Economic freedom & social tolerance

Tim professes amazement that the Guardian's new human rights site ignores economic freedoms. This raises the question: what's the link between economic liberty and social liberties?

Highfalutin talk about freedom being indivisible isn't much help here, if only because so many folk think otherwise. For every Guardianista who favours gay rights but dislikes economic liberty, there's a Conservative with the opposite preference.

Nor is UK history much guide. If we compare now to the 1970s, we probably have more economic liberty, by Tim's lights, than we did then and there's less homophobia, sexism and racism. That suggests a positive relationship between social and economic freedoms. But if we compare now to the late 19th century, we have less economic liberty but more freedom for women and gays. That suggests a negative relationship between economic and social freedom.

Luckily, a new paper by Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson sheds some light here. In a cross-country study of 65 countries, they find that economic freedom is significantly positively correlated with tolerance of homosexuals, but has no significant link with racial tolerance. Cynics might say this is because the selfishness generated by economic liberty causes people to care about house prices more, and gay people help to raise these, but I suspect this isn't the only story.

Curiously, there are two particular aspects of economic freedom that encourage tolerance of gays. One is legal protection of property rights, and the other is low and stable inflation; a credible inflation target reduces homophobia. The size of government, openness to trade and extent of regulation seem irrelevant. The authors say:

Stability, safety and an expectation of fairness (in the legal and monetary systems) are conducive to not regarding others as threatening.

There's something here, I think, for everyone. On the one hand, Guardianistas can point to the lack of link between economic liberty and many aspects of tolerance as evidence that economic liberty is separate from many social freedoms. But on the other hand, economic libertarians can point to the fact that there's no evidence that economic freedom reduces social liberties, and some evidence that, in one respect at least, it increases them.

Comments

[Rick]

I said something similar about social v economic equality since the 1970s.

http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/the-equality-paradox/

A victory for social and economic liberalism perhaps?

[Account Deleted]

So, "a credible inflation target reduces homophobia". The pained expression on Mervyn King's face when he has to revise the inflation target (again) is now explained.

[Keith]

Sounds like rubbish to me.

[Chris]

The term "economic freedom" as currently used actually means the opposite. It means subjugation and exploitation of the vast majority in the economic sphere. We must all work for its destruction.

Real economic freedom is socialism.

[patrick]

One could read 'economic freedom' in two contradictory ways. I'm guessing Tim means the freedom to do what you want with your wealth. But it could be read as 'the freedom and opportunity to do things for people who don't have much money.

Having been involved in writing a fair few equality impact assessments in my time - looking at whether policies had differential impact on people on account of their gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality or disability, I've always thought that 'economic status' was the elephant in the room. If governments were forced to consider whether policies had a negative impact on 'people without much money' we might have done much more to tackle underlying inequality.

[Mike Killingworth]

Patrick, I am reminded of the time, nearly thirty years ago now, when I was an officer in one of London's then left-wing Labour boroughs. At an Xmas "do" I remember saying to a Committee Chairperson, "well, Councillor, would you like me to abolish poverty world-wide or merely push it across the borough boundary?"

That is why "underlying inequality" hasn't been tackled more than it has, and indeed is tackled less by each succeeding administration as the ranks of those who think the workers should be rewarded for their contribution to two World Wars won are thinned out by the Grim Reaper.

And even if we could push it offshore, those Brits whose hearts relate more to Kingston and the Punjab than to cream teas and college lawns would be quick to see it as yet another racist manoeuvre...

[Tim]

So Japan is the most Gay tolerant place on the planet? Or do we mean that developed economies have generally lower inflation and less homophobia. Maybe developed is the key word.