What is the price of civilization?

According to Jeffrey Sachs, in his new book ‘The Price of Civilization’, the United States needs an increase in tax revenue equal to about 6 percent of GDP in order to balance the budget and ‘pay for civilization’. He arrives at this figure after making allowance for some cuts in government spending and increases in spending of about the same magnitude in areas such as education, training, childcare, infrastructure modernization and foreign aid.

Jeff Sachs asks himself a ‘crucial question’: ‘how do Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and other countries manage to educate their young, fight poverty, modernize their infrastructure, enjoy life expectancy well above America’s, and still maintain a budget that is more in balance than America’s?’ He concludes: ‘The answer, of course, is that the other countries tax their citizens more heavily in order to supply more public goods, including in the case of the Scandinavia, universal access to health care, higher education, and child care and support for families with young children’.

Jeff’s revenue-raising proposals would increase America’s tax revenue as a share of GDP to a magnitude similar to that of Canada, New Zealand and Britain. He points out that America’s tax revenue as a share of GDP is currently current second-lowest among the high-income jurisdictions considered, ‘just slightly larger than Australia’. (The comparison doesn’t include Singapore or Hong Kong.)

I was surprised to see that America now has a bigger government than Australia. This must have something to do with the relatively poor economic performance of the US over the last couple of years. It certainly can’t be attributed to any recent cuts in government spending in Australia.

But let us not get side-tracked by the trivia of short-term movements in GDP. There is a fairly clear implication in what Jeff has written that he thinks Australia must be uncivilized because tax revenues as a share of GDP are relatively low in this country.

Australians are so used to being told that they are uncivilized that they rarely take offence. But it is surprising to see this implied in the writings of an American. We tend to associate the view that Australians are uncivilized with chinless members of the English aristocracy, rather than people who espouse democratic principles.

Nevertheless, I think Jeff may have a point. I don’t want to undermine the efforts of Australia’s foreign minister to portray us as civilized people, but it is a difficult case to make. Australians generally make little effort to even appear to be civilized. Most of us require very little lubrication before singing our national song, which is a eulogy to a hobo who steals sheep. With very little more lubrication many of us can be encouraged to sing an advertising jingle we learnt as children, that identifies us ‘as happy little Vegemites, as bright as bright can be’. In this instance it may be equally true that ‘what we identify with establishes our identity’ and that ‘we are what we eat’!

More seriously, perhaps, it is difficult to argue that social outcomes in Australia are up to the standards that might be expected of a civilized country. Australia’s rating according the UN’s human development index (HDI) is only 0.937, just 6 percent higher than that for Sweden. When inequality is taken into account, our performance is even worse – a rating of 0.864, just 5 percent ahead of that for Sweden. Average life expectancy at birth in Australia is only 81.9 years, just a few months ahead of Sweden. Australians only spend about 12 years at school on average, again only a few months more than Swedes. In the few years Australians do spend at school, they don’t actually learn much. Not only are our PISA scores well below those in Shanghai and Korea, they are only slightly higher than those for Sweden.

I hope that anyone from Sweden reading this has a sense of humour. My real point is not that Sweden is uncivilized – just that it is not high levels of taxation that make Sweden a civilized country. Those who argue that Sweden is civilized because it has a big government should consider how they would respond to the view that Sweden is civilized country because it generally adopts market-friendly policies. According to the Heritage Foundation’s measures of economic freedom, Sweden’s policies are more market-friendly than those in the United States in relation to business, trade, investment, finance, monetary policy and corruption - just about all aspects of policy other than size of government and the labour market.

The general point I have been trying to make (in case anyone has missed it) is that it doesn’t make much sense to equate civilization with the size of government. Social outcomes in high-income countries with big governments tend to be fairly similar to those of high-income countries with smaller governments. It is possible to provide a decent social safety net, without huge levels of taxation if benefits are means tested. I have provided some references to research on this topic in a paper I wrote last year for New Zealand’s 2025 taskforce (‘How much does size of government matter for economic growth?’, 2010, p11).

I started off to review ‘The Price of Civilization’, but I haven’t progressed very far. The recommendation for higher taxes is probably the most important recommendation in the book – and it is the issue raised in the title – but that is only part of what the book is about. In particular, the book contains an interesting discussion about what is wrong with American politics, which I will consider in a later post.

Are freedom and trust linked to social values and support for free markets?

