Freedom and Flourishing

Time 2021-11-02 08:05:40

Web Name: Freedom and Flourishing

WebSite: http://wintonbates.blogspot.com.au

ID:219410

Keywords:

Freedom,and,Flourishing,

Description:

keywords:
description:

Freedom and Flourishing

Thursday, October 21, 2021 Would Chinese people accept that human flourishing is inherently individualistic?

The question I have posed for myself has been prompted by a reader of my book,Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing.He asked how I would respond if someone offered to pay me to write an edition of the book for Chinese readers. Would I say that the exercise would be pointless because few Chinese readers are likely to be receptive to the ideas in the book? Or would I say that a Chinese edition would need to include a discussion of additional constraints holding back individual flourishing in the PRC?

My book was written primarily for readers living in theWestern liberal democracies. It presents human flourishing as an individual aspirationand endeavor, involving the exercise of practical wisdom. I suggest that it isultimately up to individuals to use their reasoning powers to form their ownjudgements about the basic goods of a flourishing human. I seek to persuadereaders that a flourishing person manifests wise and well-informedself-direction, has good health and psychological well-being, enjoys positiverelationships with others, and lives in harmony with nature. I argue thatprogress occurs when there are growing opportunities for individuals toflourish. Economic growth counts as progress to the extent that self-directedindividuals aspire to have improvements in their living standards. (You canread a little more about the book here,and listen to me talk about it here.)

Is Chinese culture opposed to individualism?

Someresearchon individualism and collectivism may suggest that Chinesepeople would tend to adopt a collectivist, top-down view of human flourishing,rather than an individualistic, bottom up, view. However, the World ValuesSurvey (WVS) does not support the view that Chinese people are too preoccupiedwith filial piety, altruism, and obedience to have individual aspirations. Datafrom the 2017-2020 wave of the WVS suggest that the percentage of people inChina who say that one of their main goals in life is to make their parentsproud (23%) is not particularly high; corresponding figures for other jurisdictionsare Taiwan (27%), Hong Kong (15%), Singapore (28%), Australia (26%) and U.S.(31%). The percentage in China who identifyindependence as a desirable child quality is relatively high (78%); correspondingfigures for other jurisdictions are Taiwan (68%), HongKong (55%), Singapore (56%), Australia (52%) and U.S. (55%). The percentageswho identify unselfishness, good manners and obedience as desirable childqualities are not particularly high (29%, 84% and 6% respectively) bycomparison to Taiwan (23%, 74% and 9%), Hong Kong (11%, 73% and 9%), Singapore(27%, 79% and 17%), Australia (42%, 84% and 19%) and U.S. (28%, 48%, and 20%).

It is not difficult to find aspects of Chinese culturalheritage that imply an important role for individual self-direction. The Daoistphilosophy of skill is directly relevant to question of what nature tells usabout how we can flourish as individuals. There is a relevant post about the Laozi,Zhuangzi and Liezi onthis blog.

Cultural support for economic growth

The discussion of determinants of economic growth in Chapter5 of my book suggests that aspects of culture that are favourable toentrepreneurial innovation include interpersonal trust, respect and tolerance,and individual self-determination. WVS data suggests that the percentage ofpeople who consider that most people can be trusted is relatively high in China(63.5%) by comparison with Taiwan (31%), Hong Kong (36%), Singapore (34%),Australia (48%) and U.S. (37%). The percentage in China who identify toleranceand respect for other people as a desirable child quality (60%) is notparticularly low; corresponding figures for other jurisdictions are Taiwan (73%),Hong Kong (70%), Singapore (64%), Australia (80%) and U.S. (71%).

A relevant indicator of self-determination in the WVS is thedata on ratings of the extent that survey respondents feel they have a greatdeal of freedom of choice and control over their lives, or alternatively thatwhat they do has no real effect on what happens to them. On the10 point scale,the average scores of Chinese respondents (7.0) were similar to those of Taiwan(7.3), Hong Kong (6.6), Singapore (6.8), Australia (7.5) and U.S. (7.7).

