【美国人 20140114】好政府，坏政府

满仓

【中文标题】好政府，坏政府
【原文标题】The Recipe for Good Government
【登载媒体】美国人
【原文作者】Arnold Kling
【原文链接】http://www.american.com/archive/2014/january/the-recipe-for-good-government


如果我们把全世界的国家做一个比较，好的政府都具备哪些特点？不好的政府又具备哪些特点呢？



最近，一些名人纷纷抱怨美国政府糟糕的运作能力。斯蒂文•特里斯称其为“勉强凑合体制”，法兰西斯•福山说它是“腐败的美国政治机构”。奥巴马总统在一次采访中说：“我们要运作一个庞大的机构，其中有些已经过时，有些设计不合理。”

有什么解决方法呢？重组一些行政分支机构或许有一些帮助，还有一些人建议进行财政改革、减少恶意划分选区，或者采用议会制度取代三权分立的政府。然而，这些方案都没有令人信服的效果。

除了从理论上制定政府的改革计划，我建议看一看实践中的效果。如果我们把全世界的国家做一个比较，好的政府都具备哪些特点？不好的政府又具备哪些特点呢？

首先一个因素是国家的人口规模，这是一个重大的负面因素，人口大国不如小国好治理。

我用弗雷泽研究所的世界经济自由度指数来量化政府的管理水平。其2013年的指数从排名第一的香港（8.97）到排名最后的委内瑞拉（3.93），共有152个国家在列。

当然还有经济自由之外的其它一些因素构成了一个好的政府，例如人权、政治自由和低腐败率。主张改革的人一般会推崇那些有强大福利制度的国家。弗雷泽研究所的排名显示了经济自由度和其它因素间密切的关系，例如，排名靠前的几个国家大都具备强大的社会福利体制。

世界上有118个国家的人口超过500万，但有17个国家没有包括在弗雷泽研究所的排名中（被排除的国家大多处于战事中，比如叙利亚）。考虑到国家人口规模不一，我把这些国家分为5个组，每一组人口规模相近。

人口数量在500万和900万之间的23个国家是：


下面来看看人口数量超过7600万的18个国家：


这些国家的经济自由指数中位值只有6.44，而上面小国的中位值是7.62。只有三个大国排名进入前39位，有五个大国排名进入倒数36位。

在人口大国中，美国政府管理得最好，只有德国和日本与它比较相近，而这两个国家的人口都不到美国人口的一半。或许我们可以说，我们的政府比它看起来还是好一些。

下面是对人口超过500万的国家弗雷泽指数的分类，我把这些国家按照弗雷泽指数分为数量大致相同的4类。



总体来看，有43%的小国位列高经济自由度的行列，只有20%的中等规模国家进入这个行列，而只有17%的大国属于高经济自由度的国家。

当我看到这些数据的时候，它们似乎给华盛顿和布鲁塞尔提供了一些建议。欧盟和美国的中央政府囿于人口的规模，其成功面临一些结构性的困境。人口数量处于500万到900万之间的国家似乎更能产生一个好的政府。

如果说最理想的人口数量是500万到900万，那么美国和欧洲都属于“大而不治”的范畴。实际上，即使让美国和欧洲解体，欧洲的很多国家和美国几个大州也都超过了900万人口。

联邦制度的很多支持者的理论是基于所谓的宪法初衷。而我的观点是，联邦制也可能来源于经验主义。好政府的政策在人口数量500万到900万之家的国家，相比于人口数量更多的司法区域中，更容易被接受。

这样的分析表明，社会福利工作应当由州，而不是由联邦政府来负责。我们能不能把信用基金、税收机构和社会福利工作都交给州政府？如果瑞典、新加坡、瑞士和丹麦都可以提供包括医疗在内的社会福利网络，那么佛蒙特州和阿肯色州应该也可以。唯一面临的条件就是如何让联邦政府交出权力。



原文：

If we compare countries around the world, what factors are generally associated with good governance and what factors are associated with bad governance?

