I wasn’t saying that the people who took the surveys had an agenda; I meant that the responses might have been skewed by pro- or anti-government ideology.

Okay. Then, I actually agree (sorry for the misunderstanding).

Russia (formerly USSR), for example, “would” fail spectacularly if they tried to have big, intrusive government.

And by implementing Marxist economics in full (the failure).

No, you can’t always use that argument. For example, you wouldn’t be able to use it if they had used some objective measure of corruption, rather than just asking people about their perceptions.

Certainly it would be better, if such objective measurement would exist. I still fail to see how their methodology (asking business people and experts) proves an agenda, unless, of course, they select people who would provide a desired result.

But then again, I fail to see what agenda does finding Iceland noncorrupt and Chad corrupt really advance.

In the US, mistrusting the government is an integral part of our culture. In Scandinavia, it seems to be the opposite. That this may have accounted for some of the difference in perceptions of corruption seems like a fairly reasonable hypothesis. Or it could be that their government really is more trustworthy.

Dunno if Scandinavians trust the government really that much (as much as Americans mistrust it) — it might be that since there is no truism of government=untrustworthy that people actually expect and demand more of it.

It also seems to be reasonable to hypothize, as I have done, that the fact that these are rather small and rather culturally homogenous countries that there is usually greater consensus* about issues, and various interest groups are usually reduced to various Labor Unions and their employee counterparts.

Cultural homogenuity could explain much of the perceptions, at least, a conservative southern gun-owner won’t be happy in the U.S with a liberal democrat as a head of state, and vice versa for a Boston liberal (and both will scream at the top of their lungs about the current intrusive government if it pushes laws that do not agree with certain stereotypical political positions that they would hold, about gun control or abortion, for example). Whereas the difference between someone from Helsinki and a farmer from Eastern Finland wouldn’t be as pronounced, and the interests wouldn’t be so opposite.

One difference is the State/Federal Government thing, for one, and the issue on how much independence States should have.

I have a point hidden in all that — it is that since America is so diverse it wouldn’t work with a big and intrusive government, and since Iceland is so small and homogenous, it can have it (with keeping government in check). Russia (formerly USSR), for example, “would” fail spectacularly if they tried to have big, intrusive government.

* I’m not sure if this is good thing. The major political parties have so ridiculously similar platforms that a cynic would think that there are no viable alternatives. Certainly American politics seems much more polarized.

In the US, mistrusting the government is an integral part of our culture. In Scandinavia, it seems to be the opposite. That this may have accounted for some of the difference in perceptions of corruption seems like a fairly reasonable hypothesis. Or it could be that their government really is more trustworthy.

I’m perfectly open to the proposition that government can be big without being “corrupt” in the usual sense of the word. I’ve long maintained that the damage politicians do under the cover of night is insignificant compared to the damage done by the things they brag about in their campaign speeches.

This is just perception of corruption. I wonder how much of this has to do with actual corruption, and how much is simply ideology.

Well, you can use that argument always, now can you? I don’t see the ideology there — it does not claim anything about Big Government either way (I would say that it makes sense that big, bureaucratic government is more likely to be corrupt. I personally think that cultural factors and involved and educated citizenry are causes for Nordic high scores, and perhaps the fact that these countries which did best are small pseudo-socialist countries. France didn’t do particularly well, for example. ).

“That’s just ideology” works equally well both ways. I wonder how much of your wonderment is genuine wonder and how much is simpy ideology.

Regarding privatization, you can call government contracting “privatization” if it makes you feel better. But you cannot then draw from this the conclusion that the private sector works no better than government. The problem with contracting is that government, not consumers, is still ultimately calling the shots, which means that contracting can’t provide many of the benefits of true privatization.

Tuomas:
This is just perception of corruption. I wonder how much of this has to do with actual corruption, and how much is simply ideology.

It seems that Big Government does not necessarily equal corrupt govenment, as all Nordic countries rate especially well.

He may not have conceived the ideas, but he has done much to advance them. Perhaps strategist is more appropriate?

As for privatise: Dictionary.com: pri·va·tize:”To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise…” I don’t believe cutting government out of the picture ALTOGETHER is obligatory. Contracting jobs, such as laundry, food prep, digging latrines, and driving support convoys, which were formerly performed by government employees (soldiers) to private companies, to be performed by non-government employees, may not constitute the purest form of privatization, but I believe it is privatization nonetheless.

Don’t confuse contracting out government work with privatization—the two are radically different. Contracting does nothing to address the broken incentive structures faced by government agents, so it’s still vulnerable to cronyism and inadequate quality control. The failures of government contracting tell us nothing whatsoever about the merits of true privatization, which means cutting government out of the picture altogether.

Also, I doubt very much that Grover Norquist is the architect of any economic theory. He may have contributed to designing some set of policy goals, but I don’t think he’s made any original contributions to economic thought.

I hope to be buried in Chicago; I wanna stay politically active.

