We speak with economist Cris Lingle about economic freedom, inequality, globalization, institutions, and the enduring case for markets in an era of rising skepticism toward liberalism—and the fragile foundations of prosperity.
About the Guest
Christopher Lingle is a visiting professor of economics at the Universidad Francisco Marroquín. He earned his PhD in economics from the University of Georgia and is the author of Singapore’s Authoritarian Capitalism and The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century.
Interview
Simon Sarevski: You’ve long argued that economic freedom is the primary driver of prosperity. However, with inequality rising alongside liberalization, why should people accept that tradeoff?
Cris Lingle: My position is that it is human liberty that leads to flourishing, in that economic freedom is a part rather than the whole. Human liberty involves the respect for private property, which is more important for the security of the poor who are less able to flee or avoid oppression or survive expropriation. If you are human, you should value this.
At what point, if any, does inequality become a threat to the very market order you defend?
Cris Lingle: Inequality is a feature of being human, not a bug. Inequality comes in many guises, including physical appearance, IQ, stamina, etc. If it is “just” to adjust for one inequality, e.g., income, then why not adjust for any or all others? Obviously, there is no moral argument for redistribution, unless it is voluntary.
The Asian Tigers used significant state intervention during their takeoff. Are they evidence against the free market model, or do you interpret their success differently?
Cris Lingle: Whatever the political model of the Asian Tigers, their economic success was from being part of the process of globalization, i.e., increased integration with global markets. Of course, they all tried to pursue a form of neo-mercantilism that shifted resources from their domestic sector to export sectors. This “model” led to an economic collapse, initially in Japan in the 1990s, followed by others in East Asia. Their recovery after that has a lot to do with moving away from mercantilist logic.
What about Nordic high-trust welfare states — are they the exceptions to the rule, or is there more going on beneath the surface?
Cris Lingle: The Nordics are paragons of open economies. Their small populations, harsh climates, and remote geography led them to embrace open trade. Once they became “rich,” there was a tendency for politicians to pursue welfare states, which is a part of their Lutheran values that tended to restrain individuals from “gaming” the system. However, there has been a retreat from the stifling effects of these arrangements.
If you were advising a poor country today, would you still recommend a largely laissez-faire path?
Cris Lingle: Yes, of course. History provides ample evidence that collectivism, as a guiding principle for economic or political policy, leads to widespread misery. Of course, the leadership will have privileges that are unavailable to the general population. This is why intellectuals or elites tend to be drawn to collectivism. Then they create propaganda to induce others to follow them.
And if institutions are weak—what comes first? Is it institutions or wealth? Or is that the wrong question?
Cris Lingle: The most important institution for humans to flourish is private property and that is the basis of self-ownership. Once that is in place, there will be a possibility for humans to pursue a dignified life. There is no moral basis to dispossess anyone of their right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, as they choose to define it, as long as that pursuit does not harm others.
Markets are often criticized not just for failure, but for being captured by big business. Why should people trust markets if they so often end up distorted?
Cris Lingle: Markets are the outcome of human actions to improve their conditions. The notion of market “failure” primarily occurs if governments intervene to allow actions that cause harm to others. If competition is allowed, then humans will adjust away from whatever harms them towards whatever can make them better off. It is only when those choices are constrained by governments that harms can be perpetuated. Political “failure” is a much greater problem, harder to contest or correct, and so is longer lasting.
Globalization has lifted millions out of poverty—but also hollowed out communities in developed countries. Did economists underestimate the social cost?
Cris Lingle: Globalization is part of the dynamics of human life, what Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” Industrialization made humanity better off, even as some workers were forced to adjust to changing conditions from technological advances. Trade will often disrupt familiar patterns. There is no moral basis for curbing the advance of humanity through increased productivity, which is the best form of environmental conservation. The social costs of collectivism have shown themselves to be much higher since an elite pretends to have the information to command others to act involuntarily for the benefit of others, neglecting their own interests or those of their families.
What do we say—or do—for those who feel left behind?
Chris Lingle: If there is a direct discussion, I would begin by discussing the value of being free, of being able to live a dignified life. Then I would stress how this requires that actions and interactions must be voluntary. In turn, I would try to show by illustration that self-ownership and private property are the best way for them to have an opportunity to advance themselves.
What is the strongest argument against markets that you take most seriously?
Cris Lingle: Arguments against markets are arguments against voluntary human actions that do not involve unprovoked harm to others. As such, arguments against markets suggest a distrust in humans being able to decide how to make themselves better off by keeping promises (contracts), respecting the rights or others, and refraining from unprovoked violence.
For someone trying to make sense of the modern world—and become a better, more grounded person—what would you put on their reading list?
Cris Lingle: Definitely “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, and “The Citizen and the State” by George Stigler
You’ve spent decades thinking about liberty across very different political systems—so I’ll end the same way: how does an ordinary person find freedom in an “increasingly” unfree world?
Cris Lingle: I have spent almost 50 years trying to convince whoever would listen that all humanity would be better off if property rights were secure, so we could all be equally free. It turns out that many people do not value freedom, per se. So, I have become a “secessionist” in that I have come to believe that the best way is to link up with like-minded individuals, such as SeaSteading, private cities, LiberLand, etc.