Recently, some prominent individuals have complained about the poor functioning of the U.S. government. Steven M. Teles called it a “kludgeocracy.” Francis Fukuyama called it the “Decay of American Political Institutions.” In an interview, President Obama noted that “we have these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly.”

What is the solution? Reorganization of the executive branch might help. Others have proposed campaign finance reform, less gerrymandering of congressional districts, or adopting a parliamentary system as an alternative to divided government. However, none of these offers a proven remedy.

Rather than look at government reform in terms of theory, I propose that we look at what works in practice. If we compare countries around the world, what factors are generally associated with good governance and what factors are associated with bad governance?

It turns out that a country's size, in terms of population, is an important negative factor. Large countries are less likely to be well-governed than are small countries.

For a quantitative measure of the quality of government, I used the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World Index. The 2013 values of the index ranged from a high of 8.97 for number-one-ranked Hong Kong to 3.93 for Venezuela, country number 152 on the list.

Certainly there are factors other than economic freedom that constitute good government. Human rights, political freedom, and minimal corruption should also count. Progressives would admire countries that have robust welfare states. The Fraser Institute rankings show a high correlation between economic freedom and these other factors. For example, many of the countries near the top of the list are known for their strong social insurance systems.

There are 118 countries with a population of at least 5 million, but 17 are not included in the Fraser Institute rankings.1 That leaves 101 countries. Consider the smallest of these countries and the largest. I broke these into five groups of countries, choosing break points that would put close to 20 countries in each group.

The 23 countries with population between 5 million and 9 million are:

Next, look at all 18 countries with populations of 76 million or more:

The median Economic Freedom Index among these countries is just 6.44, compared to 7.26 for the small countries mentioned above. Just three of the largest countries are in the top 39 freest states and five are in the bottom 36.

Relative to this peer group of high-population countries, the United States is the best governed, with only Germany and Japan coming close – and both of them have less than half of the U.S. population. Perhaps we should be grateful that our government is not worse than it is.

Here is a breakdown of all 101 countries in the Fraser index with a population of at least 5 million. I broke the countries into four approximately equal-sized groups according to the Fraser index.

Overall, 43 percent of the small nations are in the highest group for economic freedom. Only 20 percent of the middle-sized nations are in that group. And just 17 percent of large nations have high levels of economic freedom.

As I read these data, they offer a lesson for Washington and Brussels. Centralized government for the European Union or the United States faces a structural impediment to success due to their large populations. A population size between 5 million and 9 million seems to be most conducive to good government.

If the optimum population is somewhere between 5 million and 9 million people, then the United States and Europe are “too big to govern.” In fact, even if the United States and the European Union were broken up, many of the countries within Europe and several of the largest states in the United States would be above the 9 million threshold in population.

There are many proponents of federalism who base their arguments on theory or on what they regard as the original intent of the Constitution. My point here is that the case for federalism can also be made empirically. Good government is going to be more prevalent in polities with populations between 5 million and 9 million than in much larger jurisdictions.

This suggests that welfare-state responsibilities should be handled at the state level, not the federal level. Could we turn back to the states the trust funds, taxing authority, and responsibility for social welfare? If Sweden, Singapore, Switzerland, and Denmark can provide for health coverage and other elements of a social safety net, then so can Vermont or Arkansas. The challenge is to get the national government out of the way.

tju_jujt

唐朝的政府好像效率很高

paoding

有数据，有分析，貌似很有科学范儿的样子，

好吧，那就有请美利奸率先垂范以成为真正的“人类的希望”吧，那样都不用到别家去鼓捣啥乌克兰车臣藏疆独之类来兜售民主啥的了，如此，俺希望有生之年看到北美出现五十个以上的成功国家，届时，世界定然群起效仿的、、、

xrlmd

香港算什么国家？！