I suppose it’s possible to properly oversee the government to the extent that it can be trusted to play a dominant role in various social functions, but I have yet to see it actually happen in practice.

I agree, the current federal government is a poor example. (Don’t know enough about Illinois state politics, I’m afraid.)

We’ve gone from the Pentagon’s $436 hammer in the 1980’s, to today’s $150,000/year private security contractor in Iraq (vs. $19,980/year for a US Army corporal). My understanding of the rationale for privatisation was that competition would lead to lower costs and greater efficiency. Real life examples seem to contradict this. Likewise, neither the present US government nor the private sector seem particularly adept nor trustworthy at oversight.

I favor Robert’s example: transparency and an involved citizenry.

Sweden manages to be relatively non-corrupt despite an everywhere-government (”erection to resurrection”). There are some interesting speculations about how; one factor is certainly the culture of transparency they have going on. Everything the government does is scrutinized with interest. (PJ O’Rourke has an amusing tale of seeing a sewage main being laid in Stockholm, complete with dozens of kiosks showing the budget figures, architectural drawings, engineering schematics, etc. of the project, each of which had its own little cluster of amiable Swedes reading it.)

“Faith” is generally defined as “belief in the absence of evidence” - at least, scientific or material evidence. Unfortunately, at least here in Illinois, there’s plenty of evidence about the quality of oversight common in governmental affairs. It’s expressed in the parade of office holders and their minions entering the gates of the state’s correctional institutions; most recently including the immediate past governor of Illinois, who if sentenced to the maximum for his offenses is unlikely to finish his days outside of prison.

I suppose it’s possible to properly oversee the government to the extent that it can be trusted to play a dominant role in various social functions, but I have yet to see it actually happen in practice. A study of history will show that no one who has ever lived in Illinois from it’s formation ever has either, and I doubt (admittedly from my perspective, which may differ from yours) that any of my descendents ever will, either.

Don’t be so quick to presume stereotypes if you don’t want people to presume them about you. Unless you can quote a post about me that shows I support such.

Apologies, I was using “you” in the sense of “one,” such as “one can believe.” I thought the “For example,” would make that clear.

The bathtub quote is from Grover Norquist, an architect of Neocon economic theory.

Never heard that phrase. Where’s it come from? Or did you come up with it yourself.

unfettered corporate power

Are you making the presumption that people who think that government should be limited also belief in “unfettered corporat power”? Don’t be so quick to presume stereotypes if you don’t want people to presume them about you. Unless you can quote a post about me that shows I support such.

Or you can have faith that government, with proper oversight, can play a beneficial and much-needed role in education, social welfare, health insurance, housing, etc.

No human agency deserves my faith. Strike that, and I can agree with the rest of the sentence. But that doesn’t mean that said beneficial role still shouldn’t be limited. And then there’s the question of “proper oversight”; good in theory, but it has been quite difficult in practice to achieve.

Once again, I agree with much of your interpretations of the Constitution. It’s when you start interpreting the interpretation, such as this:

In the United States of America, the primary responsibility for guaranteeing an individual’s welfare is the individual, not the government. If the population decides to delegate to the government with certain functions that will further individual welfare (armies, roads, etc.), then fine. But delegating authority for certain functions to the government doesn’t relieve the individuals from their responsibility for themselves. We do not live in a Socialist state,

that we part ways. Your interpretation of the founders’ intent, the rights and responsibilities of individuals, government’s role in taxes and spending on social programs, the military, roads, etc., and other issues we’ve gotten into here are informed by your political beliefs, just as mine are. We’ve reached an impasse where we’re arguing semantics. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine because we’re operating from fundamentally opposing basic assumptions and beliefs.

In a way, it comes down to faith. For example, you can have faith in the marketplace, a government small enough to “drown it in the bathtub,” unfettered corporate power, and so forth. Or you can have faith that government, with proper oversight, can play a beneficial and much-needed role in education, social welfare, health insurance, housing, etc.

I’ve taken this as far as I want at this point.

But even then, the paramountcy of the rights of the individual was still thought to be insufficiently recognized. To that end, the Bill of Rights was added; to make sure that the Federal government’s powers were explicitly limited and that those of the State governments and individuals were to be paramount. Note especially the statements of the 9th and 10th amendments, whose intents are to be sure that the rights and powers of the Federal government were limited to those explicitly spelled out, and that all others were reserved to the States and the people.

In the United States of America, the primary responsibility for guaranteeing an individual’s welfare is the individual, not the government. If the population decides to delegate to the government with certain functions that will further individual welfare (armies, roads, etc.), then fine. But delegating authority for certain functions to the government doesn’t relieve the individuals from their responsibility for themselves. We do not live in a Socialist state, we live in a Federal republic. The government is subordinate to the people; that means - that must mean - that the people are responsible for their own welfare, their own lives and liberty, and for obtaining the means to make them secure.