In my last post I presented a table showing that countries in which people have strong social values tend also to have high proportions of the population supporting free markets. Unfortunately, that table is difficult to read because of the amount of information it contains, so I am presenting a ‘pruned’ version below.


Apart from presenting fewer indicators, the main difference has to do with the ranking of countries. In my last post, the countries are ranked according to levels of interpersonal trust. In the table below, the countries are ranked by an index (not shown) that gives equal weight to interpersonal trust and feelings of individual agency. As before, each entry in the table is presented against a green, yellow, orange or red background depending on how favourable it is to either the market economy or community values.

The table suggests that values supporting both community and free markets tend to be stronger in countries in which there are relatively high levels of trust (or absence of distrust) and relatively strong feelings of individual agency (a high proportion of individuals who feel that they have some freedom of choice and control of their lives). It seems reasonable to expect that societies that encourage tolerance and respect for others, as well as confidence in the justice system, would tend to foster both trust and the feelings of agency that are necessary for entrepreneurial innovation. Paul Zak and Stephen Knack noted that high levels of trust are favourable to economic activity because they reduce transactions costs (‘Trust and Growth’, The Economic Journal, 2001). Zak has argued subsequently that moral behaviour - i.e. trustworthy behaviour - is necessary to reduce cheating without exorbitant transactions costs. It also enables employees, for example, to be given greater opportunities for self-direction (Zak, ‘Moral Markets’, 2008, xvii and 273).

Favourable economic outcomes generated by relatively high levels of trust and strong feelings of individual agency could be expected to generate attitudes more favourable to the functioning of a market economy. As noted in a recent post, individuals with relatively strong feelings of agency tend to have favourable attitudes towards markets.

The next step in the analysis is to consider the available evidence on changes over time. What changes have occurred in community values in market economies over the last couple of decades?

Why do people in countries with strong social values tend to support free markets?

This question presupposes that people in countries with strong social values do actually tend to support free markets. Some evidence in support of this is provided in the table below.


The table has been constructed from information in the World Values Surveys conducted in 2005 to 2008. Countries are ranked by levels of inter-personal trust i.e. the percentage of people who are more inclined to agree with the proposition that ‘most people can be trusted, rather than that ‘you can’t be too careful’. Each entry in the table is presented against a green, yellow, orange or red background depending on how favourable it is to either the market economy or community values. Further information about the definition of the variables in the tables may be obtained from the last couple of posts (here and here).

Hint: If you click on the table you might still need a magnifying glass to read it!

The fact that there is more green and yellow at the top of the table and more red and orange at the bottom reflects a positive relationship between values supporting the market economy and community values. Why is this so? I suspect the answer has to do with the development of institutions that support both inter-personal trust and strong feelings of individual agency.

I will write more about this later (and possibly present some information from the table in a more readable form).

Do people who have negative attitudes toward wealth accumulation have greater concern for community?

If people are cynical about the potential for everyone to share in the benefits of wealth creation it might seem reasonable to expect they would tend to have relatively more concern for community. If they think it is only possible for individuals to get rich at the expense of others, it might be reasonable to expect them to have a particular concern for helping other people and/or protecting the environment. On the other hand, as noted at the end of my last post, people who have strong feelings of individual agency - who tend to have positive attitudes toward wealth accumulation – do not tend, as a group, to be particularly selfish in their attitudes.


The simple analysis I have used to test these conjectures has involved comparing responses in the World Values Survey (WVS) to a range of questions relating to attitudes toward community of people with relatively negative and relatively positive views about capital accumulation. In asking about attitudes toward wealth accumulation, the WVS specifies a rating of 1for agreement that ‘people can only get rich at the expense of others’ and of 10 for agreement that ‘wealth can grow so there’s enough for everyone’. Data used in this exercise are from the 2005-2008 survey covering about 75,000 people in 57 countries.

The results of the exercise are reported in the following chart. For the purpose of constructing the chart, responses to the capital accumulation question of 1 to 3 have been labelled ‘negative’ and responses of 8 to 10 have been labelled ‘positive’.

The chart suggests that there isn’t much difference, on average, between the social values of people with positive and negative attitudes towards capital accumulation. People with positive attitudes seem to somewhat less selfish than those with negative attitudes on all the items considered.

Some readers might be wondering whether this finding reflects a greater concentration of people with negative attitudes toward capital accumulation in countries in which the social fabric tends to be weaker. If that is so, it is not likely to be entirely coincidental. The question deserves further research.