A Minimal State or Leviathan? How Public Spending Holds Back Growth

Can an ever-expanding State reduce poverty, or does it undermine the very conditions needed to create prosperity?

A Minimal State or a Leviathan?
23 Billion Reasons for Skepticism
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

Uruguay was once, at the end of the nineteenth century, a country with a minimal State and a level of income per capita comparable to that of the developed world, precisely because respect for capital and restraint in public expenditure were considered the norm.
The uninterrupted decline that has followed the consolidation of a deeply statist model is not the consequence of a shortage of public resources, but of the way those resources are allocated.
As long as we continue to tolerate the evaporation of the nation’s wealth through the corridors of bureaucratic inertia, we will continue paying for our own complacency with stagnation.
Our institutional framework does not require more taxes. It urgently requires a radical removal of bureaucratic privileges in order to return to citizens the sovereignty over their own destiny.
There is no social legitimacy whatsoever for this unbearable level of public expenditure.
The evolution of these institutional dynamics, whose abuses continue to expand while power becomes increasingly centralized, is clearly explained by Daron Acemoglu in Why Nations Fail, where he demonstrates how extractive institutions systematically obstruct economic prosperity.
There is no such thing as child poverty detached from the poverty of the family environment in which children grow up: unemployment, illiteracy and the destruction of productive capacity are its real causes.
The expression “child poverty”, treated as if it were an autonomous and isolated phenomenon, detached from its surrounding reality, is conceptually misleading.
Attempting to isolate children’s vulnerability and address it through sector-specific programmes is both a conceptual error and a bureaucratic convenience. It ignores the most elementary law of social organisation: a child is not an isolated economic agent but the most vulnerable member of a devastated family structure.
Speaking about child poverty while ignoring the material and cultural collapse of the family environment amounts to statistical, political and social hypocrisy.
The deprivation suffered by children is, in reality, the visible symptom of a family fabric previously dismantled by chronic structural factors.
The destruction of formal employment, caused by excessive regulation and oppressive taxation, condemns heads of household either to informality or to long-term unemployment. Without genuine income, the family inevitably collapses.
The collapse of the traditional public education system has ceased to be merely a pedagogical problem. It has become an economic sentence.
Functional illiteracy and the absence of basic skills among adults constitute an almost insurmountable barrier to social mobility and labour-market integration, deepening marginalisation.
Families burdened by illness, addiction or physical disabilities remain trapped within a welfare system that prefers to perpetuate dependency through meagre subsidies instead of redesigning incentives towards rehabilitation and productive reintegration into the labour market.
The state bureaucracy insists on fragmenting poverty in order to justify the creation of new agencies, ministries and specialised programmes that merely multiply public-sector positions.
Reality is indivisible. The only policy genuinely capable of reducing child poverty is one that removes the institutional barriers preventing parents from working, acquiring education and progressing in freedom.
As long as the State absorbs the resources that should finance this cultural and economic capital formation, targeted welfare programmes will remain nothing more than expensive painkillers for a disease that the State itself stimulates and then exploits for electoral purposes.
The point is straightforward: poverty is the consequence of the lack of employment opportunities caused by public spending directed towards disgraceful priorities.
Poverty is neither a mystical condition nor a geographical curse. It is the direct consequence of a process of economic depletion.
When the State chooses to allocate the bulk of those US$23 billion to sustaining corporate privileges, redundant bureaucracies and an oversized political apparatus—those disgraceful priorities—it is simultaneously destroying employment in two different ways.
By means of fiscal suffocation (the destruction of investment).
Every peso spent by the bureaucracy was first taken from the pocket of a shopkeeper, a farmer or an industrial entrepreneur. By removing that capital through direct taxation or by artificially increasing logistical and public-service costs, the State prevents them from expanding their businesses, modernising their operations or hiring additional workers.
Excessive public spending confiscates the very fuel of private-sector employment.
Through structural rigidity (the useless intermediary).
That enormous flow of resources never returns to society in the form of better education or infrastructure capable of facilitating commerce. Instead, it remains trapped within the toll imposed by the State itself.
As a consequence, families living in the most vulnerable environments become trapped between two destructive forces: a deteriorated and overcrowded public education system that fails to prepare them for the modern labour market, and a weak labour market incapable of absorbing them because it is itself suffocated by the State.
The greatest indecency lies in justifying the size of the State in the name of the poorest citizens when, in practice, the system operates in exactly the opposite direction. It weakens the capacity of civil society to generate wealth and genuine employment, condemning families to chronic dependence upon welfare handouts—the mere US$30 million in alms—which the bureaucracy itself redistributes in order to legitimise its own existence.
Employment Confiscated and the Redistribution Illusion
Here we reach the core of the drama, where political complicity and economic blindness deliberately confuse causes with consequences.
Poverty is neither an unavoidable fate nor an accident of history. It is the direct and inevitable consequence of a deliberate process of depletion designed so that those holding the power to solve it can instead profit from preserving it.
When a State stubbornly decides to devote the greater part of its US$23 billion budget to financing disgraceful priorities—redundant bureaucracies, corporate privileges and the maintenance of an oversized political machine—it signs the death warrant of genuine employment.
This mechanism of economic suffocation operates with the cold precision of a guillotine on two simultaneous fronts.
Through the confiscation of productive capital.
Those billions of dollars do not arise spontaneously inside the offices of the Ministry of Social Development. They are extracted by penalising savings, productive effort and wealth creation across society.
By taking those resources away from shopkeepers, farmers, manufacturers and entrepreneurs through overwhelming taxation, artificially inflated public-service prices and the interest payments required to finance an ever-expanding public debt, the State deprives them of the indispensable capital needed to expand their businesses, adopt new technologies and, above all, hire more workers.
Every unnecessary political appointment, every superfluous public-sector position and every unjustified subsidy to non-governmental organisations represents one genuine private-sector job either destroyed or never created.
Through the institutionalisation of dependency.
The State absorbs productive resources and, in return, offers vulnerable families a degraded public education incapable of preparing them for well-paid formal employment, together with a labour market too weak to absorb them because it has already been strangled by the costs and exactions imposed by the State itself.
To justify its own existence, the bureaucracy then returns with those US$30 million—the crumbs left over from the banquet—presenting them as an act of supreme social compassion.
It is a perfect illusion: the State destroys society’s capacity to generate employment opportunities, condemns families to marginalisation through the absence of work, and then presents miserable subsidies as the only remedy still available.
True compassion does not reside in welfare policies that perpetuate dependence, but in liberating the productive forces of society.
If we genuinely wish to eradicate poverty, we must dismantle the architecture of this oppressive State and restore to every citizen sovereignty over work, property and personal destiny.

Government Size
Employment and Poverty
Institutional Quality

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics.