Editor's choice

Excerpts from essays, blogs and other good stuff

This summer, on the 96th anniversary of his birth, organizations around the nation commemorated Nobel laureate Milton Friedman for his contributions to the field of economics and to the general public's understanding of markets. I recently spoke about Friedman's role at a meeting in Raleigh sponsored by the John Locke Foundation.

Friedman changed public perceptions through a number of key publications co-written with his wife Rose, also an economist. Their 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" remains important to this day in showing that, despite imperfections, markets usually outperform government agencies when given a chance.

The Friedmans' next big project for the general public was a 1980 book, "Free to Choose," along with a PBS-TV series of the same name. Together, these projects helped spur policy changes that harnessed the power of market forces. Roger Douglas in New Zealand, Margaret Thatcher in England, and Ronald Reagan in the United States all reduced the role of government, and prosperity blossomed as a result.

Why has moving economies away from heavy governmental control toward a more market-intensive mode led them to perform better? A final project led by Milton Friedman and orchestrated by the Fraser Institute in Canada, helps explain why.

The Economic Freedom of the World Index project (www.freetheworld.com) provides annually updated evidence on the level of government control -- and thus the degree of economic freedom, or reliance on markets, for most nations. Research based on this index reveals that countries with more economic freedom have better health and cleaner environments as well as higher incomes and faster growth.

Based on my reading of those studies, plus my years as an economist and in government service at the U.S. Department of the Interior, I offer some reasons why more freedom is better (and too much government control is worse):

* Government decision-makers are smart, hard- working, and focused on the specific tasks they are assigned. But this poses a problem -- what Justice Stephen Breyer calls "tunnel vision."

* They are so focused that they will push for their goals even if they conflict with other, more important goals.

* Voters, who elect the policymakers, know little about most government programs. But organized special interest groups have a strong incentive to be informed and politically active; they often pull the strings.

* Competing for votes, politicians appeal to voters with generalities while gaining donations and endorsements from the special interests.

The result is government agencies pursuing worthwhile goals but unable to reflect the true public interest.

Markets have systematically different mechanisms for connecting decision-making with results. Overall, as indicated by the increases in prosperity in market-oriented countries, they are more effective -- as Milton Friedman taught us.

(Richard L. Stroup, an adjunct professor of economics at N.C. State University, is an authority on environmental and natural resource economics.; Why markets outperform government)