Eighteen problematic propositions in the analysis of the growth of government
Economists, public choice analysts, political scientists, and other scholars, especially during the past 10 to 15years, have made many studies of the growth of government. As the literature has grown, a number of conventions have become established with respect to concepts, measures, assumptions and modes of analysis. Certain contributions have been viewed as paradigmatic and hence have served as models for subsequent contributors. No analytical consensus has emerged. Indeed, one can perceive the outlines of several competing "schools"a Chicago school, a Washington school (see Proposition 16),a mainstream economics school, a libertarian school, several distinct positions within the public choice community of scholars, and others. Despite the diversity of approaches and conclusions, much of the work has been premised, implicitly if not explicitly, on the acceptance of propositions that are questionable at best. In what follows, I shall state these propositions and criticize them. Although I shall provide citations and examples of scholars who have advanced or accepted the flawed propositions, my aim is not to compile a catalog of sinners. The examples are intended only to provide concrete illustrations of how various analysts have proceeded and to demonstrate that I am not quarreling with phantoms. The discussion that follows pertains mainly to the growth of government as it has occurred in the countries of Western Europe and their overseas offshoots during the past two centuries, especially