About AEI My AEI Support AEI Contact AEI
Home Events Books Short Publications Research Areas Scholars & Fellows


Search


FindAdvanced Search

Browse all short publications by:
- Date
- Subject
- Author
- Type
- Title

SHORT PUBLICATIONS
AEI Newsletter
AEI.org Exclusives
The American
Press Releases
Outlook Series
On the Issues
Papers and Studies
AEI Working Paper Series
Government Testimony
Speeches
Book Reviews
AEI Policy Series
The War on Terror

E-NEWSLETTERS
Enter e-mail:
 

Home >  Short Publications >  Cronies against Capitalism
Cronies against Capitalism
Print Mail
By Kevin A. Hassett
Posted: Tuesday, April 1, 2008
ARTICLES
National Review  
Publication Date: March 24, 2008

Senior Fellow Kevin A. Hassett  
Senior Fellow
Kevin A. Hassett
 
For economists, the economic success of capitalism creates something of a puzzle. When combined with a relatively small government, capitalism is a well-established ticket to improved standards of living. Yet many countries resist. Why?

A flurry of research has shed new light on the question. The fascinating implication of the latest findings is that preexisting social attitudes toward luck may be the crucial determinant of the political path of a society.

The nearby chart is taken from a widely discussed paper by economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote. The investigators set out to discover why the U.S. does not have a large welfare state (at least compared with Europe) and uncovered a striking difference between Americans and Europeans. If you ask Americans whether the poor are lazy, 60 percent say yes. If you ask Europeans, only 26 percent say yes.

Consider now a striking pattern that is visible in the chart. The authors found that large welfare states emerge in countries where citizens generally believe that luck determines income. If bad behavior (or laziness) is viewed as a source of poverty, then the welfare state is small. America has avoided the fate of Europe because its citizens disproportionately believe that luck is not that important a determinant of one's circumstances, but hard work is.



This might come as a relief to conservative Americans, who are ever fearful that the Left will succeed in imposing its version of a European welfare state. If Americans are predisposed to believe that high incomes are generally merited, then they will be resistant to change, even if sold by a charismatic salesman like Barack Obama.

A related study by Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch has found that rampant corruption tends to precede big national swings to the left. This link is itself related to the picture that emerges from the chart. When capitalists succeed because of bribes and corruption, citizens become less convinced that the income distribution reflects merit, and more willing to redistribute.

Recent corporate scandals, and the shameful behavior of the Republican Congress, set the stage for a left-wing backlash that was fully consistent with the historical precedent. It takes more than luck to maintain a free society. If we are to avoid acquiring a welfare state the size of Europe's, we must be vigilant defenders of the rule of law and merciless punishers of the corrupt among us.

Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at AEI.

Related Links
Related event on the acceptance of capitalism
Related book on the benifits of captitalism by Irving Kristol
AEI Print Index No. 22839


Also by Kevin A. Hassett
Recent Articles
Democrats Offer Lesson in Misleading on Taxes
Corporate Taxes Are Killing U.S. Auto Industry
"Highways to Hell" Should Go on Auction Block
Latest Book
Toward Fundamental Tax Reform
National Security Outlook

National Security Outlook

In the August issue of National Security Outlook, General Jack Keane (U.S. Army, retired) explains why we are winning in Iraq.


How to Fix Medicare
How to Fix Medicare: Let's Pay Patients, Not Physicians

Should Medicare pay for patient expenses the way automobile insurers pay for car-repair bills? In How to Fix Medicare, health economist Roger Feldman argues that a radical shift in Medicare policy is not only possible but imperative.