I wrote just yesterday about new evidence showing that decentralized government is more efficient.
Part of the reason is because local governments are easier for voters to monitor and more likely to reflect the actual preferences of residents.
Another reason is tax competition. It’s relatively easy to “vote with your feet” by moving from one community to another, and this makes it difficult for interest groups and politicians to impose excessive tax burdens.
Now we have some serendipity.
I’m in Gdansk, Poland, for a Liberty Fund seminar on “Economic Growth, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of the Welfare State.”
Two of the readings, by great scholars from the Austrian school of economics, had passages about the importance of decentralization.
In 1960, here’s some of what Friedrich Hayek wrote in his classic, The Constitution of Liberty.
While it has always been characteristic of those favoring an increase in governmental powers to support maximum concentration of these powers, those mainly concerned with individual liberty have generally advocated decentralization. There are strong reasons why action by local authorities offers the next-best solution…it has many of the advantages of private enterprise and fewer of the dangers of coercive action by government. Competition between local authorities or between larger units within an area where there is freedom of movement…will secure most of the advantages of free growth. Though the majority of individuals may never contemplate a change of residence, there will usually be enough people, especially among the young and more enterprising, to make it necessary for the local authorities to provide as good services at a reasonable costs as their competitors. It is usually the authoritarian planner who…supports the centralist tendencies.
I should have remembered that quote from my collection of pro-tax competition statements by Nobel laureates.
In any event, I’m glad my memory was refreshed.
And here’s some of what Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1944 book, Omnipotent Government. He approached the issue from the opposite direction, explaining that proponents of redistribution needed centralization so their intended victims couldn’t escape by moving across city borders.
Every step toward more government interference and toward more planning means at the same time an expansion of the jurisdiction of the central government. …It is a very significant fact that the adversaries of this trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against Washington…against centralization. …This evolution is not accidental. It is the inevitable outcome of policies of interference and planning. …There can be no question of adopting these measure for only one state. It is impossible to raise production costs within a territory not sheltered by trade walls.
And remember that there’s academic evidence showing that decentralization limits redistribution.
So the statists were smart to oppose welfare reform, since that meant decentralization and less wasteful and counterproductive spending.
Just as the statists are smart to push for a nationwide sales tax cartel. And just as the statists are wise to push for an end to international tax competition.
All of which means, of course, that the rest of us (at least those of us who value liberty) should follow the wisdom of Hayek and Mises.
P.S. Hayek even has groupies.
P.P.S. And Hayek even came back to life for Part I and Part II of the Hayek v Keynes rap videos.
[…] P.P.S. Leading scholars from the Austrian school of economics wrote in favor of decentralization. […]
[…] P.P.S. Leading scholars from the Austrian school of economics wrote in favor of decentralization. […]
[…] FEDERALISM!!!P.P.P.S. To see what Hayek and Mises wrote about federalism, click here. […]
[…] P.P.P.S. To see what Hayek and Mises wrote about federalism, click here. […]
[…] (as we’re seeing in poorly governed jurisdictions such as New York and California), but a big advantage of federalism is that residents might learn from the superior performance of other states that they need […]
[…] And here’s what scholars from the Austrian school of economics wrote about […]
[…] Here’s what scholars from the Austrian School have said about […]
[…] también se equivoca porque, como explicaron los académicos de la Escuela de Economía de Austria, es mucho más probable que obtengamos […]
[…] he’s also wrong because – as explained by scholars from the Austrian School of Economics – we’re far more likely to get better […]
[…] Competition among local jurisdictions will encourage better public policy. […]
[…] This is why scholars from the Austrian School oppose centralization. […]
[…] P.S. Since we’re looking at tax competition, Europe, and bandits, keep in mind there’s considerable academic work showing that Europe became a rich continent precisely because there were many small nations that competed with each other. Those jurisdictions felt pressure to adopt good policy because the various leaders wanted lots of economic activity to tax. All of which helps to explain why modern statists are so hostile to decentralization and federalism. […]
[…] P.S. Since we’re looking at tax competition, Europe, and bandits, keep in mind there’s considerable academic work showing that Europe became a rich continent precisely because there were many small nations that competed with each other. Those jurisdictions felt pressure to adopt good policy because the various leaders wanted lots of economic activity to tax. All of which helps to explain why modern statists are so hostile to decentralization and federalism. […]
[…] this is why I like federalism. States can innovate and experiment, constrained by the fact that really crazy policies will […]
[…] agree with the scholars from the Austrian School that decentralization is the right approach. We already did that for basic welfare payments during […]
[…] is desirable because it facilitates and enables competition among jurisdictions. And that limits the power of governments to impose bad […]
[…] response: Bingo!! This is far and away the right answer and it’s got plenty of intellectual firepower behind […]
[…] the past week, I’ve written two columns (here and here) extolling the benefits of […]
Reblogged this on Dayo Adewoye.
Zorba has consistently preached his gospel for years and he is inevitably right. In a way, I hope I don’t live long enough to see it, but I’m afraid my daughters will. When it implodes, we will see what no one believes is possible – another Great Depression, perhaps even worse than the first one.
[…] Insight from Austrian School Scholars on Federalism […]
The distortion, inefficiency and, of course, the mother of all future misery, the slow growth that is brought upon by centralization can only last that long.
Eventually, as distortion intensifies, the benefits of breaking away from the cartel outweigh the risks and consequences of vindictive retributions. Once that point is reached, the coercive, low growth cartels implode – with much pain both during the slow growth phase and then, even more through the implosion phase. Implosion Soviet style, or European style, as the old continent seems to be next in line for disintegration as slower growth keeps compounding the standard of living of its citizens down the world prosperity rankings. Decline brings discord. For now, the power of the cartels seems to still be on the ascent. The distortion is still building and the cartels are still successful in strong arming an ever larger number of freer states. But it will all eventually implode and the more the distortion builds, the more violent the implosion and readjustment will be.
As a matter of fact with America’s now structurally sub par growth trend line (about half world average) firmly entrenched (the few inevitable quarters of higher growth have minimal impact on the trend line) America’s longer term future is also one of disintegration. Decline will inevitably bring discord. But my guess is that we will first see Europe go through that …thankfully in more than one ways.
[…] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]