The "size of government" paradox (with polling data!)

[Arwon]

TL;DR: In Australia at least, people say they support smaller government except in all the areas you ask them about specifically.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2012/06/11/what-australians-believe/ (I'm posting some tables here, but merely referencing others. They're all at this URL. Also, there's a lot more here but it's mostly Australia-specific stuff about how Labor vs Liberal partisan issues play out in these polls)

In the abstract, Australians believe the government is "too large" and "tries to do too much":

Yet when you drill down into ANY specific policy area, that belief falls apart:

So that's services. What about government involvement in the economy?

Well. Major party voters want more industry support to keep car manufacturing here, a majority support more industry support in general. Most of us think privatising telecommunications and Qantas was a bad thing. A majority of us would support creating a government-owned bank.

Basically, while there's recognition of the good done by some key liberalising economic reforms (floating currency, free trade) we don't like privatisation of anything and we don't think the government is doing enough in basically every area of service provision. As seen in the table above, there's extremely high support for universal health coverage (medicare) and the compulsory superannuation (forced retirement savings) system, two of the biggest impositions on private income that there are.

Likewise in labour markets essentially everyone supports compulsory penalty rates and thinks labour market flexibility benefits bosses and corporations, not workers.

Same with regulation of finance and corporations, same with foreign investment in stuff.

Even in non-economic areas there is general support for basically every area of the nanny state you care to name:

All in all, the contrast between "government is too big" and what people actually believe in this country is quite spectacular, whether it's on service provision, government involvement in the economy, labour market regulation or "nanny state" type stuff. I'm actually struggling to think of an area not covered by these results where theoretically government "size" reductions could exist.

It's also striking just how removed from actual public beliefs the "mainstream" discourse and debate has become:

What comes out from this broad snapshot is that what Australians believe about the role of government in our society and economy isn’t necessarily what our institutions believe or practice, and probably hasn’t been for a while. Our beliefs as a country are certainly far removed from many participants in the national debate that pretend to speak on behalf of our population and on behalf of our interests.

Whatever the faults, foibles or otherwise of these national beliefs – and this isn’t an exercise in either support of, or opposition to them – our national debates on the role of government in our society and economy are becoming increasingly isolated from what the majority of the country actually believes.

(Amusingly the Greens are probably closer to what polling tells us are mainstream views than either major party)

What do you make of this? Is this paradox an Australian quirk? What are opinion polls saying in your own country.

 

[Angst]

To be fair, the issue list (with healthcare etc) seems pretty weighed in tone of all things.

But I understand your sentiment and have all sorts of sympathy with it.

 

[Arwon]

I used that table, but this covers many many areas.

 

[cegman]

Nah sounds about correct for the United States too.

Now part of the issue is that when people think smaller government they think of less people in government giving more things.

Another thing is that those things can be divided into things that the Federal, State, and Local government should do.

Some people think smaller government think smaller federal government but they want a larger stronger local government.

I want to repeat this is based off of person experience in America. But I would be surprised if the results were too different.

 

[Arwon]

Did the US ever have state-owned telecommunications, banks or airlines?

 

[Cutlass]

Did the US ever have state-owned telecommunications, banks or airlines?

The First and Second Banks of the US functioned as commercial banks as well as a central bank. Telecommunications was always privately owned, publicly assisted.

 

[Old Hippy]

its definately an Australian quirk .... I'm listening to the NSW treasurer in the background at present ... and a right wing, getting the budget to surplus government just doubled the states first home buyer grant from $7000 to $15000, in his budget speach.... i am surprised housing is not on the list...

jobs,housing,the construction industry and the young vote all at once... bet he is going to sell something own and opperated by the government tho... i think thats what they mean by balance the budget.... will have to listen to the press conference closely

 

[Arwon]

I think that's actually just a Liberal governing for his rich mates like they always do. Sell stuff off (Ports!? Why would you sell those off? They're a license to print money), fuel the real estate bubble, cut spending on education. Pretty typical, really!