Economic freedom

My discussion of determinants of economic growth alsoemphasizes the importance of economic freedom and a prevailing ideology thatsupports economic freedom. Improvements in economic freedom contributed to thehigh rates of economic growth experienced in China in recent decades. However,the Fraser Institutes ratings of economic freedom suggest that the process ofeconomic liberalization has now stalled, leaving Chinas economic freedomrating for 2019 (6.5 on the 10-point scale) far lower than that of Taiwan(8.0), Hong Kong (8.9), Singapore (8.8), Australia (8.2) and the U.S. (also8.2).

Productivity growth in China has slowed considerably overthe last decade, according to World Bankand IMF research. IMF estimates suggest annual productivity growth of 0.6% from2012 to 2017, much lower than the average of 3.5% in the preceding five years (reportedby the WSJ). It seems unlikely that China will be able to maintain high GDPgrowth rates in the absence of substantial economic reforms to promote greatereconomic freedom.

Ideological constraints

The prevailing ideology of governance in China, MarxismLeninism,was imported from the West. This one-party state ideology was developedbyJoseph Stalinin Russia the 1920s.The current system of government - with the communist party bureaucracyguiding the state bureaucracy at all levels - was copied from the Soviet Union.

Although the evidence discussed above suggests that peopleliving in the PRC tend to have as individualistic a view of human flourishingas people in the U.S and Australia, it is clear that the leaders of the Chinesegovernment do not recognize fundamental rights that support individualflourishing.

TheMyth of Chinese Capitalism, by Dexter Roberts, providesan insightful account of the ideological constraints currently limiting humanflourishing in China. The government of the PRC does not even
recognize therights of people to choose where to live, or to own land:

Despite huge progress in wiping out poverty, thecountryside still has large numbers of poor people and incomes continue to fallbehind the rest of the country. This unfortunate fact is in part because of thehukou system, which restricts rural peoples ability to fully integrate intothe cities. Equally responsible, however, are the continuing limits on farmersrights to the land. While they were given freedom to decide how to use the landthey lived on, they were not given ownership. (p 74)

It is common for local officials to acquire agriculturalland for conversion to industrial and commercial use, with farmers being paidlittle compensation. The user rights are then sold at high prices to developerson the outskirts of cities.

The highest priority of the party-state is to stay in power.That involves a combination of responsiveness and repression to construct a harmonioussociety. Responsiveness takes the form of top-down efforts to reducedisparities in living standards. Repression occurs by suppressing dissident speech,extensive use of monitoring technology and a social credit system which rewardsand punishes people based on aspects of their personal behavior that thegovernment wishes to encourage or discourage.

Daniels suggests:

For years, Chinas leaders have had an unspoken agreementwith the people: they guarantee rising living standards and, in turn, the populacetolerates control by a nondemocratic and often unresponsive party.

What happens if living standards do not continue to rise.Like many other analysts, Daniels is concerned that a militarily powerfulCommunist Party facing widespread dissention at home might well seek to distractits citizens by lashing out in a hot spot in the region, such as Hong Kong,Taiwan, or the South China Sea (p 191).

With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems obvious thatgains in economic freedom that occurred in China over the last few decades werethe efforts of an authoritarian government to harness market forces for its ownpurposes, rather than reforms undertaken in recognition of links betweenliberty and individual flourishing.

At the beginning of this article I offered some gratuitous adviceto the leaders of China by quoting from some ancient writings by Lao-Tzu (Verse 57 of the Tao Te Ching).It seems appropriate to end this brief discussion of ideology with anotherquote from the same source:

The more prohibitions you have,

the less virtuous people will be.

The more weapons you have,

the less secure people will be.

The more subsidies you have,

the less self-reliant people will be.

Conclusions

Chinese people are not unduly preoccupied with filialpiety, altruism, and obedience. They tend to have an individualistic view ofhuman flourishing that is not greatly different from that of people in the U.S.and Australia. The contemporary culture of Chinese people tends to befavourable to the entrepreneurship likely to be necessary for living standardsto continue to rise over the longer term.

However, the ideology of the party-state is much lessfavourable to ongoing improvement of living standards. Past gains in economicfreedom reflected the efforts of an authoritarian government to harness marketforces to lift productivity in response to aspirations of the people to enjoyhigher living standards. The gains in economic freedom occurred because thatsuited the purposes of a communist party primarily interested in its ownsurvival, rather than because its leaders had undergone an ideologicaltransformation to become supporters of liberty. The ideological opposition toliberty of general secretary Xi Jinping now seems to be impeding the ongoingexpansion of economic freedom that is needed to enable productivity to continueto rise.

Posted byWinton Batesat10:13 PMNo comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels:Big government,culture,Economic development,entrepreneurial qualities,Ethics and moral instincts,individualism,Political institutions,The good society,Why freedom? Monday, October 4, 2021 Why should economists practice humanomics?

Adam Smith practiced humanomics. It came naturally to him. Thefamous pioneer of economic science did not need to pretend that humans havebeen programmed to maximize utility in order to develop his argument that economicspecialization stems from a propensity in human nature to truck, barter, andexchange.

The word, humanomics, was coined by Bart Wilson, anexperimental economist, and is explained in the book, Humanomics,Moral Sentiments, and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century, whichhe co-authored with Nobel winner, Vernon Smith. In that book, humanomics refersto the very human problem of simultaneously living in the personal social world(which is the context which Adam Smith had in mind when writing MoralSentiments) and the impersonal economic world (which is the focus ofWealth of Nations).

Some important aspects of human behavior cannot beadequately explained if we adopt the assumption, still common in much economicanalysis, that individual human behavior is characterized by narrowself-interest. Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson found in their experimental workwith people playing economic games that while self-interested utility maximizationcould explain individual behavior in simulated market contexts, it could not doso in social exchange contexts. In playing two-person trust games, people tendto be more other-regarding than most modern economists assume. I take that tomean that most people are sufficiently civilized and self-regarding to behavewith integrity towards others they see virtue in being trustworthy ratherthan opportunistic.

Deirdre McCloskey advances the argument for humanomicsfurther in her recent book, BetteringHumanomics. She writes:

A big part of our human behavior is thinking and talkingabout human action, not merely solipsistic and thoughtless reaction to, say, abudget constraint. Human action is the exercise of free will, so typical ofhumans. It is in fact the free will about which theologians argue. Humanomicstherefore goes beyond the artificially narrowed evidence of a silent, solitary,reactive, positivistic, predestined, observational behaviorism. (p 5)

McCloskey argues that economists should engage in more philosophicalreflection about what a speaking species does. The behavioral paradigm ofstimulus and response does not adequately explain much of human behavior. Humansoften think about the meaning of events before responding to them, and theyoften consciously explore the options that are available.

Innovation is an example of an economic activity that cannotbe adequately understood within a behavioral paradigm that does not allow forthinking and talking. In this context, McCloskey mentions the importantcontribution of Israel Kirzner in pointing out that real discoveries cannot bepursued methodically or they would be known before they are known. Innovationrequires entrepreneurial alertness. McCloskey adds that a discovery requiressweet talk to be brought to fruition:

An idea is merely and idea until it has been brought intothe conversation of humankind.

McCloskey presents a strong argument that humanomics isneeded to explain the great enrichment the massive improvements in standardof living that have occurred in many countries over the last 200 years. Thosewho have some familiarity with her trilogy of books on economic history thatshould include everyone who is interested in the reasons why the people wholive in some countries tend to be wealthier than those who live elsewhere -will not be surprised that she argues that ethics and rhetoric are the killerapp explaining the great enrichment. She argues that a novel liberty anddignity for ordinary people, including the innovating bourgeoisie, explains thegreat enrichment.

