Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:05:19.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hayekian welfare states: explaining the coexistence of economic freedom and big government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2019

Andreas Bergh Open the ORCID record for Andreas Bergh [Opens in a new window]
Andreas Bergh*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden and Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To explain the coexistence of economic freedom and big government, this paper distinguishes between big government in the fiscal sense of requiring high taxes, and big government in the Hayekian sense of requiring knowledge that is difficult to acquire from a central authority. The indicators of government size in measures of economic freedom capture the fiscal size but ignore the Hayekian knowledge problem. Thinking about government size in both the fiscal and Hayekian dimensions suggests the possibility of Hayekian welfare states where trust and state capacity facilitate experimentation and learning, resulting in a public sector that is big in a fiscal sense but not necessarily more vulnerable to the Hayekian knowledge problem. Pensions in Sweden are used as a case to illustrate the empirical relevance of the argument. The new pension system represents big government in a fiscal sense, but by relying on decentralized choice it requires relatively little central knowledge.

Keywords

Welfare stateHayekeconomic freedomeconomic reformsstate capacity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and Robinson, J. A. (2005), ‘Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-run Growth’, in Durlauf, S. N. (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Vol. 1A), Elsevier, pp. 385–472.Google Scholar
Anton, T. J. (1969), ‘Policy-making and Political Culture in Sweden’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 4(A4): 88–102.Google Scholar
Bambra, C. (2007), ‘Defamilisation and Welfare State Regimes: A Cluster Analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4): 326–38.Google Scholar
Barr, N. (1992), ‘Economic Theory and the Welfare State: A Survey and Interpretation’, Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2): 741–803.Google Scholar
Barr, N. (1998), The Economics of the Welfare State, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Berggren, N. 2003. ‘The Benefits of Economic Freedom: A Survey’, Independent Review, 8(2): 193–211.Google Scholar
Berggren, N. and Jordahl, H. (2005), ‘Does Free Trade Really Reduce Growth? Further Testing Using the Economic Freedom Index’, Public Choice, 122(1): 99–114.Google Scholar
Berggren, N., Daunfeldt, S. O. and Hellström, J. (2016), ‘Does Social Trust Speed Up Reforms? The Case of Central-Bank Independence’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(2): 395–415.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. (2004), ‘The Universal Welfare State: Theory and the Case of Sweden’, Political Studies, 52(4): 745–66.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. (2006), Explaining Welfare State Survival: The Role of Economic Freedom and Globalization, Ratio Institute Working Paper No. 101, Stockholm, Sweden: Ratio Institute.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. (2014), Sweden and the Revival of the Capitalist Welfare State, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. (2015). ‘Yes, There Are Hayekian Welfare States (At Least in Theory)’, Econ Journal Watch, 12(1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. and Bjørnskov, C. (2011), ‘Historical Trust Levels Predict Current Welfare State Design’, Kyklos, 64(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. and Erlingsson, G. Ó. (2009), ‘Liberalization without Retrenchment: Understanding the Consensus on Swedish Welfare State Reforms’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(1): 71–94.Google Scholar
Bergh, A. and Henrekson, M. (2011), ‘Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the evidEnce’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(5): 872–897.Google Scholar
Bjørnskov, C. (2010), ‘How Does Social Trust lead to Better Governance? An Attempt to Separate Electoral and Bureaucratic Mechanisms’, Public Choice, 144(1–2), 323–346.Google Scholar
Breyer, F. and Craig, B. (1997), ‘Voting on Social Security: Evidence from OECD Countries’, European Journal of Political Economy, 13(4): 705–724.Google Scholar
Browning, E. K. (1975), ‘Why the Social Insurance Budget is Too Large in a Democracy’, Economic Inquiry, 13(3): 373–388.Google Scholar
Casamatta, G., Cremer, H. and Pestieau, P. (2000), ‘Political Sustainability and the Design of Social Insurance’, Journal of Public Economics, 75(3): 341–364.Google Scholar
Darby, J. and Melitz, J. (2008), ‘Social Spending and Automatic Stabilizers in the OECD’, Economic Policy, 23(56): 715–756.Google Scholar
Departementserien (2011), Efter 65 – Inte Bara Pension, DS 2011:42, Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
Devarajan, S., Swaroop, V. and Zou, H. (1993), What Do Governments Buy? CEMA Working Paper No. 513, Beijing, China: China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.Google Scholar
Durevall, D. and Henrekson, M. (2011), ‘The Futile Quest for a Grand Explanation of Long-Run Government Expenditure’, Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8): 708–722.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, A., Stephan, A., Hallman, A. and Karlsson, N. (2016), ‘The “Sugar Rush” from Innovation Subsidies: A Robust Political Economy Perspective’, Empirica, 43(4): 729–756.Google Scholar
