If we want to avoid the kind of Greek-style fiscal collapse implied by this BIS and OECD data, we need some external force to limit the tendency of politicians to over-tax and over-spend.
That’s why I’m a big advocate of tax competition, fiscal sovereignty, and financial privacy (read Pierre Bessard and Allister Heath to understand why these issues are critical).
Simply stated, I want people to have the freedom to benefit from better tax policy in other jurisdictions, especially since that penalizes governments that get too greedy.
I’m currently surrounded by hundreds of people who share my views since I’m in Prague at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society. And I’m particularly happy since Professor Lars Feld of the University of Freiburg presented a paper yesterday on “Redistribution through public budgets: Who pays, who receives, and what effects do political institutions have?”.
His research produced all sorts of interesting results, but I was drawn to his estimates on how tax competition and fiscal decentralization are an effective means of restraining bad fiscal policy.
Here are some findings from the study, which was co-authored with Jan Schnellenbach of the University of Heidelberg.
In line with the previous subsections, we find that countries with a higher GDP per employee, i.e. a higher overall labor productivity, have a more unequal primary income distribution. …fiscal competition within a country or trade openness as an indicator of globalization do not exacerbate, but reduce the gap between income classes. …expenditure and revenue decentralization restrict the government’s ability to redistribute income when fiscal decentralization also involves fiscal competition. …fiscal decentralization, when accompanied by high fiscal autonomy, involves significantly less fiscal redistribution. Please also note that fiscal competition induces a more equal distribution of primary income and, even though the distribution of disposable income is more unequal, it is open how the effect of fiscal competition on income distribution should be evaluated. Because measures of income redistribution usu-ally have adverse incentive effects which consequently affect economic growth negatively, fiscal competition might be favorable for countries which have strong egalitarian preferences. A rising tide lifts all boats and might in the long-run outperform countries with more moderate income redistribution even in distributional terms.
The paper includes a bunch of empirical results that are too arcane to reproduce here, but they basically show that the welfare state is difficult to maintain if taxpayers have the ability to vote with their feet.
Or perhaps the better way to interpret the data is that fiscal competition makes it difficult for governments to expand the welfare state to dangerous levels. In other words, it is a way of protecting governments from the worst impulses of their politicians.
I can’t resist sharing one additional bit of information from the Feld-Schnellenbach paper. They compare redistribution in several nations. As you can see in the table reproduced below, the United States and Switzerland benefit from having the lowest levels of overall redistribution (circled in red).
It’s no coincidence that the U.S. and Switzerland are also the two nations with the most decentralization (some argue that Canada may be more decentralized that the U.S., but Canada also scores very well in this measure, so the point is strong regardless).
Interestingly, Switzerland definitely has significantly more genuine federalism than any other nation, so you won’t be surprised to see that Switzerland is far and away the nation with the lowest level of tax redistribution (circled in blue).
One clear example of Switzerland’s sensible approach is that voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2010 referendum that would have imposed a minimum federal tax rate of 22 percent on incomes above 250,000 Swiss Francs (about $262,000 U.S. dollars). And the Swiss also have a spending cap that has reduced the burden of government spending while most other nations have moved in the wrong direction.
