How many times have you heard “The government must do more” regarding controlling the spread of coronavirus? Everyone from your sister to politicians of the opposition party seem to be calling for more action by government to get coronavirus cases down to near zero.
The view that government must always pursue a higher level of intervention on anything that one deems wrong with the world is very common. It is human nature to react to a problem with the world with a call for government to do more about that problem. Of course no one wants to see the problems of society continue. And who better suited to fix social problems than the government, with all its power?
Unfortunately, a higher level of government intervention on a social issue does not always result in an improvement in the situation. Possible outcome categories for government intervention on an issue include the following:
1) improvement of the issue with no significant detrimental effect in other areas
2) improvement of the issue with considerable detriment to society in other ways
3) no improvement in the issue and no other detrimental effects witnessed in other respects
4) no improvement on the issue but detrimental effects seen in other areas
5) worsening of the issue but no bad effects seen in other areas
6) worsening of the issue and detrimental effects seen in other ways
If a government decides to take further action on an issue, improvement of that issue without significant negative effects seen elsewhere is one of six possible outcomes. It certainly has not been the outcome of social distancing policies meant to decrease coronavirus contagion.
Numerous factors influence which one of the six possible outcomes a policy will have. Policies that involve administration of a service, for instance, produce more consistent positive outcomes. For instance, if a public health authority decides to purchase more MRI machines to decrease MRI wait times, and there is an abundance of MRI technologists and radiologists, the result will likely be shorter MRI wait times with no downsides other than the expense involved.
Less predictable outcomes occur for policies that attempt to affect people’s behavior. For instance, public health campaigns by the government aimed at reducing smoking or binge drinking in youth have often been found to increase those behaviors. The health warnings in these campaigns increased adolescents’ desire to drink alcohol or smoke by making them sound more rebellious!
Economic policy is another area in which outcomes are unpredictable and negative results are common. Prominent economists such as Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke blame the Great Depression on unsound economic policy, for instance. In the 1930’s, the United States had laws preventing employers from lowering wages. Without the ability to lower expenses this way, employers had to lay off workers in order to stay in business, resulting in high unemployment.
Well-intentioned policies often have negative consequences, especially overly ambitious policies which fail to respect the limits of government action.
Many people think that their government has the power to control any situation. In reality, the government has limited tools to deal with any social or economic issue. For example, many people believe that their government has control over the unemployment rate and a high unemployment rate is always due to poor policy. This is not true. Governments have few tools to affect the unemployment rate. They can change the interest rate, increase spending or decrease taxes to stimulate the economy, or fund job training. That’s pretty much it. All these options are unpredictable, too. They are not usually in the ideal policy outcome category of good results without other problems created. Increasing spending or decreasing taxation, for instance, often adds to government debt and creates bubbles in certain sectors of the economy.
Our faith in the power of the state is a matter of desire rather than demonstration. When the state undertakes to achieve a goal and fails, we cannot bring ourselves to abandon the goal, nor do we seek alternative means of achieving it, for who is more powerful than a sovereign state? We demand, then, increased efforts of the state, tacitly assuming that where there is a will, there is a governmental way.
Milton Friedman
Social problems are also poorly controlled by the government. Every government tries to eradicate crime, yet crime still persists. Opioid overdose deaths have increased in North America considerably in recent years. Governments try to break up the narcotic supply chains and provide rehabilitation for addicts, but that has not been able to quelsh the overdose epidemic. Issues related to direct service delivery are the most amenable to government policy, although they are still not controlled by the government. High school education is a good example. The government can provide free, quality secondary education, but it cannot force youth to study, pass exams, or attend class.
Well-intentioned policies (those not unduly influenced by special interests) often have negative consequences, especially overly ambitious policies which fail to respect the limits of government action. States that dramatically reduce spending in order to reduce a large deficit sometimes see a paradoxical increase in the deficit because the economy is so affected by the reduction in public spending that overall tax revenue decreases. This occurred in Greece following the 2008 recession.
Poverty-reduction is another policy area in which too much action can result in a worsening of the problem. Making social assistance more easy to get and generous tends to result in an increase in unemployment because people become more selective with the jobs they take. The decrease in employment precipitates a drop in income tax revenue, leaving the government with less means to provide social services. Welfare recipients also have lower levels of physical and mental health than people who are working.
High-density public housing has exacerbated poverty and crime.
Government doing more about an issue often results in net harm to the public, whether it is through a paradoxical worsening of the problem or by causing other problems that negate the improvement in the targeted issue. Let’s be clear, this does not mean that the government should never do more about a social problem. It means that an in-depth cost-benefit analysis is required for any potential course of action by government. Along with cost-effectiveness calculations, these entail a comparison of the likelihood and magnitude of each potential negative impact against the likelihood and social benefit of the policy achieving its goals.
Strict social distancing policies are not based on a cost-benefit analysis. The win-at-all-costs mentality against the spread of coronavirus has resulted in governments pursuing an irresponsible course of action of an order never before witnessed. In every respect, lockdowns pose a catastrophic net harm to society. Politicians only care about being recognized for their aggressive action on the most popular issue of the day. They have not even tried to do what is good for the people.