Speaking in Taipei on January 13, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that freedom should not be reduced to the absence of government intervention. Instead, he said, the true measure of freedom lies in how many real choices a person actually has.
Stiglitz delivered the keynote address at a forum titled “The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society,” hosted by the Yu Kuo-hwa Cultural and Educational Foundation and co-organized by Storm Media and the International Peace Foundation. The event, held at National Taiwan University, drew participants from academia, industry, and public policy circles.
Freedom as the Capacity to Act
At the outset of his speech, Stiglitz noted that contemporary political debates often frame freedom as minimal government interference. Any regulation, in this view, is treated as a constraint on liberty.
Such an understanding, he argued, is overly simplistic.
From an economic perspective, Stiglitz defined freedom as “freedom to act” — the actual capacity individuals possess to pursue meaningful options within given social conditions. Freedom is not merely a declaration of rights, but depends on what economists call an “opportunity set”: which options are genuinely feasible.
“If you are standing on the brink of starvation,” he said, “you cannot speak of true freedom.”
Poverty, scarcity, and structural barriers significantly compress an individual’s range of action. In this sense, any factor that reduces a person’s feasible choices constitutes a loss of freedom.
Public discourse, Stiglitz suggested, tends to focus heavily on government-imposed restrictions while paying far less attention to how market structures, monopolies, or unequal distributions of resources can similarly narrow most people’s opportunity sets.
Is Government Freedom’s Opposite?
Addressing the role of government, Stiglitz challenged the idea that public authority is inherently the enemy of liberty.
Government policies such as taxation and regulation may limit certain behaviors. Yet public investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure can also expand individuals’ life prospects and enlarge their set of choices.
If someone lacks access to education or health security and therefore cannot realistically enter certain professions or pursue particular life paths, then market freedom becomes largely theoretical.
“People on the edge of survival have virtually no choices,” he said. “To survive, they can only do what they must do, not what they want to do.”
In this framework, the question is not simply whether government constrains freedom, but whether institutions expand or restrict the effective choices available to most people.
When Freedoms Collide
Stiglitz also emphasized that freedom is not an unlimited concept. In complex modern societies, different people’s freedoms often conflict.
“One person’s freedom may be another person’s unfreedom,” he said, adding that in some cases it may even threaten others’ lives.
In highly interdependent societies, individual actions rarely affect only oneself. Economists describe such spillover effects as “externalities” — situations in which the costs or benefits of an action extend beyond the individual actor.
Quoting political philosopher Isaiah Berlin, Stiglitz reminded the audience that “the freedom of wolves often means the death of sheep.” Allowing the strong to exercise unlimited freedom may directly undermine the survival or well-being of the weak.
To illustrate how freedoms collide in practice, he cited examples such as gun ownership, vaccine refusal, and environmental pollution. The freedom to carry a weapon may threaten others’ right to life; the freedom to reject vaccination may endanger public health; and the freedom to pollute may deprive others of a healthy living environment.
In such cases, the central issue is not whether freedom should be respected, but which freedoms are more fundamental and which must be limited to protect others.
Viewing freedom as absolute and beyond trade-offs, Stiglitz argued, prevents societies from confronting real-world dilemmas. When freedoms conflict, institutional design — and democratic deliberation — becomes essential.
Freedom as an Institutional Choice
Stiglitz concluded that freedom is not a natural condition that exists independently of social arrangements. It is the outcome of institutional choices.
Understanding freedom requires acknowledging both its definition and its costs. Expanding the real choices available to the majority, while managing unavoidable trade-offs, is a crucial step toward building a more just and sustainable society.
His remarks in Taipei offered not just a philosophical reflection, but a framework for evaluating how economic systems, public policy, and democratic institutions shape the lived reality of freedom. （Related： Nobel Laureate Stiglitz Warns Taiwan: Housing Crisis Signals Deeper Trouble ｜ Latest ）
