And it’s worth asking: Is it true that since 1974, the policy debate in the United States has been dominated by a “growth at all costs” type of “free market fundamentalism”?
I don’t think that’s true. Technically, major environmental laws were passed just outside that window – the Clean Air Act in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. But it is clear that environmental control is the goal a lot it was more difficult in 2024 than in 1974. The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. Land use regulation – which was plainly called “growth control” when it was new – has grown more complex since the seventies.
The idea that in the last 50 years we have been on a growth spurt is confusing. In fact, we have seen during that time increasing levels of political influence exercised by people (especially environmentalists and NIMBYs) who are skeptical of economic growth. It is true, as critics of growth sometimes note, that the domestic policy debates of the 1950s and 60s rarely reflected the need to focus on economic growth. But that’s not because anti-growth sentiment was strong in the past – it’s because back then there was virtually no one in office who opposed clear anti-growth policies. Farmers obviously haven’t dominated American politics since the 1970s – we’ve had economic growth – but the growth has been slow because anti-growth ideas have gained real purchase in the last 50 years. The Hewlett thesis statement in this regard goes back.
Here is the full post, which is posted at the gate but must be paid for.
Source link