Economic Policies of the Political Right

Their Impact on the Rich, Poor and Social Cohesion

Photo by Larm Rmah on Unsplash

Understanding economic policies and their real-world implications can be challenging due to their complexity and the multitude of factors involved. One way to gain insight into these policies is to categorize them along political lines. This article will focus on economic policies often associated with the political right, examining how they benefit the rich and powerful, and their potential impact on social cohesion.

Neoliberalism and Trickle-down Economics

A primary tenet of right-wing economic policy is neoliberalism, which stresses deregulation, liberalization, and privatization. Neoliberalists argue that minimizing government intervention maximizes economic efficiency and fosters business innovation. This free-market capitalism is thought to create wealth, which will eventually ‘trickle down’ to all members of society. However, critics argue that this disproportionately benefits the wealthy and exacerbates income inequality.

The ‘trickle-down’ theory posits that allowing the wealthy to keep more of their earnings (through lower taxes, for instance) incentivizes them to invest and create more jobs. The wealth then trickles down, fostering overall economic growth. This supply-side economics approach was famously employed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and has remained a key policy of right-wing parties worldwide.

However, critics argue that in reality, the benefits of trickle-down economics tend not to reach the less affluent. The increased wealth of the rich is more likely to be invested in financial assets, often overseas, rather than in domestic job-creating ventures. This failure to circulate wealth through the economy can result in increased income and wealth disparity.

Deregulation

Deregulation, another staple of right-wing economic policy, involves reducing government oversight and controls in business. Supporters of deregulation argue it encourages competition, fosters innovation, reduces prices, and boosts economic growth. However, it’s essential to recognize that deregulation can have different impacts depending on the context and the specific industry involved.

While businesses can thrive in a deregulated environment, there can be downsides. For example, the lack of oversight can sometimes lead to monopolies and oligopolies, where a few large corporations control an industry. These entities can then exploit their market position to raise prices or reduce quality, disadvantaging consumers and stifling competition.

Critics also argue that deregulation can increase wealth inequality. The rich, who are often shareholders in large corporations, stand to gain more from deregulation as their investments grow. Meanwhile, those at the bottom may find their consumer rights and protections weakened. For example, the 2008 global financial crisis is often attributed to the deregulation of the financial sector, which led to high-risk banking practices and ultimately caused significant harm to those least able to cope with its fallout.

Austerity Measures

Austerity measures, or cuts in public spending, are also part of the economic policy toolkit of the political right. They aim to reduce budget deficits and control inflation. However, austerity can have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable segments of society, who depend on public services such as healthcare, education, and social security.

While austerity may in some cases lead to fiscal stability in the long term, its short-term effects can be quite harmful. Cuts in public spending can lead to job losses, particularly in the public sector, and reduce social benefits for those most in need. These cuts can widen the wealth gap, as the wealthy are less dependent on these public services and are therefore less affected by their reduction or removal.

Tax Policies

Right-wing tax policies often favor a flat tax or a reduction in progressive taxation. Proponents argue that these approaches encourage investment and economic growth by allowing the wealthy to keep more of their earnings. However, these policies tend to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, leading to greater wealth accumulation at the top and contributing to income and wealth inequality.

A flat tax implies that all taxpayers pay the same rate, regardless of their income. While this might seem fair on the surface, it actually burdens the less affluent more, since a larger proportion of their income goes to necessities. Progressive taxation, where tax rates rise with income, is seen by many economists as a tool for wealth redistribution and inequality reduction. Therefore, policies reducing progressive taxation may lead to greater income inequality, as the rich retain a larger share of their wealth.

The Impact on Social Cohesion

Economic policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy can have far-reaching consequences beyond the economy. Such policies can erode social cohesion, which refers to the strength of relationships and the sense of solidarity among members of a society.

Income and wealth inequality, often exacerbated by these right-wing economic policies, can strain social cohesion. The OECD reports that societies with higher inequality tend to have lower levels of social trust, which is a cornerstone of social cohesion. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, people are more likely to feel divided, fostering resentment and reducing the sense of shared purpose necessary for societal harmony.

Moreover, austerity measures and cuts in public spending can affect social cohesion by limiting access to public goods and services that underpin equal opportunities, such as education, healthcare, and social security. If people feel the system is stacked against them, or that they do not have the same opportunities as others, this can lead to social unrest.

Further, as wealth concentrates at the top, political power can also become skewed towards the wealthy, who often use their influence to further policies that benefit them. This can lead to a vicious cycle where economic inequality leads to political inequality, which in turn exacerbates economic inequality. This imbalance in power and wealth can create a sense of disenfranchisement among the less affluent, threatening democratic processes and social cohesion.

Anarcho-Capitalism: The Ultimate Expression of Right-Wing Economic Policy

Anarcho-capitalism represents an extreme form of the right-wing economic policy, embodying the principles of individual liberty, private property rights, and free markets taken to their logical conclusion. This economic and political philosophy advocates for the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property, and free markets. Its proponents argue that services traditionally provided by the government, such as law enforcement, courts, and infrastructure, could be efficiently supplied by the private sector.

Anarcho-capitalism posits that the non-aggression principle (NAP), which forbids aggression against others’ property rights, can serve as a guiding rule for society. This principle prohibits theft, assault, and fraud, but permits any voluntary association or transaction.

Proponents argue that anarcho-capitalism can foster economic growth and prosperity by eliminating government intervention and allowing unhampered competition. They posit that in an anarcho-capitalist society, businesses would have to compete fairly, leading to innovation, improved services, and lower prices. They argue that, absent state regulation, ‘bad’ businesses would fail, and ‘good’ businesses would thrive based on their ability to satisfy consumer needs.

However, anarcho-capitalism is fraught with challenges that might amplify the problems associated with other right-wing economic policies, particularly in terms of benefiting the rich and powerful and undermining social cohesion.

First, critics argue that in an anarcho-capitalist society, wealth and power could become concentrated in the hands of a few, creating a new form of authority. Without a government to provide checks and balances, these entities might exploit their power to the detriment of others. This could lead to new forms of economic and social inequality, exacerbating issues associated with neoliberalism and trickle-down economics.

Moreover, critics express concern that, in the absence of a central authority to enforce laws and resolve disputes, society could devolve into a state of ‘might makes right.’ They suggest that those with wealth and power might use it to control resources and exert influence over others, undermining the non-aggression principle.

Second, the provision of public goods and services could be problematic in an anarcho-capitalist society. For instance, if education or healthcare were solely provided by the private sector, access might be limited to those who can afford them. This could lead to stark social stratification, with the wealthy having access to better services and opportunities than the less affluent.

Finally, anarcho-capitalism could undermine social cohesion. The philosophy of anarcho-capitalism values individualism over collective interests. While this can encourage personal responsibility and self-reliance, it might also erode the sense of community and mutual support crucial for maintaining social cohesion. Critics argue that a society based on individualism might foster social isolation and division, as opposed to unity and cooperation.

In conclusion, while anarcho-capitalism represents an extreme expression of free-market principles, it might amplify the potential negative consequences of right-wing economic policies, particularly in terms of wealth inequality and social cohesion. The philosophy raises important questions about the role of government, the nature of society, and the relationship between individual freedom and collective well-being, which warrant careful consideration.

The Paradox of Total Individual Freedom and the Potential Detriment to Society

The concept of total individual freedom, or absolute liberty, has been a popular discourse in political and philosophical arenas. This principle posits that an individual should be allowed to do anything they please, as long as it does not harm others. However, a society where every individual has total freedom could lead to paradoxical outcomes that ultimately harm the collective whole and undermine social cohesion.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Social Responsibility

The balance between individual freedoms and social responsibilities is delicate and essential for a functioning society. While individual freedom is a cornerstone of many political philosophies and human rights discourses, it has always been tempered by the needs and rights of the community as a whole.

This balance is reflected in various societal institutions and practices. Laws, for instance, restrict certain freedoms (such as the freedom to harm others) in the interest of public safety and social order. Taxes, despite being seen by some as an infringement on individual liberty, are necessary to fund public goods and services that benefit society as a whole.

The Tragedy of the Commons

The concept of the “tragedy of the commons” is a clear illustration of how total individual freedom could lead to collective harm. This concept, first articulated by ecologist Garrett Hardin, refers to a situation where individuals, acting independently and rationally according to their self-interest, deplete a shared resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.

For instance, if every individual had the total freedom to overfish in a common pond, they might do so to maximize their immediate benefit. However, this could lead to the depletion of the fish population, leaving everyone worse off in the long term.

