There are two important theories that explain
government size and its consequences. Essentially, one theory explains that the negative consequences of larger governments
is that larger governments are plagued with bureaucratic inefficiency and special-interest-group
interest, while the other theory explains that positive consequences of larger
governments are the better providers of public goods and better correct externalities
such as pollution.
Thus, to determine if larger governments are better than
smaller ones it would be quite useful to first determine if larger governments
are better providers of public goods. That determination can be made using
several methods where one of the best ways would be to examine environmental
quality for air pollution for different sizes of government, but there are many
factors to be accounted in that to ensure control variables do not affect the
results. However, I found many sources on the internet describing much research
that shows that there is a negative relationship between government size and
the quality of a public good such as environmental quality by examining air
pollution. This is a powerful finding that seems to indicate that the second
theory that larger governments are better providers of public goods is false.
This leads to the question of why governments are so large
in the first place? Well, the reading seems to partially answer that question
to me, but I still have a hard time believing that it is fully correct, and I
will not discuss the reasoning behind that since it involves my personal
beliefs. Also, I may be just be overly skeptical since much political science
is involved. However, the research showing the negative relationship shows that
there is uncertainty in many fundamental ideas in political economics and
political science, so when it comes to public choice it can be very difficult
for me to understand the effectiveness of using of economic tools to deal with
traditional problems of political science.
No comments:
Post a Comment