Gwartney et al say that "economic freedom" and, say, average GDP per capita, are positively correlated. The general issue remains. A brief analogy: Children's vocabulary and foot size are highly correlated (and this is where Peter Dorman's suggestions as to good statistical practice have a place). However, what's really going on is that *older* children have large vocabularies and larger feet. My question is this: -- should I compare the "economic freedom" correlation to the vocabulary/feet example? e.g., should I say that what's *really* going on is that those govts with neoliberal policies score highly on "economic freedom" and are also likely to stress "growth" at the cost of other measures of social wellbeing? this approach is appealing but raises questions of its own... -- should I say instead that "economic freedom" is a bogus construct, at least as used by Gwartney et al (e.g., with their emphasis on property rights)? in this case, I'd like to know how we distinguish reasonable constructs from unreasonable ones Seems to me this is an important issue to resolve if we're to resist the picture we're often given of the "real world". C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
