SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"James C.W. Ahiakpor" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:23:55 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
In his review of Spencer Pack's book, Gary Mongiovi writes:
> Smith readily acknowledged the necessity of state action to provide 
> public goods like education, or to remedy social ills that were either 
> caused by or could not be alleviated by the market.
However, in the /Wealth of Nations/ (2: 340), Adam Smith appears to lean 
more on the private funding of education:

"The expence of the institutions for education and religious 
instruction, is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and 
may, therefore without injustice, be defrayed by the general 
contribution of the whole society.  This expence, however, might perhaps 
/with equal propriety, and even with some advantage/, be defrayed 
altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education 
and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think 
they have occasion for either the one or the other" (my italics).

I don't think Gary's statement about Smith quite conveys Smith's 
preference for the private funding of education.

Of course, Smith continues with:

"When the institutions or public works which are beneficial to the whole 
society, either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained 
altogether by the contribution of such particular members of the society 
as are most immediately benefited by them, the deficiency must in most 
cases be made up by the general contribution of the whole society."

I wonder if this is the basis of Gary's view of Smith on education. If 
not, I'd appreciate knowing the other source(s) for it.  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, such as national 
defense.  I sometimes hear people invoke Smith's inclusion of education 
among public goods, and I'd like to know their source for doing so.

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)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2