For present purposes, the important point is that foreconomists to understand the economic growth process, with its massiveimplications for human flourishing, they need some knowledge of ethics andrhetoric ideas in letters and literature that are studied in the humanities.McCloskey argues that if economists consider themselves to be seriousscientists, they should use all relevant evidence that they can get their handson. She makes the point thus:

A future economics should use the available scientificlogic and evidence, all of itexperimental, simulative, introspective,questionnaire, graphical, categorical, statistical, literary, historical,psychological, sociological, political, aesthetic, ethical. (p 66)

Many economists spend much of their time on sweet talkwithout being aware of it. I spent most of my working life trying to tellpeople that incentives matter and that they need to consider whether currentinstitutions the rules of the game of society provide appropriateincentives. For example, I am fond of pointing out that if the rules of thegame reward rent-seeking individuals or groups seeking to have governmentsprovide them with assistance at others expense - then potential beneficiaries willtend to spend more time rent-seeking and less time engaged in productiveactivities.

Economists engage in that kind of activity labelled bysome as preaching because they think that ideas matter and that interests donot always prevail in determining government policies. In my view, people whoare trying to obtain greater recognition of the role of institutions andincentives are walking in the footsteps of AdamSmith.

McCloskey might suggest that people like me should considerwhether we give too much attention to the role of formal institutions constitutions, laws, and regulations and too little attention to ethics andideology. In discussing the great enrichment she suggests:

The important institutions were ideas, words, rhetoric,ideology. And these did change on the eve of the Great Enrichment.

The only problem I have with McCloskeys exposition ofhumanomics is her dismissal of happiness studies and behavioral economics. Hernegative views on these areas of research sit oddly with her argument thateconomists should consider all available evidence. I agree that many people whoare engaged in such research are paternalistic behavioralists, seeking to advisegovernments how to make people happier. However, I dont think that provides sufficient reason to suggest thatthe findings of such research are no relevance to individuals who are lookingfor information to help themselves to flourish.

In my discussion of the findings of happiness research andbehavioral economics in Chapter 7 of my book, Freedom,Progress, and Human Flourishing, I have tried to adopt a contractarianapproach. That is the approach adopted by Robert Sugden, a self-confessedbehavioral economist, and an admirer of the contractarianism of James Buchanan, in his book The Community of Advantage.Sugden notes that contractarian recommendations are addressed to individualsas directors of their own lives, advising individuals how to pursue their owninterests.

I concur with the view of James Buchanan that the heartlandof economics is considering human behavior in market relationships and othervoluntaristic exchange processes. However, I can see no reason why anyoneshould consider Philip Wicksteed, or any other economist, who offers practicaladvice on avoiding common mistakes in decision-making, to be stepping beyond therealm of humanomics.

When economists step outside their comfort zone ofvoluntaristic exchange processes, they certainly need to remember to take theirbullshit detectors with them. That certainly applies in considering thefindings of happiness studies and behavioral economics. It also applies in consideringliterary contributions, such as a book I read (and commentedon here) about the significance for our understanding of happiness of SamuelRichardsons 18^th century novel, Pamela.

Conclusions

Economists should practice humanomics because they cantexpect to be able to understand human behavior unless they do. Humans do notalways behave as self-interested maximizers. It makes no sense to assume that humanaction always occurs at a subconscious level as an automatic response to stimuli.Individuals often think about the meaning of events, consider their options,and talk to others, before responding. Self-direction is integral to humanflourishing.

In seeking explanations for human behavior, economistsshould not confine themselves to a focus on institutions and incentives. Theyshould be open to considering all relevant information that they can gettheir hands on, including information on ethics, ideology, and happinessratings.

Posted byWinton Batesat5:05 PMNo comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels:capability and opportunity,culture,Economic development,entrepreneurial qualities,Ethics and moral instincts,Future of economics,kindness Tuesday, September 14, 2021 Are social movements drivers of progress?

In considering this question my focus is on Mikayla Novaksrecent book, Freedomin Contention, Social Movements and Liberal Political Economy.

Mikayla describes social movements as sustained collectiveengagement by multiple participants aiming to effect change within society. Mikaylaprovides an enlightening account of the nature of social movements, the role ofentrepreneurship within them, the tactics they use, and of factors thatcontribute to their success. I focus here on Mikaylas view that socialmovements have played a critical role in the realization of liberties enjoyedtoday in the Western democracies. That line of argument is central to the book,and closely linked to the question posed above.

Before going further, I should note that Mikayla uses an entangledpolitical economy framework to examine social networks. That framework,developed by Richard Wagner, views individuals and groups as being intertwinedin overlapping relationships of different kinds - collaborative or competitive,or consensual or exploitive. In pursuing their goals, social movements have anirrepressible tendency to entangle with other movements, and with economic andpolitical organizations.

In making the case that social movements have contributed toexpanding economic, political, and social freedoms, Mikayla discusses the historicalrole of some important social movements. The American revolution is discussed asthe culmination of a movement resisting imposition of unfair taxation. TheAnti-Corn Law League is discussed as a movement rallying public support inopposition to agricultural tariffs that benefitted landowners at the expense ofconsumers. The movements involved in progressive extension of the votingfranchise, including female suffrage activism, are discussed as part of astruggle to gain recognition that all individuals should have equal standing toparticipate in politics. The success of the American Civil Rights Movement inexpanding economic, political, and social freedoms is argued to have inspiredsubsequent movements including anti-war, environmental and feminist movements.

The authors coverage of contemporary social movements highlightsresponses to regulation limiting voluntary productive entanglements of aneconomic nature. Movements discussed include the Tea Party and the campaign tocounter restrictive effects of regulation on availability of medication forpeople living with HIV/AIDS.

Mikayla also highlights the ongoing challenges posed bycultural-institutional environments that fail to prevent those with politicalinfluence using it to obtain benefits at the expense of others, and whichrepress social movement activities. She paints an alarming picture of risingilliberalism:

Economic freedom has waned, minoritiesand many other groups around the world are victimized by violent, reactionarybacklash dynamics, and, increasingly, we are meeting the end of a policebaton or are being haunted by the constant eye of the surveillance state. Allin all, the disturbing trend is that illiberalism appears, again, on the rise.(p 136)

However, that is followed immediately by a more optimisticmessage about the future of freedom:

Nevertheless, it is our position that great encouragementshould be taken from the demonstrated self-organizational abilities of ordinarypeople, worldwide, to formulate social movements to demand their liberties andhuman rights. (p 136)

Progress

Although Mikayla does not discuss the concept of progress toany great extent, she makes the important point that social evolution tends tobe discordant and discontinuous. As a liberal, she focuses on the role ofsocial movements play in the evolution of free and open societies, andexpresses strong opposition to totalizing schemes (drawn up by social movementparticipants, and by others) aiming at wholesale change to society.

I believe that social movements have been an importantdriver of progress, as the concept is defined in my book Freedom, Progress,and Human Flourishing. Idefine progress as growth of opportunities for human flourishing that means growth of opportunities for all individuals to meet theiraspirations more fully. I dont discuss the role of social movementsexplicitly, but note that social changes accompanying economic progress have playedan important role in improving the opportunities available to women and membersof minority groups.

My view of cultural evolution as largely benign andemancipative is consistent with the view of social movements that Mikaylapresents. There is, however, a slight difference in emphasis. I view culturalevolution as the net result of progressive struggle and conservativeresistance, and argue that conservative resistance serves a useful purpose inaverting social changes that might later be widely regretted. Mikaylarecognizes that counter-movements may be informed by ideological commitmentsrather than being reactionary, but she leaves the impression that they are morelikely to oppose liberal freedoms than to advance them. (See pages 90-91.)

There is also an interesting difference between the itemsthat Mikayla and I discuss as illiberal tendencies. As noted above, Mikaylaemphasizes the tendency for minorities and many other groups around the world tobe victimized by violent, reactionary backlash dynamics. The things I writeabout under this heading include cancel culture, attempts to suppress views ofopponents, and terrorism. I think we are both right!

Summing up

Mikaylas book makes an important contribution in remindingreaders in the Western democracies of the emancipative role of social movementsin realization of economic, political, and social freedoms that they now tendto take for granted. In that context,social movements have been important drivers of progress, including the spreadingof opportunities for more people to meet their aspirations more fully. AlthoughI am somewhat concerned about the illiberal tendencies in some contemporarysocial movements, I share Mikaylas optimism about the abilities of ordinarypeople to formulate social movements to advance and protect liberty.

