Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Quality of Government

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution discuss whether libertarians fail to note that government isn't permanently at a given level of quality. Cowen argues that modern liberals are correct to put an emphasis on making government better as opposed to libertarians who always advocate using the market as a solution to the problems that government faces.

As someone who has expressed doubt that getting rid of government, especially overly quickly, is the answer to all of our problems, it seems to me that this is an important matter for free liberals to consider. The free liberal way of thinking might borrow from both perspectives. We can agree that government can be made better depending on how it is structured and on who is running it, but also keep in mind that many functions which governments have assumed might be better done by the market. I believe it is possible (and principled) to believe that we should improve government services even while we look for ways to push them towards being more market-based.

For a practical example, let us consider the public school system. The libertarian argument is to privatize the schools. Since libertarians believe this is the answer, some would argue that deteriorating schools are the natural outcome of the government meddling where it has no business. Modern liberals want to increase funding to the schools, raise teacher's salaries, elect more caring people to the school board, and get parents more involved. Since liberals do not believe there is anything structurally wrong with public schools, they believe it must be a lack of priority which causes the schools to be so poor. And truly, in richer neighborhoods with involved parents, the public schools are better than those in the ghettoes.

So, the conflict devolves into a fight over whether a person is for or against the schools. If we step back and recognize the end goal is better education, rather than being tied up in the means, we see at least a basis for dialogue. The discussion then becomes about process than whether a person is decent and moral. Libertarians can be more sensitive to the heartfelt concerns of parents for their children and liberals can be more open-minded about the economics of government bureaucracy.

Libertarians can recognize that liberty is not furthered by having a generation of children having their lives ruined by terrible schools. The calls for socialism are often heard where people are most desperate and have the least knowledge of entrepreneurship and free-market economics. If you can’t read, it is hard to read the public choice literature.

On the other hand, the dogma that the schools can and should only be run by the government is itself a product of so many people being educated by the public school system. Liberals who generally believe in being open-minded should certainly appreciate the danger of an entire populace being subjected to a one-size-fits-all, factory-like education bureaucracy.

An example of such a solution is one proposed by Carlisle Moody of William and Mary. He suggests funding school choice by giving parents a portion of their property tax dollars back, but not by the full amount which is going to the schools. The public schools get more money per pupil in this fashion, but parents who want to seek out alternatives to the public school system are also better off. The process of injecting competition should also make the public schools better as they know parents have a way out if the schools don’t perform. This is a Pareto optimal solution, which both camps should be able to agree to.

As we loosen the knot of government control, slowly though we do it, we may further see that our interests are not so opposed. The market provides choices, and well run government is less oppressive than poorly run government. At some point of moving towards the market-based programs, both the libertarians and the liberals may find that the current structure suits their interests and that further movement is unnecessary.

-- KDR