 

[Defiant47]

Obviously this is an issue of political rhetoric, wherein cultural and media influence has steered them away from "big government" without any clear goal or reasoning. It's an ideological battle that breaks down when you have the individual components analyzed.

 

[Yeekim]

Thank you for a nice graphical confirmation of my own anecdotal observations.

 

[Winston Hughes]

To be fair, the issue list (with healthcare etc) seems pretty weighed in tone of all things.

But I understand your sentiment and have all sorts of sympathy with it.

Likewise, I have much sympathy with the point, but the evidence presented here could well be very misleading indeed.

Alongside the flagrant weighting on the issues question, the fact that the regulation question asks whether respondents would support any laws on a given subject renders it next to worthless when assessing people's attitudes to the size and powers of government. Moreover, there are an awful lot of things not mentioned in either set of questions, including several of those which small government types tend to get worked up about (direct redistribution of wealth in the form of social security benefits being perhaps the most striking, but we could also include spending on the arts or sport, health and safety regulation, etc.).

 

[luiz]

Well, firstly this "paradox" is rather expected when you think about it. Everyone likes benefits but nobody wants to pay for them. Ideally "someone else" will pay, like say "the rich". Of course, it's impossible to have a comprehensive welfare state without heavily taxing even the lower middle class, but demagogues will always promise otherwise.

Anyway, those questions were worded in a way that even I, hardly a lefty and hardly someone who doesn't understand the question, would answer "too little" in numerous fields. That doesn't mean necessarily that I want extra funding, only smarter funding. And there are some areas where I do want extra government funding (basic education, for starters), but in general I'd still cut the size of government by half (in Brazil's case).

 

[warpus]

"I believe in a smaller government" is just a talking point that some people use; it doesn't really correspond to any sort of reality.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"Small government" is such vague notion, it does not even pretend to be actual concrete policy. It is an ideology in the most classical sense. A notion of what is good and right in principle with little interest in actual causal relations. A way for people to have strong political opinions without a strong knowledge base.

Of course, it's impossible to have a comprehensive welfare state without heavily taxing even the lower middle class, but demagogues will always promise otherwise.

If I think of the 90% of American wealth held by the top 1%, then I don't see how this universal assertion of yours corresponds to reality. No particular agenda I follow hear, just thought I'd point that out.

 

[luiz]

If I think of the 90% of American wealth held by the top 1%, then I don't see how this universal assertion of yours corresponds to reality. No particular agenda I follow hear, just thought I'd point that out.

I am pretty sure that 90% percent figure is wrong. And taxes come predominantly from income and consumption, not wealth, even in the most social democratic states. And income and consumption are far less concentrated than wealth.

So no. My assertion is very much a hardcore truth. Name any comprehensive social democracy (Denmark, Sweden and etc.) and I guarantee a lower middle class individual there pays considerablt more taxes than his american equivalent. The rich are not a magic milk cow.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The only alternative figure I found was 10% own 70%.
Wealth taxes likely won't be able to pull all the weight - fair enough - but there is also room for significantly higher taxes for the top income brackets.

 

[illram]

Someone needs to do this poll in the States. I'd imagine we would have similar results except for the "non-economic" areas, where I imagine you would see lots more disapproval for regulating things like films, internet, smoking, or even bike helmets.

 

[Arwon]

It's an aggregation of lots of poll questions, pulling the data from the published results. Surely your opinion poll companies ask other stuff other than presidential approval rates and the like?

 

[midget_roxx]

Where in canberra do you live?
And I believe it isn't a paradox at all. We want less government regulation and red tape, but in terms of assisstance and proper governance we want more. Unfortunately you can't have one without the other which is why you see seemingly contradictory views

 

[mangxema]

Did the US ever have state-owned telecommunications, banks or airlines?

The First and Second Banks of the US functioned as commercial banks as well as a central bank. Telecommunications was always privately owned, publicly assisted.

Regarding airlines, sort of. In the early days, most of the air traffic was for carrying mail, which was done by the US Army after private airlines kept having problems.