conceptualized, but I have a few questions.
Your tables don't specify the units of measurement. The "freedom
index" is a simple average of ten five-point Likert scores.
So why does your X axis read from zero to 140?
Also, according to the report's web site, low scores
represent "more freedom", so presumably you
inverted those scores before you charted the
correlation?
Also, what measurement, of the three you mentioned, are
you using for the Y axis? You seem to be arguing that
per capita PPP is the most appropriate measure. But
that is exactly what the report's authors used. See:
I agree with your argument that the index year charted
should precede the GDP year charted. In the chart
linked above, he got that backwards, which
is a stupid mistake if he wants to argue causation.
On your second chart, I would comment that a correlation of
.33 is not so shabby for global social science. Considering that we
have a fairly small sample size and that the index is constructed rather
crudely, that correlation is probably underestimated. (Assuming of
course that one buys the index's validity, which is obviously not a given
in this discussion.)
If a variable can explain 10% of a social phenomenon, then
I would say that is a potentially useful variable that is worth
exploring. I still have questions about how the index is conceptualized,
so I'm not taking this finding at face value, but it might be
worth exploring to see if it can be improved on. It looks
like there might be more clustering at the low end of
your second table. It might be interesting to analyze
these countries as a separate group, to see if there
is anything distinctive about them that makes the
index variable more powerful in that situation.
Your article might benefit by quoting
this passage from the Heritage author's finding that
the US is "less free" during the Bush administration
than it was under Clinton::
"More interesting than the drop is the cause of the U.S. decline. In part,
it is a slight worsening of the country's score since the turn of the century.
The free-spending habits of a government where one party controls both
Congress and the White House contributed to this decline."
I would also suggest dropping your closing paragraph. It would be foolish
to suggest that the factors in the index are "meaningless", or that everyone
on the right doesn't try to make sense. At best, you can argue with how
the index is constructed and what it means. To go beyond that is
demagoguery. Right now we have far too much of that on both
sides of the political spectrum.
Thomas