Progressive economic growth

To accomplish a significant improvement in the nation's economy, progressive economic growth and intellectual advancement are mutually dependent. However, if the government does not step in and offer the necessary financial and policy assistance, this could not be feasible (Knafo, 2013). The Canadian government concentrates on strengthening and modernizing educational institutions and research facilities in an effort to quicken the pace of economic growth. By offering funds to encourage creative research in both private and public institutions, the government plays a crucial part in promoting economic growth.The government concentrates its resources and energy on innovation since the future stability of any economy is determined by its ability to be creative and innovative. The process enables the country to produce new products, enhance the methods of production and infiltrate new and improved trade partnership or relationship. Therefore, by providing grants to such institutions that solely focus on improving the old methodologies and stuff into new and advanced approaches, the government largely contribute to the growth of the economy in a massive way.

Also, the government provides better and improved public education system that will focus on areas that are relevant and orientated to the needs of the country. In doing this, it ensures the continuity of the workforce and knowledge needed for the growth of the country is present. Moreover, the government set and implements policies orientated to the satisfaction of the public employees in the education sector in order to motivate them, and thus this increase their efficiency and effectiveness on what they do. In this regard, the more positive outcome on the economic progress of the country is observed. Therefore, the government involvement in supporting various academic researches and improving the education system largely contribute to the growth and development of the country’s economy. Hence, this indicates that indeed the government should always be involved in managing and enhancing the economy of the nation whether it is in crisis or not.

The debate of whether the government should always be engaged in supporting the growth of the economy has been a subject of conversation for years. Although there are a considerable number of individuals who see the need for the consistent government intervention in enhancing the economy of the country, some individuals like the free market economists feel this move might cause insufficient allocation of resources. The debate on whether the government should always be involved in economic matters or only intervene when in need can be supported by keen observations of the impacts of the move and access its viability. Given the theoretical framework of the federal governments, the move will encourage greater equality which forms the principle of liberalism. The liberals believe in the government’s ability to eradicate social evils, protect the citizens’ civil rights, provide equal opportunities and equalities for all, and guarantee every individual that he/she has the basic needs (Dean, 2012). Moreover, the involvement encourages macroeconomic growth and reduces the chances of market failure.

Economic difficulties do not stay for long since there are always ways of dealing with the situation such as government’s intervention. Although financial challenges are hard to predict, they do not stay for long before they are resolved. During this period, the public is always in dire need of government assistance in regulating certain policies that may be affecting the economy either directly or indirectly. However, taking a close look at some of the reasons why such situations occur, it can be resolved that the effects may come as a result of the poor or unequal distribution of resources that in return causes the economy to vacillate adversely.

In a free market where the government is not always involved, there is a possibility that income inequality may develop. Furthermore, in such a situation, there tends to be a disproportion in wealth and opportunity distribution. The all-time participation of the government in economic matters will likely reduce the partiality that is always exhibited by both the private and public charities. When the government is not always involved in issues pertaining economy, there is the likelihood of corporations focusing their efforts on maximizing profits at the expense of their employees’ welfares. In this situation, partiality rules do not apply since there will be no clear-stated policies that protect their rights. However, if the government is involved all the time in economic matters of the country, there is the likelihood of eradicating the partiality that exists in both public and private firms.

The consistent intervention of the government in matters of economy will diminish marginal returns to income. The government involvement will increase the rate of employment across the country hence reducing the marginal utility that exists. The government has more resources needed for the growth of the nation; consequently, by being a full-time participant, it will increase the number of people employed in both private and public sectors. Thus, this will upsurge the level of income of the citizens which in return will indicate a marginal increase in the utility (happiness). For example, individuals who are unemployed and survive on only $30 a week, when they get employed by the government and get a 25% increase in the income, it will provide them with a substantial boost in the quality of life and living standards. In this regard, the government plays a significant role in redistributing income, which in return may lead to a net well-being for the whole society. An increase in the living standard of the people translates to an improvement in the economy of the nation. The total output and the distribution of income form the basis of the growth of macroeconomics. An increase in income inequality corresponds to long-term adverse effects on the GDP per capita of the country. The utilitarian perspective of the society can be justified by income redistribution which can only be achieved if the government is solely involved in the economic affairs of the country hence fulfilling its liberal mandate and increasing the level of economic growth.

