18th Annual Hayek Lecture

I went to the 18th Annual Hayek Lecture in Westminster last night, held by the Institute of Economic Affair. Imagine sitting down with someone from the World Bank, or Department for International Development and asking them what kind of education system they would like to see in the poorest parts of the world. The straw man expectation is that they'd outline a "vision" for universal coverage of primary education, somewhat detached from the on-the-ground reality. You'd ask how many children currently received primary education, but would they know the answer? James Tooley's work (previously mentioned) starts off by recognising that the claim that children are already in affordable primary education is met by two major doubts:

• Is this widespread?
• Is the education good?

The research of Tooley and his team at the EG West Center have systematically provided the evidence to suggest that a majority of slum children are likely to be in private education (with more of them in unregistered private schools than government ones), and that their test scores are higher than state-educated kids (even when contorlled for income). The unintended consequences of the best intentions of "development" agencies are that by encouraging students to move from private to state schools enrollment rates fall, and those who remain in school do worse. It's not hard for an economist to see why students do better when parents have school choice, but the great contribution of Tooley is to move debate away from ideological conviction towards the empirical reality. Regardless of what we dream up in London, the only reason these children are receiving an education is due to the entrepreneurial endeavours of for-profit schools. It costs us nothing other than our political pressure to stop these schools being shut down. And - to push this point even further - the only reason you could object to the flourishing of private education is because you think poor people are stupid. They're not.

Here's a CATO interview with Tooley. Buy his book. Talk to people about this. This is a triumph of markets and a triumph of ideas on a large scale. But it could be even bigger.

Comments

[Jim]

I fail to see how state education poses such a terrible threat, especially if the quality is as bad as you say. Doesn't providing free or subsidised education increase the amount of options people have?

[aje]

Aside from the obvious crowding out (i.e. competing for teachers) the development policy is deliberately hostile to private unregistered schools. As mentioned drives to deliver universal primary education aren't focused on getting kids that aren't going to school to go to school (since many of them are), it's about getting kids in unregistered private schools (out of the system) to switch to state schools. As Tooley points out, this often ends up reducing the total number in school, and reduces the quality of education for those that do remain.
The argument is that private unregistered schools should be legally able to to operate (i.e. low barriers to becoming registered). You seem to imply it's an even playing field, which it isn't.

[Jim]

Kids switching from fee-paying private schools to free state schools because their parents think it's a worthwhile choice seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. Governments actively closing down private schools is another issue, but when Tooley's work is discussed this issue often seems to get mixed up, quite possibly deliberately, with the question "Isn't it terrible that we give all this aid to provide free education in poor countries?". To which the answer is no, it isn't.

[aje]

Seriously, I don't understand the hostility. Is it solely because the implications are that we should have school choice in other countries (such as the UK)?

[Jim]

Huh? Apologies if I sounded hostile, though I don't know where you got that from, but no, I'm not arguing purely on the basis of the implications for the UK. That would be weird. And anyway, I was under the impression that we do have fee-paying schools in the UK.

If anything, I was responding to what I see as hostility to aid-funded free education in poor countries of the kind you tend to get from the likes of Cato, the IEA, etc.

[aje]

The hostility to aid-funded "free" education is that it ignores the reality of the situation, crowds out private schools, and prevents unregistered private schools from developing and expanding. In other words, that it can do more harm than good in attempting to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.

I'm not saying that you're being rude, it's just I don't understand why people from all sides of the political spectrum don't take Tooley's work as a no brainer. Over a decade later and agencies are still coming up with impulsive, skeptical ways to dismiss the evidence.

I honestly don't understand why there's a debate over this. The only reason against is because of the vested interests of state educators. It's pure elitism that's holding it back.

[Jim]

Okay, I'll try to be clearer so maybe you can stop assuming that any objections *must* be ill-informed or 'impulsive' (thanks!). Just because Tooley has found evidence of *some* private schools doing well in *some* parts of *some* poor countries does not mean that the policy of funding free alternatives to people in poor countries is a bad one. You say it 'can' do more harm than good but you are acting like it *must*. It is pure dogma to assert that a fee-paying service must always be superior to a free-at-the-point-of-use one, and the fact that you think 'the only reason' I or anyone else would seek to argue about this is because we're in thrall to the vested interests of state educators, apart from being pretty bloody insulting, suggests you're the one who's having trouble seeing beyond your priors. I'd like to see poor people have the option of a free education for their children, because I trust them to make the right decision for their circumstances. Don't you?

[aje]

To clarify, I accused aid agencies of being impulsive, not you. But you repeat their common response, "evidence of *some* private schools doing well in *some* parts of *some* poor countries". This is the type of arrogance and dismissiveness that this research typically encounters. Ok, so there's a challenge for Tooley to see how widespread it is. And guess what, it's *not* merely a few examples here and there. He has gone out, got his hands dirty, and has shown that in the poorest regions a majority of kids are in private education, and he's replicated this across Africa and in China, and India. It's in print, in peer-reviewed journals, and in brochures and TV documentaries. It is simply tragic that people - like you - continue to pretend that it's simply a lack of evidence that's preventing you from subscribing.