The Challenge of Public Goods

The provision of public goods is another area where total individual freedom could be detrimental. Public goods, such as parks, roads, and public health measures, benefit everyone and cannot be withheld from those who do not contribute to their maintenance.

In a society where everyone has total freedom, individuals might choose not to contribute to the provision or maintenance of public goods (since they can use them anyway), leading to their neglect or disappearance. This phenomenon, known as the “free-rider problem,” illustrates how absolute individual freedom can lead to outcomes that are suboptimal for society.

Social Inequality and Cohesion

Total individual freedom can also exacerbate social inequalities. If everyone is free to accumulate and retain as much wealth as possible without any redistribution, wealth disparities could increase dramatically. Extreme wealth inequality can undermine social cohesion, leading to resentment, social unrest, and a breakdown of the sense of community.

Moreover, absolute individual freedom could lead to a “survival of the fittest” society, where the most vulnerable members are left behind. In such a society, social solidarity, empathy, and collective responsibility could be eroded, threatening the social fabric and cohesion.

Balancing Economic Prosperity and Social Cohesion: A Reflection on Right-Wing Economic Policies

In conclusion, the economic policies of the political right, while contributing to economic growth, innovation, and individual freedom, tend to disproportionately benefit the rich and powerful. The principles of neoliberalism, deregulation, austerity measures, and certain tax policies all favor those with existing wealth and power, often leading to increased economic inequality. Furthermore, these policies can negatively impact social cohesion, leading to reduced social trust and potential social unrest.

The more extreme philosophies of anarcho-capitalism and total individual freedom, while embodying the ideals of liberty and free markets, pose their own unique challenges. Anarcho-capitalism, with its complete rejection of state intervention, may exacerbate the concentration of wealth and power and compromise the provision of public goods and services. Total individual freedom, despite its appeal, can lead to collective harm, as illustrated by the “tragedy of the commons” and the “free-rider problem.”

Understanding these dynamics is critical in assessing the merits and drawbacks of right-wing economic policies. While these policies can stimulate economic growth and encourage personal freedoms, they must be carefully balanced with the needs and rights of all members of society. Indeed, it is necessary to ensure that economic policies contribute not only to economic prosperity but also to social harmony and cohesion.

Ultimately, the goal of any economic policy should be to create a balanced society where prosperity is shared, opportunities are equal, individual freedoms are protected, and social cohesion is nurtured. This requires ongoing dialogue, scrutiny of existing policies, and a willingness to explore new ideas and approaches. The conversation around these issues is dynamic and complex, and it invites participation from all quarters for a more inclusive, equitable, and cohesive society.

In this regard, the study of right-wing economic policies and their impacts offers valuable insights. It prompts us to question, critique, and reevaluate our understanding of economic growth, wealth distribution, individual freedom, and societal well-being. It reminds us of the importance of striking a balance between fostering economic prosperity and ensuring social cohesion — a challenge that lies at the heart of economics as a discipline, and public policy as a practice.

The continuous evolution of these concepts and the rigorous debate surrounding them serve as a testament to the dynamic nature of economics and politics. It emphasizes the need for ongoing research, informed public discourse, and policy-making that takes into consideration the multifaceted impacts of economic policies on different segments of society. As we move forward, it is essential to remember that while the pursuit of economic growth and individual freedom is important, it should not undermine the collective well-being and social cohesion of society.

References

Here are some references that offer further insight into the topics discussed in this article:

1. Neoliberalism and Trickle-down Economics

• Harvey, David. “A Brief History of Neoliberalism.” Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Piketty, Thomas. “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” Harvard University Press, 2014.

2. Deregulation

• Stiglitz, Joseph E. “Globalization and Its Discontents.” W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.

3. Austerity Measures

• Blyth, Mark. “Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea.” Oxford University Press, 2015.

4. Tax Policies

• Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman. “The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay.” W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

5. Impact on Social Cohesion

• Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.” Allen Lane, 2009.

6. Anarcho-Capitalism

• Friedman, David. “The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism.” Open Court, 1973.

7. Total Individual Freedom

• Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice.” Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, vol. 162, no. 3859, 1968, pp. 1243–1248.

These references offer both supportive and critical perspectives on the topics discussed, providing a balanced view of the benefits and drawbacks of right-wing economic policies.