When the government is only involved during economic difficulty, there is a possibility that private firms can exploit the monopoly power and decide to pay employees meager wages which in return facilitate the concept of inequality and unfairness. Moreover, most of the workers will not be able to meet their daily basic needs such as paying bills and affording to buy healthy food. Therefore, it is significant for the government to take part in enhancing economic growth throughout whether under challenging moments or not. This can be attributed to the fact that in a free financial market, chances of inequality being created through the utilization of privilege and monopoly power are high. In such situations, there are areas where development will be vast while other areas will lag behind. According to liberal democratic theory, distribution of resources and power provides the few minorities to exercise their exploitative abilities and dominate over the majority population. Hence, this may affect the wealth distribution and consequently the economy of the state. The exploitative form of control of the market affect the economy of the country since most of the resources will not be distributed equitably across. Also, organizations and companies may decide to charge higher fees to consumers of various products. When the government intervenes throughout as a participant in the economy, it will likely reduce the monopolies of different organizations through the creation of multiple regulations. Moreover, since the government will be part of the participants, it will increase the level of the internal competition. The consistent government involvement in the economic growth of the state forms the basis for equality of income which is indeed fairer compared to its partial participation.

On a perspective of Rawls’s theory of justice which state that the political and moral standpoint of an individual is discovered through impartiality, most people would not choose to be born and raised in a free market where government intervention is only during the economic crisis. However, they would prefer to pick a society that has total government involvement where there will be an equal distribution of resources in both public and private facilities (Li & Reidy, 2009). The consistent government involvement in all financial operations will drastically increase the growth of the economy and thus play a central role in enhancing the stability of the country throughout. Moreover, more people will provide the needed support to run its operations smoothly as they do not want the rewards to be concentrated in the hands of the minorities.

Although it is always argued that individuals should keep and maintain their hard-earned reward, it is unjustifiable to a large number of individuals since some people within the country are born from royal families and inherit the wealth (Rabbior & Canadian Foundation for Economic Education, 2014). However, with the government being consistently involved and including wealth tax in all privately owned properties, it will likely reduce the accumulated wealth of the top one percent of the country’s richest individuals. In doing this, the revenue generated will be used to fund other sectors such as education and those people who are in dire needs of the basic commodities such as shelter, healthcare facility, and clothes. Moreover, consistent participation of the government in matters of the economy will increase the conditions of the public sectors and thus reduce the resources being pumped in private sectors, hence growing the economy of the state.

In a concluding remark, both partial interventions of the government particularly in economic crisis and consistent involvement play a major role in enhancing the growth and stability of the country. However, as noted, continuous engagement has proven to be an ideal direction for the government to take due to the long-term success of this move. With the government involvement being confined to specific situations such as during the economic difficulty, it would not be easy to strike the needed equality and the distribution of wealth across the country (Park, 2010). Furthermore, particular development in education, healthcare and the general growth of the country’s GDP will not be possible to achieve. Taking into consideration the benefits associated with the move, it is therefore vital for the government to be consistently involved in economic growth and stability rather than partial involvement.







References

Dean, M. (2012). The constitution of poverty: Toward a genealogy of liberal governance. London [u.a.: Routledge.

Knafo, S. (2013). The making of modern finance: Liberal governance and the gold standard. London etc: Routledge.

Li, S., & Reidy, D. A. (2009). John Rawls' theory of institutionalism: The historical movement toward liberal democracy. Lewiston, N.Y: Edwin Mellen Press.

Rabbior, G., & Canadian Foundation for Economic Education. (2014). The Canadian economy: The big picture. Toronto: Canadian Foundation for Economic Education.

Park, Jungwee. (2010). The distribution of wealth in Canada: its existing pattern and changing trend. University of British Columbia.