March 26, 2015

Welfare Makes America More Entrepreneurial: Research shows that when governments provide citizens with economic security, they embolden them to take more risks.

In 1988, Ronald Reagan traveled to the Soviet Union and gave a speech at Moscow State University, making the case for capitalism. America’s secret, he argued, was its entrepreneurs, whose “courage to take risks” was responsible “for almost all the economic growth in the United States” and much of its technological edge. This risk-taking was made possible, he continued, by economic freedom, which he associated with “limited, unintrusive” government.
Reagan was right about the link between startups and growth, but wrong in assuming that small government was the way to encourage them.

His belief in a tradeoff between taking care of citizens and promoting innovative new businesses is at odds with the evidence. In fact, one way to get more people to start companies, according to a growing body of research, is to expand the welfare state. 

Pundits and researchers often note the negative correlation between government spending and entrepreneurship, both within the U.S. andinternationally, and conclude that growth requires trimming social welfare programs. Jim Manzi of theNational Review, for example, a thoughtful commenter on economic policy, wrote last year that, “we must accept some amount of social dislocation in return for innovation.” But correlations can be misleading. A series of more recent studies challenge the view that larger or more activist government necessarily threatens entrepreneurship. In fact, that may get the relationship precisely backwards.
Entrepreneurs are actually more likely than other Americans to receive public benefits, after accounting for income, as Harvard Business School’s Gareth Oldshas documentedAnd in many cases, expanding benefit programs helps spur new business creation.
Take food stamps. Conservatives have long argued that they breed dependence on governmentIn a 2014 paper, Olds examined the link between entrepreneurship and food stamps, and found that the expansion of the program in some states in the early 2000s increased the chance that newly eligible households would own an incorporated business by 16 percent. (Incorporated firms are a better proxy for job-creating startups than unincorporated ones.)

Interestingly, most of these new entrepreneurs didn’t actually enroll in the food stamp program. It seems that expanding the availability of food stamps increased business formation by making it less risky for entrepreneurs to strike out on their own. Simply knowing that they could fall back on food stamps if their venture failed was enough to make them more likely to take risks. 

Food stamps are not an isolated case. In another paper, Olds looked at the creation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which offers publicly funded health insurance for kids whose families don’t qualify for Medicaid. By comparing the rate of entrepreneurship of those who just barely qualified for CHIP to those whose incomes just barely exceeded the cutoff, he was able toestimate the program’s impact on new business creation. The rate of incorporated business ownership for those eligible households just below the cutoff was 31 percent greater than for similarly situated families that could not rely on CHIP to care for their children if they needed it.
The same is true of recent immigrants to the United States. Contrary to claims by the right that welfare keeps immigrants from living up to their historic role as entrepreneurs, CHIP eligibility increased those households’ chances of owning an incorporated business by 28 percent.

The mechanism in each case is the same: publicly funded insurance lowers the risk of starting a business, since entrepreneurs needn’t fear financial ruin. (This same logic explains why more forgiving bankruptcy laws are associated with more entrepreneurship.)
2010 study by RAND found a similar effect with Medicare. American men were more likely to start a business just after turning 65 and qualifying for Medicare than just before. Here again, government can make entrepreneurship more appealing by making it less risky. By this logic, Obamacare doubles as entrepreneurship policy by making it easier for individuals to gain health insurance without relying on an employer.
Sometimes, though, a robust safety net may serve to discourage entrepreneurship. The best path in such cases, however, may not be to cut the program, but rather, to reform it. When France lowered the barriers to receiving unemployment insurance, it actually increased the rate of entrepreneurship.. Until 2001, citizens on unemployment insurance had little incentive to start businesses, since doing so would terminate their benefits. Instead of gutting the program, the state simply decided to let anyone who founded a business keep drawing benefits for a limited period, and guaranteed that they would be eligible again if that business failed. The result: a 25 percent increase in the rate of new-firm creation.
In the United States, though, many social welfare benefits still function like the old French system, disincentivizing entrepreneurship, and some popular reform proposals would actually worsen the situation. With food stamps, for instance, there has been a push to tie benefits to finding and holding a job, which actually does raise a barrier to starting a business.

Of course benefits are only one side of the ledger. Taxes are just as often held up as a threat to entrepreneurship and a dynamic economy. A lower capital gains tax rate does seem to be associated with a greater supply of entrepreneurs. But keeping the capital gains rate low to help startups is incredibly inefficient, since only a small portion of realized capital gains are from entrepreneurial activity. As Harvard Business School professors Paul Gompers and Josh Lerner write, “policies that increase the relative attractiveness of becoming an entrepreneur and promote technology innovation probably would have more of an effect on venture capital investments than an across the board cut in the capital gains tax rate.”
Instead of preserving low tax rates, entrepreneur-friendly tax reform would encourage startup investment by shifting the tax code away from its current bias for debt over equity, and could preserve or expand key tax credits like the exemption for long-term investment in small businesses.

Even the assumption that bureaucratic “red tape” holds back startups is less obvious than it sounds. Professors at George Mason created a novel measure of federal regulation in the U.S. and compared the amount of federal regulation to the number of new business establishments in each industry. They found a slightly positive correlation: more regulation was actually associated with more new establishments. (Though the number of “new establishments” correlates with entrepreneurship, they’re not quite the same thing since the former counts expansion by existing firms.)


  1. This is soooo right on! Trickle down economics doesn't work, and it never, ever will!

  2. Its simple isnt it, when people dont have the means for trad, they dont have the means for founding anything, since the means is lacking.
    Welfare, is been hammere hard and once again, its the angle that matters.
    Welfare is equally in the economic departments as well thrue various means as stated above, and I can, in Norway stil have an wellfare income 3 months into the new "jobb" if I crate my own bissenisse, like fishing, but once again without suport from the comunety/country/state thrue various means as suport thru finnacial system of where state helps newly startded bissenisses to be able to gett to the starting line at least.

    One of our moust sucsessfull aircorps, Norwegian, was bulded upon this system of gov. help thru various programs aka welfare simply putt, its from the same pott anyway.
    And nowwhere where the so called ritch whom is saye to be the solutions ot this work progress and growth, to throw Millions after the Man when He started his aircorp.
    He pawned his house, and gott started.
    And the bottom line is in this Norwegian system, you can live fearly well of this adventure dint go well, and if he gott really ill, hart problems, he stil would be able to live acordingly, not high standard but better than moust, as to the states.
    But it went well, and now He is an international sice and expanding.

    Otherwise the article is true.
    Its easy to start in Norway, and its been made easyer lately, and the gov. is in the right direction, but the hypocrasy and lies about wellfare and its use and range is stil there.
    You know, a rightwinged Thatcher loving and have the UssA gov. as their guiding light, and as we all know, its the best way to plundr and sink the boat.
    They never learn untill their own beside is burning.
    Pittyfull bread of idiots and asslikkers and gready scumbaggs.