Article Comparison on Government

The Feldstein (2017) article summarizes ten factors that contribute to the United States outperforming other large nations – principally in this article those of Europe – on economic terms. The author points to factors that are structural (the form of the banking system, leading universities) to cultural (the culture of entrepreneurship). Governmental factors include a favorable regulatory environment and a smaller size of government than the European countries against which Feldstein compares the US.
Gehl and Porter (2017) examine the nature of political competition in the US. They use existing competitive frameworks for their analysis, discussing the American political duopoly in terms of its industry structure, target markets, regulatory environment and other factors. Their findings outline the different areas where the political system is failing the average American.
At the intersection of these articles is an underpinning about what the role of government should be. Feldstein sees, for example, a smaller government and thinner regulatory regime as positives, because they lead to a higher GDP per capita. This argument is interesting, but ultimately hollow, in that GDP per capita is not actually the reason why people wake up the morning; it`s not why most people organize into societies. Wealth is good, certainly, but only to the extent that it delivers comfort, happiness and fulfillment. Americans may be wealthier than their European counterparts, but that`s not the only end that matters.
But that is why Feldstein framed his discussion primarily around the economy – this was a discussion he could manage. What Gehl and Porter have sought to do is have a much broader conversation – and their work is substantially larger in volume as the result of this expanded scope. Their work looks at the American political system. The features lauded by Feldstein surely exist, but Gehl and Porter are more skeptical about them, in the sense that they argue the political system substantially favors certain actors over others. The average voter, as they point out, has no real influence over policy. As such, policies that promote economic development are driven by the needs of those who do have an influence over policy.
What underpins Gehl and Porter`s argument is that the average American voter is unhappy with government. If government was creating robust economic conditions, then should the average voter not be happy with government? Of course, the answer lies not in wealth creation, but wealth distribution, something Feldstein does not address. His key measure – GDP per capita – averages wealth creation across all Americans, but the realities of wealth distribution are quite a bit different. Americans are faced with a political system that does a lot of things, which Gehl and Porter argue are precisely the things it has been designed to do, but that has come at the cost of fulfilling its mandate to meet the needs of all people.
This takes us to the question of why the activities of government are failing the average American. If you take the view that GDP is a measure of utmost importance, surely the keys to economic dynamism lie with society's best, brightest and most capable. For the rest, hard work is what is required. But as Feldstein himself notes, Americans already work hard. If hard work itself is not a pathway to success, then what is? Gehl and Porter argue a political system designed to meet the needs of individual votes first and foremost is likely sufficient. Feldstein appears to lean more towards some sort of trickle down idea.
An issue does arise, however, with Gehl and Porter's assumption that dissatisfaction with the political system is a meaningful measure. Arguably, it is only a meaningful measure to the extent that voter perception aligns with voter outcomes. Voters may be dissatisfied with government for a variety of reasons – even the wealthiest in our society are free to take issue with government, and they often do. What this means is that even a society where everybody is wealthy, wealthier than in comparable nations, can be a society that has profound dissatisfaction with government. The two are not mutually exclusive.
So what does that mean for the political system? Gehl and Porter recommend more competition in the system in order to get a government that better reflects the needs of the people. That may be perfectly reasonable, and it may not clash with the idea that smaller government and fewer regulations are good for business. It might – we certainly tend to assume so given that "few unions" equates to lousy wages and working conditions, and that "poor regulatory oversight" often leads to best practices not being adopted, the result being degradation of environment and health. Our interests are complex, certainly not just economic, and Feldstein is likely overestimating the American public's appreciation for the link between economic outcomes and regulations. Indeed, there are many instances where strict regulations are the drivers of growth – would the US even be remotely competitive in electric vehicles if California's rules on emissions weren't so strict? Likely note, and global automobile dominance may have ultimately been ceded to some other nation – like Japan or Germany, where a lack of homegrown fossil fuels was always going to push automakers towards other forms of power.
Where at first glance, there is considerable intersection between the articles, that might not really be the case. Indeed, the premises that underpin the articles are not mutually exclusive, and superficial thought on this subject will only lead to facile conclusions. Dealing with the full complexity and nuance of these subjects may be possible with a lengthy study like Gehl and Porter, but it is unfair to compare their work with the relatively thin (if correct) work of Feldstein, as we can only guess at his underlying values, assumptions and conclusions.


References

Feldstein, M.(2017). Why the US is still richer than every other large country. Harvard Business Review.

Gehl, K. & Porter, M. (2017) Why competition in the politics industry is failing America. Harvard Business Review