Is there a nation with a population of say, 30 million people or more that has an appreciably smaller government than the US and could be held up as an example that smaller government works for a modern country with a large population?
There is a low likelihood that any nation with a large population (I might use a figure closer to 75 million as the cut-off) will be well governed, whether the government is large or small. My essay on recipe for good government pointed out that two variables can help explain the level of economic freedom in a country: ethnic composition and size (with size being a negative factor). If you are trying to explain some other desirable characteristic, such as the Human Development Index, those same two variables will matter. In the essay, I wrote,
Relative to this peer group of high-population countries, the United States is still the best governed, if we use the index of economic freedom. Perhaps we should be grateful that our government is not worse than it is.
If you want the best government, move to a small country (5 to 10 million people) with an ethnic composition that according to Lynn and Vanhanen will have a national average IQ in the mid-90s or higher. Even if you are looking for economic freedom, some of the Scandinavian “socialist” countries fit that model. So do Hong Kong and Singapore, of course.
so the recipe for a well governed country is a group of more than averagely smart ppl large enough for competitive markets but small enough that bad actors have a hard time outrunning their reputation and interest groups are small in number
who would have thought
This may be the case for nations, but within the US, I’d question whether IQ correlates with quality of government at the city level. For example, Seattle and San Francisco probably have higher average IQ than Houston and Phoenix, but the latter two I think are better governed (less intrusively) than the former, and I think it shows from net migration rates.
SF government serves its stakeholders. Those stakeholders just happen not to be middle class people.
If your intention is to determine which countries are “best governed”, I think it goes without saying that economic freedom and IQ indices are contributing factors, but not primary drivers. Why bother with going after “best governed” or “good government”, when the essay can stand alone as an interesting piece on where the U.S. lands on economic freedom? If you’d like to expand this thought, and define first what you consider the vital metrics of quality government, and then describe how economic freedom relates to those metrics, I would be interested.
The Fraser Institute also publishes a Human Freedom Index.
The 2018 Index states:
“The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), France and Chile (32), Italy (34), South Africa (63), Mexico (75), Kenya (82), Indonesia (85), Argentina and Turkey (tied in 107th place), India and Malaysia (tied in 110th place), United Arab Emirates (117), Russia (119), Nigeria (132), China (135), Pakistan (140), Zimbabwe (143), Saudi Arabia (146), Iran (153), Egypt (156), Iraq (159), Venezuela (161), and Syria (162).
“Out of 10 regions, the highest levels of freedom are in North America (Canada and the United States), Western Europe, and Oceania. The lowest levels are in the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Women-specific freedoms, as measured by seven indicators in the index, are strongest in North America, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe and are least protected in the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.
“Countries in the top quartile of freedom enjoy a significantly higher average per capita income ($39,249) than those in other quartiles; the average per capita income in the least-free quartile is $12,026.”
Overall, there is a lot of overlap with their economic freedom index, the 2018 report for which states:
“Hong Kong and Singapore, as usual, occupy the top two positions. The next highest scoring nations are New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, United States, Georgia, Mauritius, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the latter two tied for 10th spot. It is worth noting that the United States returned to the top 10 in 2016 after an absence of several years. Canada also returned to the top 10 after coming in 11th in 2015.
“The rankings of some other major countries are Germany (20th), Japan (41st) Italy (54th), France (57th), Mexico (82nd), Russia (87th), India (96th), China (108th), and Brazil (144th). “
It is interesting that Germany could outrank the US on human freedom but trail significantly on economic freedom.
But to turn to the matter at hand, Canada and the United Kingdom are both over 30 million and under 70 million in population. So how do they compare to the US on “size of government” and “quality of government”?
Looking at total government expenditure per capita in US dollar terms (OECD data), the US spends more than the UK and Canada. Citizens of the UK and Canada arguably get a much better return on their tax dollar in that they have cognizable national health care systems and are paying much less per capita on national debt interest. In addition, the US is stuck with a large military that is not equipped or capable of defeating either China or Russia in a full scale war but that would trigger enough violence in such a conflict as to result in massive US civilian casualties.
For these reasons, I would argue that the Canada and the UK both have better governments than the US.
Frank H. Buckley’s book The Once and Future King provides a good explanation as to why parliamentary systems outperform presidential systems.
“the US is stuck with a large military that is not equipped or capable of defeating either China or Russia in a full scale war”
This strikes me as false. For Russia is laughably false. For China I get the impression that we are still ahead of them.
