FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Reclaiming Economic Freedom

by ROBERT WEISSMAN

Every year, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, dutifully churns out its annual Index of Economic Freedom, a ratings guide to countries’ relative corporate hospitality.

The book-length report makes a quite modest global media splash every year. A Lexis search shows the 2008 report, issued last week, garnered (mostly quite short) stories in New Zealand, Australia, China, Russia, Thailand, Bahrain, the United Kingdom, India, Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Ukraine, Taiwan, Korea, the United States, Zimbabwe, and various wire services. If past years are any guide, over the course 2008, the report will likely be referenced several times in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, and in various other publications. Not bad, but not earth-shattering.

The Index of Economic Freedom is significantly more important than this news coverage suggests, however.

For the last several years, the report has been subtitled “The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity,” and a central thesis of the report is that removing controls on corporations will create economic wealth. When apples are compared to apples — that is, when countries of similar economic development are compared — this claim is revealed to be nonsensical, as various studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and many others have shown.

But more important than the asserted connection between removing corporate restraints and prosperity is the report’s definitional maneuver. It claims “economic freedom” — and all of the justifiably positive connotations with freedom — as part of the corporate agenda. It equates “economic freedom” with corporate superiority to popular control.

The Index of Economic Freedom is not the only tool to spread this propaganda, but it is among the most influential. The idea has seeped deep into the culture.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which was supposed to be the major Bush administration anti-global poverty innovation (but has in fact failed to distribute more than a tiny fraction of funds allocated to it) by statute selects recipient countries in large part based on measures of their “economic freedom.” The MCC actually relies on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom for determining a component (countries’ trade openness) of the MCC’s economic freedom rating.

Members of Congress have introduced dozens of bills and resolutions referencing “economic freedom” over the last decade. One small example: Senator Barack Obama, along with Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, and Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, in 2007 introduced the Global Poverty Act of 2007. (A version in the House of Representatives, introduced by Adam Smith, D-Washington, has 84 co-sponsors.) The bill would require the President to develop a strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty by one half. Although the bill is mainly aspirational — operationally, it doesn’t require anything than development of a strategy — it embraces a noble goal, and the world would be a better place if the legislation became law. But it is noteworthy that a “finding” of the bill is that “Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom.”

The Global Poverty Act does not specify what “economic freedom” means, and the sponsors of the bill would almost certainly disagree with some of the detailed definition supplied by the Heritage Foundation. But they have, at least in passing, adopted the framework.

Just what exactly does the Heritage Foundation mean when it says “economic freedom?” The Index of Economic Freedoms contains a preposterously precise formula for measuring and comparing so-called economic freedoms, based on the following 10 factors: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption and labor freedom.

OK, that’s not much of an answer to the question. What do these grand phrases mean when Heritage translates them into concrete terms?

Here are some examples:

* “Trade freedom” measures not just how low tariff rates are, but the extent to which a country maintains “non-tariff trade barriers,” such as “safety and industrial standards regulations” and “advertising and media regulations.” Heritage considers national restrictions on biotechnology products — which apply equally to domestic and foreign genetically modified foods — as trade restrictions.

* “Fiscal freedom” is simply code for how low tax rates are. This includes corporate tax rates — which the Heritage formula weighs as heavily as taxes on individuals.

* Countries are awarded more points the smaller the size of the government relative to national economic output. The most points are awarded for a government with zero size!

* “Investment freedom” actually has almost nothing to do with the ability of people in a country to make investments. Heritage defines investment freedom as whether there are restrictions on foreign investment, including whether any industrial sectors are off limits for security reasons, and whether expropriation is permitted — even with compensation paid to investors.

* “Financial freedom” means whether banks and high finance are unregulated. The United States is apparently penalized for the various modest Sarbanes-Oxley rules passed after the Enron and related debacles.

* Heritage contorts “labor freedom” to mean the ability of corporations to fire workers without restraint and the absence of any minimum wage rules (with countries penalized the higher their minimum wage relative to average value added per worker).

The successful effort by the Heritage Foundation and its allies to capture the term “economic freedom” is not just a propaganda coup, it is a heist.

Heritage and its collaborators have stolen and debased the grand and noble vision of Franklin Roosevelt. They explicitly state that they are carrying out a project initiated by Milton Friedman (author in 1961 of Capitalism and Freedom, among many other works) to define economic freedom in terms of individual economic actors’ — typically corporations, though they often prefer to glorify individual entrepreneurs — ability to escape public control. This ideal is held out against Roosevelt’s idea of a caring and sharing society, where the crucial economic freedom is freedom from want.

In his famous 1941 “Four Freedoms” speech, Roosevelt offered a vision of a world defined by four freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear).

“Translated into world terms,” Roosevelt proclaimed, freedom from want “means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.”

His specific 1941 agenda, unfortunately, remains a suitable elaboration for the present day of this more appealing, democratic and humane concept of economic freedom.

“The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple,” Roosevelt declared.

“They are:

* Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
* Jobs for those who can work.
* Security for those who need it.
* The ending of special privilege for the few.
* The preservation of civil liberties for all.
* The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.”

“These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.”

“Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:

* We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
* We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
* We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.”

ROBERT WEISSMAN is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor and director of Essential Action.

 

 

 

ROBERT WEISSMAN is president of Public Citizen.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail