The model of education as signaling for the labor marketing has been thoroughly developed by Bryan Caplan; for some examples, see here, here, and here. I think the argument is pretty convincing, but it leaves a few details unexplained. Namely, some majors - especially liberal arts - are not even very good as signals!
The highest unemployment rates for college graduates are found among architecture, art, and humanities majors. Especially given the relatively low salaries for jobs in these "industries" why go into serious debt to get a degree, when the signal is likely to be weak or even totally ineffective? While the number of liberal arts colleges has been declining over the last 20 years and business is the most popular major for under-graduates (chosen by 20% of students) the liberal arts curriculum is far from disappearing.
It could be that these students are maximizing with regard to something other than wealth, such as social status. This may accrue to either the college student or that student's parents, who get to brag about how their son/daughter will be a progressive hero and "save the world one day." Parents have incomplete control over what major their child picks, but at least some power to encourage or discourage certain fields of study.
Thinking of education as a status symbol helps to explain variation in choice of majors across countries. In the United States, the poor and middle-class can get luxury items like fancy cars, jewelry, nice TVs, smartphones etc. by using credit (Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad Poor Dad" observes that this is a big reason why they do not ascend to the capitalist upper-class). Seeing someone with nice jewelry or the latest tech is no longer a good indicator of high status in America; in fact, it is often a signal of the opposite! A liberal arts degree then becomes a new status symbol, a way of displaying "yes I can spend four years doing nothing productive, and rack up debts while doing it, because money isn't important to me."
In China, by comparison, most of the affluent or middle-class people have attained that status within the last one or two generations. The rich in China display their wealth through luxury items, but parents still often discourage or frown upon liberal arts degrees (or so I'm told by someone with personal experience). Based on the social signaling theory sketched out above, one would expect that as the middle-class in China grows and expensive items are no longer limited to the nouveau riche, more will go get liberal arts degrees, instead of the focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) which is the stereotypical image of Chinese students currently.
If this model is accurate, it just further reinforces Dr. Caplan's point that we should not be subsidizing higher education as much as we are now.
Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Monday, November 28, 2011
One subsidy I can get behind: Public Defenders
Interpreted at the most literal (or cynical) level, public defenders can seen as a subsidy for criminals because society pays for their legal fees. Of course, not everyone who is arrested is guilty of a crime, but if police are doing their job correctly, most people who are arrested will be guilty of something.
To quote a former police officer: "I don't want to put anyone that's innocent in jail. But, I try not to bring anyone into the interview room that's innocent."
Free legal counsel reduces the cost of being arrested, increasing the net "payoff" to a life of crime. In an anarcho-capitalist system (which some of my classmates at GMU think would be just swell) there'd be no public defenders, the accused would pay the cost of legal representation, and in theory this would provide an additional deterrent to criminal activity.
That's all very well and good, as far as it goes. Ideally, the criminal justice system should take criminals off the streets, and also deter potential criminals with the threat of punishment.
But, there's also a very serious negative externality to the justice system when it puts innocent people in jail. This takes several forms: harm to the person imprisoned and their family and friends, but also society as a whole. People in jail become burdens on the taxpayer and produce nothing (except maybe license plates). The justice system loses credibility when it convicts the innocent. Finally, for each person wrongfully imprisoned there is a criminal walking the streets with impunity, out committing more crimes.
Economists are often skeptical of externality justifications for government subsidies. But, I'd submit that the harm of imprisoning innocent people is so great, that money spent on public defenders is well worth it. Even if career criminals benefit slightly as well, that's a tradeoff worth making (80% of people in jail confess anyway, according to the police officer quoted above, so the harm of that cross-subsidy is pretty minimal in my view).
A last tidbit for thought: being convicted in a criminal trial requires evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" which amounts to 98% or 99% certainty from a jury. There are a little over 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S. currently. If 99% certainty means being wrong 1% of the time, that's 20,000 people sitting in jail for crimes they didn't commit, at the minimum. Combined with the over-confidence effect (people are lousy at estimating confidence intervals around what they are certain of) it's likely to be much more. A tragic situation, and one which might be made even worse without access to public defenders.
To quote a former police officer: "I don't want to put anyone that's innocent in jail. But, I try not to bring anyone into the interview room that's innocent."
Free legal counsel reduces the cost of being arrested, increasing the net "payoff" to a life of crime. In an anarcho-capitalist system (which some of my classmates at GMU think would be just swell) there'd be no public defenders, the accused would pay the cost of legal representation, and in theory this would provide an additional deterrent to criminal activity.
That's all very well and good, as far as it goes. Ideally, the criminal justice system should take criminals off the streets, and also deter potential criminals with the threat of punishment.
But, there's also a very serious negative externality to the justice system when it puts innocent people in jail. This takes several forms: harm to the person imprisoned and their family and friends, but also society as a whole. People in jail become burdens on the taxpayer and produce nothing (except maybe license plates). The justice system loses credibility when it convicts the innocent. Finally, for each person wrongfully imprisoned there is a criminal walking the streets with impunity, out committing more crimes.
Economists are often skeptical of externality justifications for government subsidies. But, I'd submit that the harm of imprisoning innocent people is so great, that money spent on public defenders is well worth it. Even if career criminals benefit slightly as well, that's a tradeoff worth making (80% of people in jail confess anyway, according to the police officer quoted above, so the harm of that cross-subsidy is pretty minimal in my view).
A last tidbit for thought: being convicted in a criminal trial requires evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" which amounts to 98% or 99% certainty from a jury. There are a little over 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S. currently. If 99% certainty means being wrong 1% of the time, that's 20,000 people sitting in jail for crimes they didn't commit, at the minimum. Combined with the over-confidence effect (people are lousy at estimating confidence intervals around what they are certain of) it's likely to be much more. A tragic situation, and one which might be made even worse without access to public defenders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)