Small government: not an end in itself

Small government, despite what some thinktanks believe, is not an end in itself. I think the real issue is not so much the overall size of the state, but the distance between it and the voters. The rich countries in some ways have the worst of both worlds: big government that does (a) the wrong things and (b) some of the right things, badly. So the UK Government (for instance) maintains extravagant corporate welfare schemes, social engineering experiments, and high food prices, because that's what the French want. But it’s failing to do things like ensure safe streets and decent rates of basic literacy. If government were efficient, responsive and doing things that improved the welfare of real persons (rather than favoured corporations and lobby groups) and enjoyed popular support then I shouldn't see anything wrong with a big state. In other words, the issue is not the size of the state but what it does with the power and resources we give it. It all comes down to outcomes in the end. Small government may be a means towards that end, but it’s not an end in itself.