While there are some things about Switzerland I don’t like, its political institutions are a good role model. And since good institutions promote good policy (one of the hypotheses in the Feld-Schnellenbach paper) and good policy leads to more prosperity, you won’t be surprised to learn that Swiss living standards now exceed those in the United States. And they’re the highest-ranked nation in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
[…] For more data on the benefits of decentralization, click here, here, here, and […]
[…] This means jurisdictional competition, which has played a big role in curtailing bad policy. […]
[…] This means jurisdictional competition, which has played a big role in curtailing bad policy. […]
[…] I cited some academic research back in 2012 which showed that there as less economy-weakening redistribution in nations with genuine federalism […]
[…] most libertarians, I support decentralization and federalism. Under the right circumstances, I’m even sympathetic to the idea of secession […]
[…] Because there’s strong evidence that decentralization produces better outcomes, I’m even willing to accept bad examples of […]
[…] And folks on the left favor tax and spending harmonization precisely because they know that federalism and decentralization will lead to a smaller welfare state. […]
[…] is somewhat limited in size and scope. That’s even more true in Switzerland (where we see the best results), and somewhat true about the United […]
[…] governments will be more responsible if they raise and spend their own […]
[…] Switzerland to be a very interesting case study, for reasons noted above and also on issues such as decentralization, privacy rights, gun rights, and private retirement savings. But I’m a policy wonk, so […]
[…] but not least, I’m a giant fan of decentralization and a partial fan of secession (done properly and for good reasons), but you don’t […]
[…] It has comparatively modest tax rates and a relatively low level of redistribution. […]
[…] already pointed out that the level of redistribution in Switzerland is relatively low because of its decentralized […]
[…] already pointed out that the level of redistribution in Switzerland is relatively low because of its decentralized […]
[…] This makes sense, and it echoes the findings of a study I wrote about in 2012 by some German economists. Simply stated, you get better policy when governments […]
[…] makes sense, and it echoes the findings of a study I wrote about in 2012 by some German […]
[…] A study from German economists finds that decentralization limits economically harmful redistribution […]
[…] once welfare is truly a responsibility of state and local governments, we havegood evidence that this will lead to better […]
[…] once welfare is truly a responsibility of state and local governments, we have good evidence that this will lead to better […]
[…] still maintains real federalism, and government is constrained when it takes place at the canton and municipal […]
[…] Heck, the evidence is very strong that decentralized fiscal systems lead to much better outcomes. […]
[…] has convinced me that I was wrong when I wrote a few years ago that there were five reasons (government-constraining federalism, pro-gun culture, etc) to put Switzerland above the United […]
[…] remember that there’s academic evidence showing that decentralization limits […]
[…] what it’s worth (and based on previous academic research), I agree that decentralization makes it harder for government to be […]
[…] tax competition, and when governments are forced to compete for jobs and investment, the economy is less likely to be burdened with high tax rates and excessive […]
[…] Finance Minister recognizes jurisdictional competition as a check on the welfare state (something confirmed by a study from German economists) and because Denmark is ruled by Social […]
[…] we want to maintain American exceptionalism (both in theory and reality), it would be a very good idea to figure out how to avoid having more people trapped in lives of […]
[…] we want to maintain American exceptionalism (both in theory and reality), it would be a very good idea to figure out how to avoid having more people trapped in lives of […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/study-from-german-economists-shows-that-tax-competit…Related posts:Google $22.5 Million FTC Fine Has No TeethSanctions Will Kill Tens of Thousands of IraniansGlenn Greenwald: The Right's brittle heroesFederal Reserve Economists Warn About Municipal Bond MarketMeles Zenawi: The Ethiopian Marriage of Marxism-Leninism and CapitalismDoug Casey on Syria and the Global RoboCopLance Armstrong and Kim Dotcom … Guilty Until Proven Innocent?THIS. IS. HYDRA!US Elections: Far Worse Than IranAt last, Japan may be about to abandon its disastrous Keynesian consensusQE3: A Risky Ploy to Solve the Problems of Bad Fiscal Policy with Bad Monetary PolicyThe Fed Has Failed, Failed, FailedDetlev Schlichter: Stimulus, to infinity and beyondBig Brother’s Digital House of MirrorsSenkaku: The Islands That Launched a Thousand Ships This entry was posted in News Commentary and tagged Economics, Europe, Laboratories Of Democracy, Welfare-Warfare State by admin. Bookmark the permalink. […]
[…] we want to maintain American exceptionalism (both in theory and reality), it would be a very good idea to figure out how to avoid having more people trapped in lives of […]
So why do we have to learn this lesson over and over again? Let the worker keep the fruits of his labor and get abundance, put state sanctioned theft in place get poverty. I get it. Can we please stop doing this now?