Posted byWinton Batesat11:32 AMNo comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels:culture,Economic freedom,emanicipative values,Frames and beliefs,free speech,liberty evolves,mindsets,modern culture,Political institutions,politics,progress,The good society Sunday, August 29, 2021 Do people have a right to choose where they will live?

Vietnamese boat people arriving in Australia in 1976

In the Western liberal democracies there are few people who claim that individuals do not have the right to choose where they live. However, many people set limits on the extent to which theyrecognize that right. They only recognize that foreigners have the right tolive in their neighborhood if they meet stringent immigration requirements.

Is that a reasonable view? If people readily accept thatindividuals should be free to choose where they will live within nationalborders, why are they reluctant to accept that individuals have a right tochoose which country to live in?

If you view national borders as arbitrary lines on maps, it willseem absurd to you that immigration requirements should make it more difficultto re-locate across national borders than within a nation. Internationalmigration could normally be expected to be as beneficial as migration withinnational borders. For example, the potential benefits to both the employees andemployers concerned when workers relocate to take up employment opportunitiesare not necessarily reduced when national borders are crossed. Similarly, thepotential benefits to both the grandparents and grandchildren of living in thesame locality are not necessarily reduced when national borders are crossed toenable that to happen.

I have been pondering such questions while reading IlyaSomins recent book, Freeto Move: Foot voting, migration, and political freedom. Somin presentsa powerful argument in favour of foot voting choosing to move to a differentcountry, city, condo etc. because you prefer its rules to the ones youcurrently live under. Foot voting enables individuals to make a choice thatactually matters to them, whereas voting in an election offers individuals onlya miniscule chance of affecting the outcome.

I didnt need to read Somins book to be persuaded of thepotential value of foot voting. It would be difficult for an economist engagedin public policy not to be aware of those benefits. I also had the benefit ofconsidering the issues involved many years ago when I read Robert Nozicksfamous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

However, it is one thing to accept the potential benefits offoot voting as an ideal, and quite another to advocate removal of currentobstacles to foot voting posed by migration regulations.

Somin suggest that the sovereignty argument the view thatthe right to bar migrants is intrinsic to the existence of an independentnation state has little support among political theorists, although it often arisesin public discourse. Somin mentions Donald Trump and his southern border wallproposal in this context, but John Howard, a former Australian prime minister, advanced the argument just as strongly in 2001:

National Security is also about having an uncompromising view about the fundamental right of thiscountry to protect its borders. It's about this nation saying to the world weare a generous open-hearted people, taking more refugees on a per capita basisthan any nation except Canada, we have a proud record of welcoming people from140 different nations.But we will decide who comes to this country andthe circumstances in which they come.

While national governments continue to exist, it would notbe realistic to expect them to refrain from accepting responsibility formigration policy. However, that does not mean that it is beyond the realms ofpossibility for governments to adopt something more closely approaching an openborders policy. As Somin points out, sovereign nations existed for centurieswithout exercising a general power to bar peaceful migrants. Most governmentsmade significant efforts to restrict entry only in the late 19^thcentury.

The reason why the sovereignty argument seems persuasive tomany people must be related to their perception that illegal or unauthorized migrationhas adverse consequences. They want immigration regulation enforced becausethey believe it serves a useful purpose.

Somin discusses in some detail various reasons that havebeen advanced for immigration restrictions. These include fear of terrorism andcrime, possible reduction of wage levels, burdening of the welfare state,destruction of the environment, and the spread of harmful cultural values. He recognizesthe validity of some objections to freedom of international migration, butsuggests that keyhole solutions are available to meet negative side-effects ofexpanded migration. These keyhole solutions aim to target real problems, minimizingrisks of adverse outcomes without imposing unnecessary restrictions on foot voting.

