There is a huge debate in politics, and in economics, about the role of government in society. How far should the government go to ensure the rights of individuals?
In economic models, we sometimes use the notion of a 'benevolent dictator' or a 'social planner' to show how centralized planning can, sometimes, bring about the best outcome. However, at times, we also believe that the government can bring in unnecessary complications in the lives of people. The other case is ensuring that the role of the government is as limited as possible, or none at all.
Government is important in the proper functioning in society. It helps to uphold the rule of law, and enforce property rights. There is a large literature in economics that shows the relationship between strong institutions and economic growth. Private individuals may have motives that may not be conducive to others in society. For example, stealing from others can enrich the thief, at the expense of those whose items have been stolen. The roles of government here are (i) to ensure that resources owned by individuals are protected from theft and malicious damage, and (ii) if they are damaged or stolen, the government can prosecute the culprits, after all the evidence has been placed. These protections encourage individuals to accumulate wealth and enrich society as a whole. Even the staunchest libertarians (those how believe that the role of government should be as limited as possible), even believe that governments should exist to ensure property rights and enforce institutions.
The other important role of government is to provide some degree of social safety nets to the citizens. It could be in the form of subsidized education, relief for those in poverty, government support to the elderly, subsidized healthcare, and so on. It is this role of government that creates wide contention among people. Of course, certain actions of the government are justifiable, like the ban on cocaine, because even though the individual may think they have a right to the drug, it creates a whole lot of social problems that can negatively affect society. However, others, like providing free/subsidized healthcare, or assistance to those in poverty are highly contentious. The major reason behind this is that it makes the government too big and cumbersome, establishes too much red tape, and increases taxes on citizens.
Is there an optimal size of the government? There may not be a definite answer for that, and the answer depends upon what the people wants. If the people wants a society that provides free healthcare and education for its citizens, they will come up with ways to ensure that. If the people wants a laissez faire government, they will want the government to act accordingly. The size and role of the government therefore, is probably not dictated by economics, but by what the people mandates it to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment