One of the great shortcomings of the triumph of physics in the 19th and 20th centuries is that it has conveyed the belief that the ability to construct models and assign numbers to phenomena conveys greater understanding rather than the other way around. I would suggest that this effect has stunted the development of the social sciences. Another way I’ve heard this characterized is that people with orderly minds tend to be drawn to studies that have greater obvious order, like physics, and they impose their own internalized sense of order on their field of study. All this by way of saying that I’m deeply distrustful of the Heritage Foundation/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom.
I have little doubt that there’s more economic freedom in Hong Kong (the top country on the list) than in North Korea (the country on the bottom). And it’s at least interesting that Mauritius is #8 but nearby Madagascar is #79 while Macau, #1 Hong Kong’s twin, is #29.
The U. S. is not in the top ten. It is #11.
One problem I have is with Mr. Miller’s conclusion:
The record of increasing economic freedom elsewhere makes it inexcusable that a country like the U.S. continues to pursue policies antithetical to its own growth, while wielding its influence to encourage other countries to chart the same disastrous course. The 2014 Index of Economic Freedom documents a world-wide race to enhance economic opportunity through greater freedom—and this year’s index demonstrates that the U.S. needs a drastic change in direction.
It’s not that I think that the U. S. must always be #1 at everything. I certainly don’t think that. It’s that I’m not convinced that there’s a real, measurable, objective difference between, say, the 80th country on the list (Dominican Republic) and the 81st (Azerbaijan). Or between the 10th and the 11th. I question whether the list actually measures anything other than its compilers’ prejudices and whether the findings are robust.
I would think that you should be able to come up with some quantifiable and measurable factor, say opportunity cost of lack of freedom, that would distinguish among the various countries. Try as I might I can’t think of any such factor.
It is interesting to note that the U. S. is the highest-ranked country with a population of greater than 35 million. What the Index of Economic Freedom may be measuring is the degree to which “economic freedom”, as determined by the Heritage Foundation/WSJ, can be exploited by small countries to gain a competitive edge over neighbors with more population, resources, etc. That’s not necessarily an option that’s available to us.
I would like to see a correlation between that list and the list of countries by degree of reliance on science and resistance to religious superstition. I think there would be a high degree of correlation.
In Hong Kong, there appears to be less favoritism shown to folks by religion, race age, sex, marital status, family status and so on, while the United States gives extensive tax and other favors based on religion, race age, sex, marital status, family status and so on.
Obamacare, for example, is far from fair or scientific. It transfers wealth from the young to the old, from the single to the married, from the child-free to the breeders and from the humanist to the religious.
The Tax Code in the USSA transfers wealth and income from the young to the old, from the Black to the White, from the single to the married, from the child-free to the breeders and from the humanist to the religious.
Hong Kong, with a maximum marginal tax rate of 15% doesn’t even have the tools to practice such discrimination even if it wanted to.
If the USSA wanted to enter the elite world of free countries, it would have to kill Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, public education, public prayers, public religious monuments. It would have to disestablish marriage and stop favoring breeding. It would have to sell off the public parks and forests that so heavily discriminate against people of color. It would have to liberate lots of teenagers who are now deprived of the right to drink, eat, smoke and have sex with a person of their choosing.
I’ll note that we were ranked 5th in 2006, 2007 and 2008. How did that work out for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009? (Remember that they come out at the start of the year so I’m, allowing for a little lag.)
You can look at older data here.
I’m not willing to dig into their data, but falling in the rankings doesn’t even have to be bad. If you’re falling in rankings (which are a relative measure), you might not actually be falling at all, but merely having others pass you. That doesn’t appear to be the case here, but it is something worth noting, especially for those of us who don’t want to bother digging into the data.
Besides, how much of all of these measures are subject to statistical error? The USA’s relative decline might be partly attributable to noise in the system.
@Jimbino
Darwin was wrong about survival of the fittest. It is survival of the fastest breeders. Cockroaches are still around because they reproduce faster than humans can kill them. Wooly mammoths could not.
@TastyBits
Darwin is to be praised for putting the lie to religious superstition. But I must note that there are a lot of us who enjoy the bounty of nature who have NO interest whatsoever in maintaining the human race. Indeed, the reasonable among us not that the fauna and flora, not to mention the air and water, of the world will rejoice once humans stop breeding.
