Paul Krugman has recently taken aim at the rhetoric of the US right:
From the enthusiastic reception American conservatives gave Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” to Reagan, to the governors now standing in the way of Medicaid expansion, the U.S. right has sought to portray its position not as a matter of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, but as a courageous defense of freedom.
That got me to thinking. When I read or watch the US media, I hear lots of talk about freedom – much more than in Europe, say. But do Americans actually feel freer than people elsewhere?
The World Values Survey regularly polls people from around the globe, and asks them about their attitudes, their values, and how much freedom of choice and control they feel they have over their lives.
I don't know if Americans actually do have more freedom than other people – they aren't allowed to import Kinder Eggs, for example, or eat authentic haggis. But I would have thought that, given that the US is supposed to be the land of the free, Americans would at least think that they have control over their lives. As it turns out, however, there isn't much difference between the average American and the average Canadian in the self-reported freedom stakes. As for socialism killing freedom – the Swedish report just as much freedom as Americans do.
Economic freedom does not seem to be strongly correlated with individual feelings of freedom. The Heritage Institute ranks Hong Kong number one in the world for economic freedom, but that island's inhabitants report lower levels of self-determination than Americans do. This illustrates an important point: cultural orientation, factors such as the value placed on individual choice as opposed to the group well-being, may make more difference to people's perceptions of freedom than the details of social policy. (To see this for yourself, go to http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org, click the "on-line data analysis" link, and play around).
These results also tie in with a couple of other findings. A recent paper by Terra Lawson-Remer points to the complexity of measuring, say, economic freedom – the land-owner's freedom to do what he wants with his land may interfere with the freedom of others to walk ancient footpaths. Also, as Miles Corak has pointed out, the American myth of opportunity is just that, a myth – there is less social mobility in the US than in a number of other countries.
This is why I start fuming when people start talking about freedom. It's how people live their lives that matters, not abstract ideology.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Doug M – constrained by invisible hands – I like it.
Kaleberg- I agree with your larger point, especially the gender issue you raise.
One has to be a little careful with the red state/blue state paradox – perhaps the red states are business friendly in part because they lack the cities/workforces/other amenities that lead to economic growth.
You’re welcome, Bill. I hope that those articles were helpful and insightful about analyzing ordinal data. It’s a tricky issue that many statisticians haven’t sufficiently thought about, let alone those outside the field who use statistics.
Frances: To answer your question from your email – yes, I do think that it is worthwhile to calculate the means and standard deviations of ordinal data, especially the those that are averaged from Likert items, like the 10-point Likert scales shown in the table above. While I still prefer to use the safer non-parametric methods to avoid any problems (and because sample sizes nowadays in “Big Data” are often large enough to compensate for their lower power), Carifio and Perla have provided very convincing arguments in favour of calculating such means and standard deviations. The robust and unbiased inferences that can be made with Likert scales are especially appealing.
Karen Grace-Martin at The Analysis Factor wrote some very good recommendations and cautions about treating Likert scales as interval data in an article called “Can Likert Scale Data ever be Continuous?”. I encourage you to find it via Google. (I’m omitting the URL to avoid making my comment look like spam to the filter.)
I agree with other commenters who think you have Sweden wrong. Going through the platform of the Republican party you will find most planks have already been implemented in Sweden in the last twenty years.
– Vouchers for education are the norm
– denationalization of rail, mortgage, and health-care (hospitals, pharmacies).
– Top marginal income taxes rate being steadily reduced–48.4-60.5% (depending on state) vs 57% in sweden
– Corporate taxes low and being reduced–35-47% (depending on state) vs 22% in sweden
– No estate or gift tax
– Flat consumption tax
Jon,
You neglect to mention the threshold at which those tax rates kick in. And the sheer magnitude of the consumption tax. The US taxes about 27% of GDP. Sweden, 48%. If that’s your idea of a free market libertarian utopia, then I’ve got some simple solutions for your deficit problem.
With regards to Sweden – note also that the survey was taken in 2006, before some of the more recent changes to the Swedish welfare state.
K, government share of GDP tends to be confused as the national share but with regional governments included, the number goes way up:
Federal share is 24.6%.
California share is 8% of CA gdp
Los Angeles county local government is 6.6% if local GDP
So… Yes US government share is smaller than Sweden but the comparison is more similar to 40% vs 48%.
Francis, interesting point. Healthcare deregulation in Sweden is viewed as a big deal–hospitals are seen as unaccountable and the risk of complications is high. I have a friend who because of a blotched operation there now under goes surgery every two months and has a urine bag. The doctors suffered no consequences and she was compensated with some taxi cab passes to help her get back to the hospital–these ran out within the first year and this will be the rest of her life ( late 30s now).
Jon,
“government share of GDP tends to be confused”
I’m not confused.
First of all I said “taxes.” I assume you are getting “confused” with expenditures. If you want to compare expenditures, the relevant figure for Sweden is 52% and the US is a cyclically high 38% (Sweden is not in a deep recession). Sweden has been above 50% for a long time and the US average is in the low 30s. The difference is close to 20% of GDP.
Second of all, my figures already were “US all levels” 2012 according to the Heritage Foundation. US Federal receipts were 15.8% in 2012 and haven’t been above 20% since WW2.
Third, LA county??? Who cares? I’m sure there are high government expenditure regions of Sweden too.
Postscript: A epistemological question applies here, which is implied by my and other previous comments but has so far not been asked outright.
Is the perception of freedom the same thing as freedom?
“You neglect to mention the threshold at which those tax rates kick in. And the sheer magnitude of the consumption tax. The US taxes about 27% of GDP. Sweden, 48%. If that’s your idea of a free market libertarian utopia, then I’ve got some simple solutions for your deficit problem.”
Of course, US taxes on corporate and investment income are significantly higher than Sweden (the high marginal Swedish tax rate is on employment income). US taxes generally are relatively low because the US uses relatively inefficient taxes to collect revenue – they can’t collect any more without wrecking their economy.
Moreover, looking only at revenue is misleading since the long-run tax hit can’t be separated from spending – and on that front the gap between the US and Sweden narrows sharply (indeed, on that measure, the US is not materially different than Canada) – the OECD has the relative numbers for 2009 at 55 and 42% (Canada was 44%). And let’s not pretend that US number is a cyclical high – unless you believe that the US federal government is inclined to carve back medicaid or social security for the elderly that number is only going to go up (become of its older population, Sweden is already dealing with those costs). Sweden has (or, at least as of 2011, had) a structural budget surplus, the US has a structural budget deficit. Its relatively low taxes aren’t a function of a preference for freedom from taxes, they’re a preference for having other people pay taxes in the future to fund current spending. While that preference is understandable and very human, narrow self-interest, rather than a preference for freedom, explains it.
Bob,
“the OECD has the relative numbers for 2009 at 55 and 42%”
Like I said, the US is already down to 38%. With unemployment still at 7.7% it will keep dropping if the recovery continues, much faster than any secular trend. Mid-crisis 2009 spending isn’t a relevant reference point for anything.
“And let’s not pretend that US number is a cyclical high”
Except that it was a cyclical high.
Anyways, the relevant point is: how taxed were the Swedish people who in 2006 said they were so free? According to the OECD Swedes paid 55% of GDP in taxes, and Americans 33%. Sweden spent 52% of GDP and the US 36% in that year. So either a 22% or 16% difference depending how you look at it.
“Its relatively low taxes aren’t a function of a preference for freedom from taxes, they’re they’re a preference for having other people pay taxes in the future to fund current spending”
First of all, this is False. Even from a spending perspective the difference is at least 16% of GDP, not Jon’s claimed 8% difference. So the relatively low taxes are mostly a result of preference for low spending.
Secondly, if Americans don’t care about taxes on future Americans (and I think you are right about this), then if we want to know how taxed they feel we should be looking at current tax levels. But, either way, taxes are way higher in Sweden than the US. Like their fellow Scandinavians, Swedes are subject to a highly redistributive tax and welfare system, and apparently it doesn’t make them feel unfree.