Colleagues
James C.W. Ahiakpor and several of his commentators are discussing what Adam Smith meant in his proposals for reform of the education of minors in Book V of WN.
Mostly, I found these contributions illuminating.  However, in so far as there is some argument about Smith's intentions I think there is an ever present tendency to transfer actual conditions in the 18th century to modern, advance capitalist democracies and the institutional arrangements that evolved and emerged after Smith died in 1790, though the beginning of the changes that were underway with the successful rebellion of what became the USA.
What people may have voted for in the 19th century with the extension of the electoral franchise in Britain and the US (not completed until the 1960s) and what was available to Adam Smith - there is no evidence that he ever had a vote or was able to exercise the luxury of advising citizens, male or female on how to vote to finance his modest proposals, other than from existing general government revenues.  The Education Acts in Britain did not commence until the 1860s.
It is evident that Smith was trying the persuade the male government to invest modest sums in providing necessary facilities, hence his harrowing picture of the possible consequences of not doing so in respect of young boys sent out to work who remained ignorant and prey to "enthusiasts" and "agitators"  as they entered  the adult workforces.  It was not his point, as often asserted, that the threat to political stability came from the division of labour, it was that they did so ignorant of basic arithmetic and reading because they experienced no education, especially in England (it was long the different practice in Scotland in the "little schools" spread across the country that was his model for the necessary reform and never the ending of the division of labour).  This was a formidable programme; a "little school in every parish" required 60,000 of them to be set up in England.  The Scottish schools already functioned well, based on parental charges, charitable awards and such like. We know, for example, that he personally funded the education of his adopted heir, at his school and his university stages.
Smith was a pragmatist; he worked within the constraints of what was available.  He cannot be post-recruited to either modern public good ideas or to the liberal and social democratic possibilities of later societies.
Gavin Kennedy, emeritus professor, Heriot-Watt University ([log in to unmask])
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James C.W. Ahiakpor [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 June 2013 23:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] education as a public good

Fred Foldvary wrote:
>>   Using the modern criteria for identifying a "public good," namely, (a) joint
>> consumption and (b) non-excludability of consumption for non-payment, we rule
>> out education from the list of public goods...
>> James Ahiakpor
>
> The rationale is that some elements of education provide a positive externality to society,
> and this positive effect is joint consumption.
> For example, if youths are educated to behave well, whereas otherwise they
> would be thieves and vandals, this creates a positive externality that many
> benefit from at the same duration of time.
I think those who resort to this positive externality argument forget
Smith's second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting private
property from its invasion by envious other people: "Of the Expence of
Justice."  The civil magistrate is there to impose penalties on those
who would violate the laws protecting private property.  Besides, good
public behavior stems more from moral instructions (at home) rather than
learning to read, write, and do arithemetic, the sorts of instruction at
the primary or middle school level to which Gary's (and Deborah's)
clarifications refer.
> Or, if the public were educated in the basics of economics and thereafter
> avoid voting for taxes and debts that are not cost-effective,
> whereas otherwise they would vote for that,
> this education would be a positive externality and a public good.
>
I think the above is a rather weak basis on which to defend public
funding of education.  People vote for politicians who promise them
goodies -- to take from the rich to give to the "poor and middle
class."  Besides, don't we know of highly educated economists who vote
for politicians eager to engage in income (expenditure) redistribution?
I would have thought that public choice theory explains the weakness of
Fred's second claim.
James Ahiakpor

--
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 Work
(510) 885-7175 Fax (Not Private)