As in many other policy areas, carefully targeted regulationwhich minimizes adverse side-effects is clearly preferable to blanket bans andrestrictions that are directed toward meeting political demands of anti-migrantnationalist groups. Somin recognizes that such groups are the main obstacle tointernational foot voting.

This brings me back to the sovereignty argument. It seems tome that anti-migrant nationalist groups had greater sway in Australian politics20 years ago when significant numbers of people seeking refugee status were arrivingby boat without prior approval. Under those circumstances it was relativelyeasy for the opponents of immigration to claim that people smuggling and queuejumping by refugees was likely to lead to huge social problems.

The governments action to enforce regulation and discourageunauthorized arrivals seems to have enabled the public debate about immigrationlevels in Australia to become somewhat more civilized in recent years. It may alsohave reduced public disquiet about the relatively high migrant intake in recentyears (prior to the Covid 19 pandemic).

The sovereignty argument is clearly opposed to recognitionthat people have a right to choose which country they will live in. Nevertheless,Australians seem generally to have become more relaxed in their attitudestoward high levels of immigration since the government stridently assertedsovereignty by taking effective action to discourage unauthorized arrivals.

Postscript

The last couple of paragraphs have attracted some comment in response to a Facebook post by Boris Karpa: https://www.facebook.com/548209107/posts/10159829476419108/

The issue is whether there is any evidence to back up my assertion that Australians seem generally to have become more relaxed in their attitudes toward high levels of immigration since more effective action was taken to discourage unauthorized arrivals.

Survey evidence certainly suggests that immigration has gone off the radar as amajor political issue in Australia over the last decade (Scanlan Foundation, Mapping Social Cohesion,2020, p24).

The total number of migrants has increased, but there has been substantial opposition associated with the "somewhat more civilized debate" that I referred to. Itnow seems possible for people to argue for alower migrant intake on grounds of pressure on infrastructure, impacts on unskilledwage, and house prices etc. without being accused of racism, or lack ofsympathy for refugees.

The refugee intake has not risen much over the last decade. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be survey data on perceptions of whether the current refugee intake is too high or too lowfor long enough to assess whether attitudes have changed over the last decade. The Scanlan Foundation's report for 2019 suggests that in recent years opinion has been evenly balanced between thosewho say the intake is too small and those who say it is too large.

I think the Australian public would now be receptive to a largerrefugee intake, provided people dont arrive uninvited. However, that is just my personal view. I guess we will see whether or not I am right over the next year or so.

Further comments are welcome.

Posted byWinton Batesat5:17 PMNo comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to PinterestLabels:culture,Difficult questions,Economic freedom,mindsets,opportunity,politics,Rationality of voters,Why freedom? Older PostsHomeSubscribe to:Posts (Atom)
Humans need freedom to flourish.

Human flourishing is ultimately a self-directed process involving the exercise of practical wisdom. It occurs as mature individuals accept responsibility for managing their own lives and for seeking opportunities to obtain mutual benefits from voluntary interactions with others.

Welcome!Welcome to Freedom and Flourishing. While you are here, why not take a look around. Information about my book, "Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing" is available in the featured post below.
About meMy name is Winton Bates. I have been blogging on this site since 2008. My mission has evolved over time. It was originally to explore the links between freedom and human flourishing. It is now to promote greater understanding of the implications of the nature of human flourishing, as a self-directed process in which individuals become good humans and take pleasure in doing so.My latest book, "Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing", was published in May 2021. Please see the featured post below.

More information about me is available here.


Featured PostWho should read Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing?

I have dedicated the book to those who reflect on what it means to be a flourishing human. When individuals think about their own person...

Podcast about my bookMy story about gaining fluency



Popular PostsWhat are the characteristics of a good society?Do I understand the meaning of W B Yeats' epitaph?Once a neurotic always a neurotic?Is push-pin as good as poetry?Should we choose eudaimonia over hedonia?What did Yeats mean by "Horseman, pass by"?Is human flourishing primarily about psychological health, capability or opportunity?What did Milton Friedman have to say about human flourishing?How much does over-work affect happiness?How can the traditional virtues help people to have the basic goods of a flourishing human?Permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.