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R. and Hall, J. C. (2015), 2015 Economic Freedom Dataset, published in Economic Freedom of the World: 2015 Annual Report, Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C. and Lawson, R. A. (2014), ‘Economic Freedom of the World: An Accounting of the Literature’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 32(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945), ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, American Economic Review, 35(4): 519–530.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1976), Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy, Volume II: The Mirage of Social Justice, London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henrekson, M. (1996), ‘Sweden's Relative Economic Performance: Lagging Behind or Staying on Top?’ Economic Journal, 106(439): 1747–1759.Google Scholar
Horpedahl, J. (2013), Does Size Matter? Economic Freedom, Size of Government, and the Wealth of Nations, paper presented at the American Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Huskinson, T. and Lawson, R. (2014), ‘Clusters of Economic Freedom’, Applied Economics Letters, 21(15): 1070–1074.Google Scholar
Jonung, L. (1999), Med backspegeln som kompass: En ESO-rapport om stabiliseringspolitik som läroprocess [Using the rear view mirror as a compass] (ESO Report 1999:9), Stockholm, Sweden: Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi (ESO), available at https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/ds-19999-med-backspegeln-som-kompass-en-eso-rapport-om-stabiliseringspolitik-som-laroprocess/ (accessed 12 August 2019).Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P J. (1985), Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Komlos, J. (2017), ‘Another Road to Serfdom’, Challenge, 59(6): 491–518.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J.. (1998), ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries’, American Sociological Review, 63(5): 661–687.Google Scholar
Lakey, G. (2016) ‘Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right – and How We Can, Too’, Brooklyn: Melville House Publishing.Google Scholar
Leschke, M. (2000), ‘Constitutional Choice and Prosperity: A Factor Analysis’, Constitutional Political Economy, 11(3): 265–279.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. A. (2016), Purposeful Behaviour, Expectations, and the Mirage of Social Justice: The Influence of Cybernetics on the Thought of F. A. Hayek, prepared for the History of Economics Society Meeting, Durham NC.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A. (1997), ‘The Swedish Experiment’, Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3), 1273–1319.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A. and Persson, M. (2003), ‘The Gains from Pension Reform’, Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1): 74–112.Google Scholar
Lindert, P. H. (2004), Growing Public, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (2003), Public Choice III, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myrdal, G. (1960), Beyond the Welfare State, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, K., Stolle, D. and Zmerli, S. (2017), ‘Social and Political Trust’, Chapter 3 in Uslaner, E. M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ott, J. (2018), ‘Measuring Economic Freedom: Better without Size of Government’, Social Indicators Research, 135(2): 479–498.Google Scholar
Rode, M. and Coll, S. (2012), ‘Economic Freedom and Growth. Which Policies Matter the Most?’ Constitutional Political Economy, 23(2): 95–133.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (1998), ‘Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?’ Journal of Political Economy, 106(5): 997–1032.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A. and Trebbi, F. (2004), ‘Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development’, World Development, 9(2): 131–165.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. A. and Allan, J. P. (2008), ‘Social Stratification and Welfare Regimes for the Twenty-First Century: Revisiting the Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’, World Politics, 60(4): 642–64.Google Scholar
Selén, J. and Ståhlberg, A. C. (2007), ‘Why Sweden's Pension Reform was Able to be Successfully Implemented’, European Journal of Political Economy, 23(4), 1175–1184.Google Scholar
Sjoblom, K. (1985), ‘Voting for Social Security’, Public Choice, 5(3): 225–240.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (1990), ‘Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research’, in Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (eds), Bringing the State Back In, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Solt, F. (2008), ‘Standardizing the World Income Inequality Database’, Social Science Quarterly, 90(2): 231–42.Google Scholar
Stein, P. (1991), Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-state sclerosis (Cato Policy Analysis No. 160), Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. J. (1971), ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (1967), ‘The Welfare Costs of Monopolies, Tariffs, and Theft’, Western Economic Journal, 5(3): 224–232.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. (1893), Grundlegung der politischen Ökonomie (3rd edn), Leipzig.Google Scholar