Warning: Undefined variable $post in /data/9/c/9ce1eb32-193a-4b37-8e81-03ed4885acdd/lookingeast.eu/web/wp-content/plugins/cardoza-facebook-like-box/cardoza_facebook_like_box.php on line 876
Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /data/9/c/9ce1eb32-193a-4b37-8e81-03ed4885acdd/lookingeast.eu/web/wp-content/plugins/cardoza-facebook-like-box/cardoza_facebook_like_box.php on line 876
Some memories last long. Such as do the ones, which relate to my graduate studies of economics at Harvard. Amongst the most interesting lectures, which I ever attended, were those given by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world’s most influential economists and a very incisive mind. He liked to say that there were geographic explanations for many economic phenomena in the world. Why do I recall this now?
The United States lags behind many a similarly developed country in the quality of its public infrastructure. Is this partly due to the differences in government efficiency or relative public’s preferences for public investments? Probably so, but perhaps factors such as the size of the country, population density, and geographical distribution of settlements and economic activity play a role too.
The other day, I noticed a graph with OECD data, which compared the government’s size (measured by relative government expenditures) among the member countries of this rich countries’ economic club. The data from 2018 reveal that the government’s size varied from the low of 25,4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Ireland to the highest of 55,9% GDP in France. Not a big surprise, one would think. However, what is perhaps surprising is that the data show that Switzerland has a relatively small government (33,7%GDP) while the US had government expenditures at the level of 37,8% of GDP in 2018.
Even if simplifying a bit, one would typically expect that countries with a bigger government would also better provide for public goods. Seen in this context, the comparison between these two rich countries is in a way mind-boggling. While their estimated GDP per capita in 2020 in PPP is broadly comparable (the US has GDP pc 63 ths dollars Switzerland GDP is 67,6 ths dollars), any visitor to both countries will notice a remarkable difference in the quality of provided public goods. Local infrastructures such as roads, bridges, train stations, or public premises in general look in much better shape in Switzerland than in the US, at least visually. This visual difference is much more significant than would be implied by slightly higher income per capita in Switzerland. Such visual difference is also supported by the data – according to one source (statista.com) Switzerland’s quality of infrastructure was the fourth-best in the world while that of the US was ranked 13th in 2019.
Why such a difference? What makes the US – probably the most advanced country in the world – lag behind Switzerland in the quality of public goods provision even though it has a bigger government? Yes, one explanation might be relative government efficiency – perhaps the Swiss get it right here too. Also, different preferences for a structure of government expenditures (investment vs. other) probably play a role.
However, it appears that the fact that the US is a geographically large country might be an explaining factor too. A vast country with a relatively low density of population (34 people per sq km vs 207 in the case of Switzerland) means that the geographical intensity of economic activity is much lower in the US than in Switzerland. Many dispersed cities, small towns, and villages across a vast country need to be connected by road, train, electricity, and perhaps other infrastructures – all of this takes substantial resources, whether for construction or repair. Yet economic intensity per sq km to support this infrastructure is low in the US.
In order to illustrate the point, let us make the following thought experiment. Imagine collapsing the map of the US into, say, a quarter of the territory – as if one dragged left-down the upper right corner of the map by the mouse on the computer screen. The GDP would remain more-less the same, yet connectivity costs and related infrastructure spending would be lower on the now reduced territory.
Obviously, this is just simplification – what really seems to matter is not only the size of the country but also the geographical distribution/dispersion of economic activity and settlements within the country. How this precisely works, I leave to economists more proficient in spatial analysis.
Nevertheless, it should be safe to say that the geographical distribution of economic activity/settlements which is partly shaped by the size of the country helps explain the level of infrastructure spending in the country -i.e. should have a bearing on the overall size of the government.
Relatedly, some homework for readers to crack: Do frequent earthquakes on the West coast of the US implying a preference for not living in tall buildings and an ensuing low geographical economic intensity go a certain way towards explaining the fiscal problems of southern California?