Something which shouldn't cause argument...
Countries that have smaller governments, effective legal systems and nonrestrictive business regulations do better economically and socially than those which do not, the Cato Institute said in its fifth report on economic freedom.
But even countries that enjoy such economic freedom and are open to trade could do more to increase their openness to foreign markets, the report said.
The institute ranked economies according to their openness, listing Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States, Britain and Ireland among the most open countries in the world in 1999.
It also found that from 1980 to 1998 Hong Kong, Singapore, Belgium, Panama and Germany were among the most consistently open and free economies.
uk.news.yahoo.com
I find the inclusion of Hong Kong and Singapore interesting... the first was actually a colony for most of this time, after all. Both are small, with minimal defence spending, but they have radically different state welfare spending and social atmospheres. Possibly there's a relic of 'Anglo' bias in the report?
And I wouldn't have said that Germany, for example, was known for a small government sector... or indeed Britain.
Still, I might quibble with the particular countries chosen in particular places, but not with the general ranking or the trend indicated.
So, is freer trade and a better business environment the cause, or the effect/result, of better social/economic conditions...?
Comments?
<btw, no comment on what Panama traded most freely during the 1980's...> |
