Size of gov’t and growth–not what you’d expect (if you expect a negative correlation)

August 8th, 2016 at 8:55 am

I suspect OTE’ers will like this one, over at WaPo. The book I cite, by Bakija et al, is also worth a close look.

I get that we’re not exactly living in Factville these days, but I won’t let that stop me!

Source: How big should our gov't be: Bakija et al.

Source: How big should our gov’t be: Bakija et al.

Share the post "Size of gov’t and growth–not what you’d expect (if you expect a negative correlation)"

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Categories: Economic Growth, Fiscal Policy, New Posts | 3 Comments »

3 comments in reply to "Size of gov’t and growth–not what you’d expect (if you expect a negative correlation)"

  1. Tom Cantlon says:
    August 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    You’ll be happy to know your government vs growth piece made it to the Yahoo news page. One of the places I go to see what the typical news consumer is seeing.

  2. Tom_in_MN says:
    August 9, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Good piece, as usual.

    This is how Clinton should be selling her plans to the R’s as pro growth along with more middle class means more customers. And I would also argue that more government programs to reduce poverty, etc, also means more stability, which I would expect would be a main concern for the wealthy. Austerity is what has contributed to Brexit and the rise of Trump, both of which are hardly stabilizing factors.

  3. Scott F says:
    August 9, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    How much can we tell from a trend across 50 years? Wouldn’t it be more informative to see the ups and downs associated with changes in the velocity of government growth across the decades? I would be hesitant to draw too many conclusions from a chart like this.