Of course if you mean limited war, well, we lost one of those to the Vietnamese. But you posit total war here.
Perhaps in a couple decades China would be able to win a full scale war, but that’s another question.
This isn’t to say I approve of US military spending, but you’re just not making a true statement.
“The US has been getting ‘its ass handed to it’ in simulated war games against Russia and China, analysts say”
https://taskandpurpose.com/russia-china-war-games
>There is a low likelihood that any nation with a large population (I might use a figure closer to 75 million as the cut-off) will be well governed, whether the government is large or small. My essay on recipe for good government pointed out that two variables can help explain the level of economic freedom in a country: ethnic composition and size (with size being a negative factor). If you are trying to explain some other desirable characteristic, such as the Human Development Index, those same two variables will matter. In the essay, I wrote,
I would say China and the US are counterexamples to this hypothesis. US government is dysfunctional and biased towards the left, but it seems to do a reasonably good job maintaining cohesion and order. The POC , although more authoritarian, also does well in this regard. IQ, not population size, is a better predictor of government quality and stability, and a bunch other metrics.
This makes me wonder how to decide whether a certain task, done by the government, is so beneficial that even if it does a shite job of it, it is still better for the government to do it as opposed to not. Another way of asking this is how the views of a group of US libertarians would change after 20 years or so of living in Denmark?
If libertarians ever got control of Denmark in 20 years it would no longer have a majority of Danes…
Snark aside, the big things these “welfare” states have going for them is a lack of welfare. What they generally have is social insurance. There are pretty high taxes on the same middle class that is taking these benefits. They are in a sense paying themselves, rather than making permanent welfare transfers to an underclass.
That is a pretty cutting line about libertarians.
And an earlier report predicting Russia would decisively defeat the US
https://taskandpurpose.com/us-military-defeat-war-china-russia
Alberto Alesina wrote a book on this topic “The Size of Nations.”
I cannot get than one large city into my efficient nation. I add the rest of the stuff needed, but absent some economics, I only need one large city. One city is the Null hypothesis, how did one large city become 75 million? I would think 20 Million per nation is max. That would include something like the LA basin, and 15 groups like that making a United States of Null Hypothesis.
So your sample size is less than 20 countries, three quarters of whom can be classified as ‘developing’ countries, and you assert the US comes out in front based on a partially subjective index put together by US entities.
I’m not disagreeing with your assessment about the US being the ‘best governed’ in this sample but your conclusion based on this paucity of data is, at best, risable.
The Fraser Institute, whose index Dr. Kling used, is a Canadian charity headquartered in Vancouver.
Dr Kling’s quote refers to the index of economic freedom which I understand is assembled by The Heritage Foundation, self described as Washington’s No.1 think tank – The Fraser Institute is alluded to in a comment by yourself and not by the author.
You nonetheless miss the obvious point which was about sample size.
No, his essay states explicitly “I used the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index to measure the quality of government. ” The two indices use different data and measure different things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indices_of_economic_freedom
I intentionally ignored your comment on sample size because it is so clearly irrelevant to anyone who actually read the essay. Sample size is not an issue because he uses the complete population of countries in each size category.
Whether it’s IQ, LV, or SAT scores, more smarts is usually a lot better.
All small countries today are enjoying quite a bit of “Free Ride” from the globally benign US anti-war military shield, against war based border changes. Kosovo, now Crimea, and even arguably Golan Heights, notwithstanding. There’s a LOT less border changing since WW II. That’s 1% GDP which can be used for investment/ consumption.
Certainly the USA would be better off if the Feds just got out of medicine and let the states handle it — allowing those that want state-Medicaid for all to offer it. Don’t see it happening too soon, tho.
When I downloaded the word.doc Recap.doc, I only got 5 pages and probably not the conclusion.
The key lessons needed are what systems of gov’t are best for low LV (IQ) nations? That suggests … Rwanda. Where, after their still-recent 1994 genocide (of smarter Tutsis from more numerous Hutus), they now have a fairly benign Tutsi popular President / dictator Paul Kagame (since 2000).
So Plato’s “philosopher king” / benign dictator — all dictators, like Chavez (and Chile’s Allende), claim that they will be benevolent.
I think more enforced Federalism would be good, but see no way to force that.
I should probably bow down to your superior intelligence and knowledge because I don’t know what LV means. No doubt your comment was addressed to the better people like you who do know what it means, but I beseech you to lower yourself to my level for a minute and tell me.