds home loans|1.14.06 @ 9:12AM|#
home loans minnesota clearwater home equity loans http://moroz.straponclub.com/home_loan/american_home_loans.html home equity loan new jersey construction home loans http://moroz.straponclub.com/home_loan/loan_loan_home_mortgage_mortgagemavericksonline.html and .... home equity loans pros and cons self employed home loan http://moroz.straponclub.com/home_loan/mortgage_rates_home_loans.html citibank home equity loans home loans minnesota http://moroz.straponclub.com/home_loan/home_mortgage_loan_new_york.html bad credit home loan american home mortgage need a bridge loan http://moroz.straponclub.com/home_loan/home_equity_loan_payment_calculator.html .Thanks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245