FREEDOM AS AN EFFECT, NOT A CAUSE:

God, man and growth: Two economists go where angels fear to tread (The Economist, Nov 13th 2003)

IF YOU want to avoid an argument over religion at your next dinner party, you might suppose it safe to invite an economist or two. They, of all people, could be expected to stick to Mammon. Or maybe not, if a new paper by Robert Barro, one of America's best-known economists, and Rachel McCleary, a colleague at Harvard University, is any guide. It explores the influence of religious belief and observance on economic growth. [...]

In order to sort this out, the authors needed to find measures of religion which are not themselves affected by GDP growth. To do this, they draw on a fundamental tenet of orthodox economic faith: that more competition is better. In some countries, religion is (or was) banned altogether or discouraged. In others, a single strand is sponsored by the state. In others, there is a free-for-all.

Earlier studies, say the authors, suggest that religion is more likely to flourish where there is less state control and a greater diversity of belief. So they use this to test the impact of religion on growth. Up to a point, their findings corroborate some common perceptions. More prosperous countries seem to have lower rates of church attendance, although America-the best instance of a country of competing sects rather than a state religion-is a conspicuous exception. More urbanised countries tend to be less religious. However, contrary to what many people think, religion seems to have a stronger hold in countries with better educated populations.

The most striking conclusion, though, is that belief in the afterlife, heaven and hell are good for economic growth. Of these, fear of hell is by far the most powerful, but all three indicators have a bigger impact on economic performance than merely turning up for church. The authors surmise, therefore, that religion works via belief, not practice.

that's the fascinating paradox of freedom: it only seems to function well when folks have internalized a set of moral restraints on themselves. In effect, outer freedom requires inner repression.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 19, 2003 7:52 PM