Articles on this blog may be reproduced elsewhere only if authorship and prior publication on this blog is acknowledged.

Subscribe To "Freedom and Flourishing"Posts Atom PostsAll Comments Atom All CommentsTopicsAutonomy and responsibility(72)Big government(87)Brave new world(48)capability and opportunity(24)culture(11)Difficult questions(27)Easterlins puzzle(18)Economic development(76)Economic freedom(123)emanicipative values(71)entrepreneurial qualities(12)Environmental issues(42)Ethics and moral instincts(122)Frames and beliefs(171)free speech(20)free to flourish(17)free trade(15)Future of economics(9)GNH: Bhutan(17)Identity(77)individualism(33)Inequality and income security(34)inner freedom(71)interpersonal relationships(8)J S Mill(20)kindness(24)Leadership(6)liberty evolves(21)life expectancy(1)life stories(34)media(18)mindsets(36)modern culture(74)Monetary policy(9)nominal GDP and inflation expectations(7)opportunity(6)Political institutions(140)politics(89)positional goods(7)Practical wisdom(98)productivity(29)progress(176)Rationality in capital markets(25)Rationality of behaviour(76)Rationality of voters(67)regulation(3)slavery(10)social capital(83)stagnation theories(7)subversive innovation(7)taxation(1)The good society(155)Toastmasters(2)unhappiness and depression(40)volunteering(12)Well-being and utility(49)Well-being measurement issues(85)What is happiness?(87)Why freedom?(80)LinksAndrew NortonBleeding heart libertariansCatallaxyCato UnboundCommon Sense EthicsCoordination ProblemDemocracy in AmericaEast Asia ForumEconAcademicsEconLogEconomist: Free ExchangeFrank Robinson: The Rational OptimistGreg MankiwHayek centerJim BelshawJohn QuigginJooble: Jobs in AustraliaLiberty UnboundMarginal RevolutionMatt RidleyNYT FreakonomicsQuilletteRichard EpsteinRoss GittinsThe National ForumThe Verma PostTheMoneyIllusionTroy Camplin on Medium






BlogCatalogLoaded WebBlogThisHere.comBlog This HereBlog Archive 2021(18) October(2)Would Chinese people accept that human flourishing...Why should economists practice humanomics? September(1) August(2) July(2) June(1) May(3) April(2) March(2) February(2) January(1) 2020(19) December(1) October(2) August(3) June(1) May(1) April(3) March(3) February(2) January(3) 2019(29) December(5) November(1) October(3) September(4) August(3) July(2) June(3) April(1) March(2) February(1) January(4) 2018(24) December(2) November(3) October(2) September(2) July(4) June(2) May(2) April(2) March(3) February(1) January(1) 2017(20) December(1) November(1) October(1) September(1) August(1) July(3) June(1) May(2) April(2) March(2) February(2) January(3) 2016(28) December(1) November(3) October(3) September(3) August(3) July(3) June(2) May(2) April(1) March(2) February(4) January(1) 2015(50) December(3) November(5) October(4) September(4) August(5) July(4) June(4) May(5) April(4) March(5) February(4) January(3) 2014(41) December(2) November(5) October(4) September(4) August(5) July(4) June(5) May(4) April(4) March(2) January(2) 2013(42) November(4) October(5) September(3) August(3) July(6) June(4) May(1) April(4) March(3) February(5) January(4) 2012(69) December(3) November(4) October(5) September(2) August(5) July(7) June(9) May(8) April(7) March(6) February(4) January(9) 2011(81) December(6) November(5) October(9) September(5) August(3) July(8) June(7) May(11) April(5) March(4) February(7) January(11) 2010(73) December(6) November(6) October(11) September(6) August(3) July(3) June(5) May(8) April(8) March(5) February(5) January(7) 2009(72) December(6) November(7) October(7) September(4) August(8) July(3) June(7) May(6) April(6) March(4) February(7) January(7) 2008(117) December(4) November(8) October(5) September(6) August(7) July(9) June(8) May(5) April(62) March(3)

TAGS:Freedom and Flourishing 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites