Scholarlink

<p>Milton Friedman, in the 1960s, was convinced that John Cowperthwaite, the British official overseeing Hong Kong’s economic policy, was conducting the most radical experiment in economic history. A staunch classical liberal within the British civil service, Cowperthwaite aggressively resisted government intervention, believing that free markets fueled growth. His influence was amplified by British domestic politics and the nature of colonial rule, making him a uniquely powerful figure. In this paper, we use the Synthetic Control Method (SCM) and Synthetic Difference-in-Differences (SDID) to assess whether Cowperthwaite truly constrained government expansion and whether his policies drove economic growth. In other words, we test whether Friedman overstated Cowperthwaite’s impact. We find strong evidence that Cowperthwaite limited government growth but had no visible effect on economic growth. We link these results to Hong Kong’s land policies, their impact on government size metrics, and more even-handed assessments of Cowperthwaite’s policy decisions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An almost laboratory experiment: John Cowperthwaite and Hong Kong’s economic prosperity

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月2日

查看全文
  • Vincent Geloso,
  • Jamie Bologna Pavlik,
  • Yang Zhou

摘要

Milton Friedman, in the 1960s, was convinced that John Cowperthwaite, the British official overseeing Hong Kong’s economic policy, was conducting the most radical experiment in economic history. A staunch classical liberal within the British civil service, Cowperthwaite aggressively resisted government intervention, believing that free markets fueled growth. His influence was amplified by British domestic politics and the nature of colonial rule, making him a uniquely powerful figure. In this paper, we use the Synthetic Control Method (SCM) and Synthetic Difference-in-Differences (SDID) to assess whether Cowperthwaite truly constrained government expansion and whether his policies drove economic growth. In other words, we test whether Friedman overstated Cowperthwaite’s impact. We find strong evidence that Cowperthwaite limited government growth but had no visible effect on economic growth. We link these results to Hong Kong’s land policies, their impact on government size metrics, and more even-handed assessments of Cowperthwaite’s policy decisions.