![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() Click for Search Instructions |
Home > News & Events |
|
Column from The Vancouver Sun6th May, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Limits on government spending should be tied to
electoral reform
By Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens
Special to the Sun May 6, 2004 page A11 There's a phenomenon in economics referred to as the "law of
unintended consequences." It basically refers to situations in
which unforeseen or "unintended" results arise from public
policies.
A classic example was the dramatic rise in welfare use during
the 1970s and 1980s, owing largely to increases in benefit rates
and relaxed eligibility rules. The designers of the policies never
intended to promote welfare use. However, their inability to fully
recognize the effects of making welfare more attractive (higher
benefits) and easier to get (relaxed eligibility) meant that the
policies they implemented had unintended consequences.
Another homegrown example may be on the horizon for British
Columbians as the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform ponders
whether or not to alter our system of electing politicians.
The Citizens' Assembly, consisting of 160 British Columbians
randomly chosen from voters lists, has been tasked with assessing
B.C.'s electoral system, examining alternatives and, if they
conclude change is required, recommending a new system.
On April 19, the assembly released a preliminary report
outlining its progress. The report included an assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of B.C.'s electoral system and a study of
alternatives. According to the report, the principal downside to
the current system is the lack of connection between the number of
votes a party receives and the number of seats it wins. Recall that
the current Liberal government garnered 58 per cent of the popular
vote, but won 97 per cent of the seats (77 of 79) in the 2001
provincial election.
While the report assures British Columbians that no conclusions
have been reached, it leaves the reader with a strong impression
that the assembly is leaning towards greater proportionality. That
is, that the assembly may recommend an alternative election system
wherein there is a closer relationship between the percentage of
the votes won and the number of seats accorded a political
party.
Such a change, in principle, sounds fine -- until one
understands its potential unintended consequences.
Proportional systems have been much more likely than
majoritarian systems to produce minority and coalition governments,
both of which have tended to result in increased government
spending. The reason for increased spending is that the lead
political party is forced to placate its coalition partners.
A recent study in the prestigious American Economic
Review examined how electoral rules influence government
spending, tax revenues and fiscal balance (deficit/surplus). The
study included empirical evidence from 80 democracies around the
world. The results of the analysis indicate that a move from a
majoritarian to proportional electoral system increases government
spending by approximately six percent of gross domestic
product.
In the case of British Columbia, it would mean an increase from
the current level of roughly 22 per cent of GDP to an expected
level of almost 28 per cent. This leads to more than a little
concern given the growing body of academic research showing that
increases in the size of government, measured as a proportion of
the economy, results in lower rates of economic growth. Not to
mention higher taxes.
Should British Columbians seriously consider moving to a
proportional representation system, we should also contemplate
insuring ourselves against runaway government spending and higher
taxes. In fact, regardless of whether or not we change the election
system, we should consider enacting tax and spending limitations on
government in order to place more control and authority in the
hands of voters.
Specifically, we should consider implementing what are referred
to as tax and expenditure limitation laws, which limit any increase
in government spending to slightly below the rate of economic
growth or the rate of inflation plus population growth. Any
increases beyond that level require voter approval via referendum.
In addition, any new taxes or increases in existing taxes also
require popular approval. Such laws have been in place in many
American states for decades with amazing success.
The B.C. Liberals should be commended for making British
Columbia a leader in electoral reform and putting the outcome
squarely in the hands of voters. Average British Columbians now
have a chance to fundamentally alter our electoral system and
institute real change. But caution is required. Without the proper
safeguards, moving the electoral system towards more
proportionality may lead to a less effective, larger
government.
To prevent the law of unintended consequences from reducing the
benefits of electoral reform, checks and balances must
simultaneously be enacted. To that end, B.C. would be well served
by the introduction of tax and expenditure limitation laws.
Jason Clemens is the director of fiscal studies and Niels
Veldhuis is senior research economist at The Fraser
Institute.
© The Fraser Institute 2004 (used with
permission)
[The Fraser Institute earlier published an related
article in the May 2000 edition of the Fraser Forum.]
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by ![]() | Site Map | Privacy Policy |