Measuring economic freedom, what does government size have to do with it?

A recent paper by Jan Ott from the journal Social Indicators Research. 

Abstract: 

The Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute measure economic freedom in nations using indices with ten and five indicators respectively. Eight of the Heritage indicators and four of the Fraser-indicators are about specific types of institutional quality, like rule of law, the protection of property, and the provision of sound money. More of these is considered to denote more economic freedom. Both indices also involve indicators of ‘big government’, or levels of government activities. More of that is seen to denote less economic freedom. Yet, levels of government spending, consumption, and transfers and subsidies appear to correlate positively with the other indicators related to institutional quality, while this correlation is close to zero for the level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. Using government spending, consumption transfers and subsidies as positive indicators is no alternative, because these levels stand for very different government activities, liberal or less liberal. This means that levels of government activities can better be left out as negative or positive indicators. Thus shortened variants of the indices create a better convergent validity in the measurement of economic freedom, and create higher correlations between economic freedom and alternative types of freedom, and between economic freedom and happiness. The higher correlations indicate a better predictive validity, since they are predictable in view of the findings of previous research and theoretical considerations about the relations between types of freedom and between freedom and happiness.

Good question from LifeHacker: "Why the Dow Jones Breaking Records Isn't Helping Your Bottom Line"

Why the Dow Jones Breaking Records Isn't Helping Your Bottom Line

To put it in perspective: just 52 percent of American adults owned stocks in 2016, according to Gallup. And as you may have guessed, that stock ownership is not evenly distributed among income groups: The Federal Reserve reports that 93.6 percent of families earning a median salary of $251,500 (the top 10 percent of wage earners) owned stock in 2016, while less than 40 percent of families earning up to a median salary of $54,100 did (0 to 50th percentile). Separately, an economist from New York University found that the top 20 percent of earners owned 92 percent of the stocks in 2013. So celebrating record highs for an arbitrary measure that almost half of adults don’t benefit from doesn’t make a ton of sense.

What’s a better measurement for the average worker? I’d posit employment, wages and debt. And here’s the thing. If you don’t have a job at all, you’re likely less concerned with whether the Dow is at 21,000 or 25,000 than when you’ll get your next paycheck. The unemployment rate is at a 17-year low, but economists worry that job growth may begin to slow. Then there’s wages, which are low, and our debt, which keeps increasing*—according to the Federal Reserve, consumer credit card balances are at a new all-time high of $1.0227 trillion, which should give the Dow enthusiasts pause. (*Actually, the Fed recently found we’re slightly less indebted overall because we’re not buying houses, which isn’t exactly a silver lining). Are you really celebrating the Dow’s new watermark if you have over $25,000 in student loan debt?