SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:37:23 -0700
Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Subject:
From:
"James C.W. Ahiakpor" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
To: Fred Foldvary <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
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)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2