Your Tax Money At Work

Gordon Brown’s idea to educate the world is a silly one, says Jamie Whyte:

Mr Brown’s scheme will divert resources in poor countries towards education and away from the production of other goods and services. It is a good idea only if this reallocation of resources improves on the current allocation, only if Africans are better off with more education and less other stuff. So, are they?

Mr Brown cannot know. He does not know where his extra educational resources will come from, nor what their current use is worth. For all he knows, recruiting millions of teachers in just nine years could cause economic calamity, decimating other important industries. But, whatever Mr Brown thinks, one thing is clear: Africans prefer their current allocation of resources.

Mr Brown concedes as much when he insists that education must be provided free of charge. If required to pay the cost of providing it, many Africans would not send their children to school. And if Mr Brown gave them not an education but £50, they would spend it on something else. In other words, these Africans value education less than it costs to provide. Which means that diverting scarce resources to education misallocates them. They would be better devoted to whatever Africans prefer to spend £50 on.

So, he takes your money that you would spend differently and spends it on people, who if they had a choice, would spend it differently. I guess that’s politics, eh? Knowing better than everyone else?

9 responses

  1. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    The point fails because of course it is not the parents who benefit most from the schooling, but children, and they neither have the money or, I would suggest, the long-term understanding of the benefits of education. So that their parents would spend £50 on more immediate concerns is perhaps true, but not particularly relevant.

  2. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    The same points might be made about the UK. I wonder how many parents required to stump up the thousands for dead-end comprehensives might choose to spend the money elsewhere? (or, indeed, on different schools).

  3. Good point.
    It’s the usual problem of priorities. Once you have enough to eat and then have a roof etc. Education for most of these people is way down the list.

  4. I think’s called ‘fiscal impudence’ isn’t it?

  5. Gordon Brown would do well to reflect on the current situation in Britain:
    “There are now 1.24 million people aged between 15 and 24 who are neither in education, work or in a training scheme — a 15 per cent increase on 1997. The rise has been particuarly rapid for 16 to 17-year-olds and men, both up by almost a third.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2498386,00.html
    More young people are out of work now than when Labour won power in 1997 by promising to cut youth unemployment, official figures obtained by The Times reveal.
    There are now 37,000 more unemployed people aged 16 to 24 than in May 1997, with the total rising from 665,000 to 702,000, according to the Office for National Statistics.
    The unemployment rate has risen to 14.5 per cent among young people, overtaking the 14.4 per cent rate Labour inherited from the Conservative Government. . .
    Out of work
    665,000 Unemployed aged 16 to 24 in May 1997
    702,000 Unemployed between 16 and 24 now
    22.5% Unemployment rate for Londoners aged 16 and 17 in 1997
    42.9% Unemployment rate for Londoners aged 16 and 17 now
    11,200 16 to 24-year-olds claiming benefit for more than a year last month
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2513754,00.html

  6. The article is brimming over with fallacious arguments. Leaving aside the dubious assumption about the elasticity of supply of teachers, is it “clear” that Africans prefer their current allocation of resources? Did Africa become a free-market utopia when I wasn’t looking?
    No-one knows what Africans would spend the extra fifty quid on, and Brown’s insistence on spending it on education proves nothing, being more about political presentation than anything else. (Compare “we’re going to give African adults money to spend on anything they like” with “we’re going to pay to educate every African child” — which one sounds like more of a vote winner?)
    Finally, why is it automatically considered arrogant for Brown to think that he knows the best interests of Africans better than they do? Might he not be right? The point that Whyte *ought* to have made here is that it is inefficient to work against people’s *perceived* best interests, even when their perceptions are mistaken.

  7. andres Avatar
    andres

    “Whatever Mr Brown thinks, one thing is clear: Africans prefer their current allocation of resources”.
    This is nonsense. Only if in Africa a perfect free market reigns (and I don’t believe anybody believes that), the allocation of resources would reflect consumer’s preferences. Did the author of the article ever attended a course on market failures?

  8. I’m starting to wonder when El Gordo will come to find a mere global perspective too limiting a concern and move on to the really challenging inter-galactic stuff.

  9. Don’t worry. If the greenies have their way, all the kids’ll be out in the paddy fields operating hand powered pumps because Greenpeace took the diesel ones away.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading