U.S. Economic Strength vs. Political Dysfunction: A Comparative Analysis
This essay compares two Harvard Business Review articles: Feldstein's (2017) argument that structural, cultural, and governmental factors explain U.S. economic outperformance relative to other large nations, and Gehl and Porter's (2017) critique of the American political duopoly. The paper explores the intersection of these works, questioning whether GDP per capita is an adequate measure of societal well-being, examining wealth distribution versus wealth creation, and evaluating whether political competition reforms would better serve average Americans. The essay ultimately argues that the premises of both articles are not mutually exclusive, and that superficial comparisons between them obscure deeper questions about the proper role of government and the true drivers of human welfare.
- Overview of Feldstein's Economic Argument: Structural and cultural factors behind U.S. economic outperformance
- Gehl and Porter's Critique of Political Competition: Political duopoly failing average American voters
- GDP Per Capita as an Inadequate Measure: Questioning GDP as a proxy for human well-being
- Wealth Distribution and Political Design: Distribution gap and political system design flaws
- Regulatory Environment and Economic Dynamism: Regulations as drivers rather than obstacles to growth
- Comparing the Two Frameworks: Limits of comparing two works of different scope
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay moves beyond simple summary by interrogating the assumptions underlying each article, particularly Feldstein's reliance on GDP per capita as a proxy for societal well-being.
- It identifies a meaningful point of tension — wealth creation versus wealth distribution — that neither source article directly addresses together, and uses that gap to drive its own argument.
- The paper uses a concrete, well-chosen example (California's emissions regulations and U.S. electric vehicle competitiveness) to challenge the assumption that fewer regulations always produce better economic outcomes.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative synthesis: rather than summarizing two sources independently, it places them in dialogue, identifying where their premises overlap, where they diverge, and where one exposes a blind spot in the other. This technique — using sources to interrogate each other rather than simply to support a thesis — is a hallmark of strong undergraduate analytical writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by summarizing each article in turn, then establishes a shared thematic intersection (the role of government). It progresses through a series of analytical moves: questioning GDP as a metric, raising the wealth-distribution problem, evaluating voter dissatisfaction as a measure, and finally scrutinizing the regulatory environment. The conclusion cautions against superficial comparison and acknowledges the differing scope and depth of the two works.
Overview of Feldstein's Economic Argument
The Feldstein (2017) article summarizes ten factors that contribute to the United States outperforming other large nations — principally those of Europe — on economic terms. The author points to factors that are structural (the form of the banking system, leading universities) as well as 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 U.S.
Gehl and Porter's Critique of Political Competition
Gehl and Porter (2017) examine the nature of political competition in the U.S. 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 question 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 in the morning — it is 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 is not the only end that matters.
GDP Per Capita as an Inadequate Measure
Feldstein framed his discussion primarily around the economy — a discussion he could readily manage within a short article. What Gehl and Porter sought to do is have a much broader conversation, and their work is substantially larger in volume as a result of this expanded scope. Their work looks at the American political system as a whole. 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 influence over policy.
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.