@Jimbino
Humans are going to be around for some time. Like the cockroach, humans can reproduce fairly quickly, and rather than adapt to fit the environment, humans adapt the environment to fit them.
Humans are part of the natural formation. They are as natural or as unnatural as the cockroach. Without an external force, there is no way to eliminate humans from the evolutionary chain, but that would require that pesky religion thing.
The good news is that few are subjected to the human animal more than 100 years.
Well, we’re going way off-topic, but for once I’m not to blame.
Cows, squirrels, rats, cats, dogs and uncountable species of bacteria and mites would go extinct or see their numbers sharply curtailed if human died out. We are not singular beings, we are not only part of the ecosystem, but ecosystems ourselves. Where would this little cutie live if humans died off? Meet our eyelash-dwelling friend, Demodex: http://www.huidziekten.nl/afbeeldingen/demodex1.jpg
!) To one (or some) of the commentators: Darwin did not”put the lie to religious superstition”. You are just parroting the Establishment Left’s cant about Darwin (and the cooption there of). You evidently do not understand much about Christianity (hint: The Catholic Church long ago accepted evolution).
In any event, there a certainly reasonable secular critiques–witness Nagel.
You indulge in scientism here and engage in neither science or philosophy.
2) The “social sciences” can not “be developed as actual sciences, that is, natural sciences, because said “social sciences” are not sciences at all. they consist impulses,notions, yearnings and opinions backup up by statistics.
The gulf between real sciences such as Physics and “social sciences” is wide indeed, and the gap is one of kind, not degree.
Think not? Try being taken seriously by anyone in the natural sciences.
To think otherwise is to profoundly misunderstand what real Science is actually about. This obtains no matter what university administrations (and attendant marketing departments) happen to say about “social sciences”.
Again, philosophic ignorance and yet more scientism.
Here’s a little quote from On the Origin of Species:
The phrase “by the Creator” was added by Darwin to the 2nd edition, presumably in response to claims along the lines of those made here, i.e. that he was “giving the lie, etc.”. Darwin was raised Unitarian but at one point in his life was studying for the Anglican priesthood.
I think he’s being confused with Huxley.
Some seven or eight years ago, I interviewed with Tim Kane as his deputy at the part of the Heritage Foundation that administered this annual survey. I raised similar concerns with him during the interview noting an additional rather gobsmacking flaw: all of the elements in the index were weighted equally. He concurred unreservedly.
I didn’t get the job. Whether I would have anyway, I don’t know, but the main problem was that neither Tim nor I were economists by training and, additionally, we were both more interested in national security policy than economics. Tim has since moved on to another institution where he’s able to do what it is he does and so have I.
My main complaint would be with Mr. Miller’s hysterics.
I think a lot of statistical analysis of complex systems are useful generalizations and are fine when understood as such. Perhaps this Index would be better if it didn’t produce numbers like U.S. = 76.0 and Denmark = 76.1, as if there is a fine, detailed analysis separating the two countries.
I read the Freedom House report the same way, though I think the numbers they produce are more generalized, and I personally value the features Freedom House analyzes more.
I read what I think is a relevant quote recently: economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show that they have a sense of humor.
I ran across this tonight which reminded me of Dave’s post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/01/is-our-economic-ignorance-increasing.html
I’ve never heard of Solow Residual before, but it seems like an interesting concept.
It’s frequently forgotten that the first step, the prerequisite, in the scientific method is systematic observation. To my eye observation is becoming a lost art.
That’s understandable when you consider how specialization has affected us. When observation, asking questions, and making hypotheses are each specialties, the scientific method has ended.
I think the Heritage Freedom Index started out with the things they liked, then they made an index of those things and called it freedom. Considering that you dont even have freedom of speech in some of these places and that they treat visiting workers as indentured slaves, count me skeptical. Also, note that they pick only countries from a narrow and of population sizes. Going up or down a bit ruins the hypothesis. That said, I think smaller, more homogeneous countries are probably more likely to have functional, less corrupt governments, especially if they have been around for a while.
Steve
“, but for once I’m not to blame.”
Give me some time.