Why can''t people buy into it? Once we've acknowledged that private education works we can divert aid money from education to other causes (clearly harming state educators who are clearly an important interest group), but of course the whole point of this research - that people are capable of building their own institutions to escape from poverty rather than being in an inevitable poverty "trap" - fundamentally challenges the development industry. Hence the only reason I can see why agencies remain skeptical is their ideological pre-commitment to charity. You might be insulted by being linked to vested interests, but you must acknowledge that you are arguing the same position, and accept the intellectual burden to disassociate yourself from them if you genuinely feel you're making a different argument.

It is pure dogma to assert that a fee-paying service must always be superior to a free-at-the-point-of-use one
Did I say that? I said that it causes crowding out (which it does) and "it *can* do more harm than good". I've tried to be careful not to make any sweeping statement here. Similarly, you think this suggests you're the one who's having trouble seeing beyond your priors - let me be clear on this, my priors are that markets can't and won't provide universal primary education, and that there's a role for the state to do this (both in the UK and especially in the developing world). Over the last few years I've changed my mind on this - primarily having seen first hand the work of Tooley, Pauline Dixon, and other members of their team.

It's an interesting rhetorical ploy to paint me as being dogmatic and against parental choice, but in this instance it's fraudulent. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about the claims made by Tooley, but as far as I'm concerned he has jumped every hurdle laid down by the development community. He deserves his place at the top table and for people to take his work seriously. If they did, they'd see that the best way to help education for the poorest people of the world is to stop interrupting entrepreneurial delivery. And it exposes claims that you just want to "supplement" this as being dishonest.

I'd like to see poor people have the option of a free education for their children, because I trust them to make the right decision for their circumstances. Don't you?

I think this is soundbite-laden bullshit. If you believed this you'd be as skeptical as I am about all those studies showing that people are worse off having migrated to urban areas. You can't have it both ways. Parental choice comes through competition. That's what we're arguing about it.

I'm sure there's places with no private schools and a hefty check from DFID would improve education. Let's divert aid from places where it causes crowding out to places like these. But who's actually surveying whether they exist? The same people that have the legal powers and vested interests to shut them down? And still, it runs into all sorts of sustainability issues when the aid money dries up following the next shift in fashion. But at the very least policy should take into account Tooley's work. At the moment it doesn't, and that's all I'm arguing for.

[Jim]

"the best way to help education for the poorest people of the world is to stop interrupting entrepreneurial delivery."

Yeah, by restricting their choices! I'm sure we could foster all sorts of entrepreneurial activity (local militias, for example) simply by completely shutting down government, and if reducing crowding out was really the overriding priority you seem to think it should be then that's what we should do. Personally, if I saw a free school open and poor parents decide to send their children there and spend the money saved elsewhere, I'd call it a good thing, not to mention suggestive that the gap in quality isn't quite as yawning as you think it is. Apparently you'd complain about crowding out and stifling of entrepreneurial activity. I suppose we'll just have to differ on that.

[aje]

That is the most bizarre argument I've heard on this issue. Support for *allowing* primary education to *continue* to be provided by the private sector is akin to fostering local militia? Come on...

if I saw a free school open and poor parents decide to send their children there and spend the money saved elsewhere, I'd call it a good thing, not to mention suggestive that the gap in quality isn't quite as yawning as you think it is.

It's not what *I* think, it's the accumulated body of evidence that Tooley has provide that I'm referring to. By now it's patently clear that you aren't familiar with his work, and that you deliberately choose not to be. This is the type of stubbornness and anti-intellectualism that characterises the debate, and it's a real tragedy.

Just to recap, this argument is not about whether "free schools" should be allowed to open, it's about whether private, unregistered schools in areas where free schools don't exist should be shut down. It's also about whether, if "free schools" are to be opened, there is an obligation to investigate the existing schools in the area (and possibly it'd make sense to prioritise areas where there are no existing schools). In both cases, it requires critics to read Tooley's with an open mind.

The issue about crowding out and sustainability are secondary.

Now - and here's the rub - you continue to demonstrate the aid agency's fallacy of treating this as a blank slate upon which to project the "ideal" education system. For you it's a debate about "free" versus "private". You have completely missed the point of Tooley's book, and my post. Completely independent of what you, I, or any other idealistic British knobhead dreams up in London, in many regions of the poorest parts of the world a majority of children *are* receiving a decent education - hence "Beautiful Tree" - but this system is largely illegal and under constant threat.

I do not understand why anyone that genuinely wants to see universal and affordable primary education would not jump on board an effort to simply allow these schools to exist.

[Jim]

"Just to recap, this argument is not about whether "free schools" should be allowed to open, it's about whether private, unregistered schools in areas where free schools don't exist should be shut down."

Great, thanks for clarifying. As a general principle, schools delivering a decent service should obviously not be shut down, but no doubt there are some schools out there that should and it's a challenge to get it right. I would like to see appropriate monitoring and regulation systems put in place to ensure that they treat pupils and parents fairly, but I recognise this kind of thing can be difficult to do well in poor countries. It's a delicate balancing act, in other words.

"It's also about whether, if "free schools" are to be opened, there is an obligation to investigate the existing schools in the area (and possibly it'd make sense to prioritise areas where there are no existing schools)."

I'm fine with prioritising other areas first but I see no reason why any area should be considered 'off limits' to state education in the long term. And in cases where the 'threat' to private education consists of free schools taking away their customers, that's really just tough.

[aje]

I'll give you last word on this, so I won't say any more. Other than I'm glad "Raivo Pommer's" fucked off allowing us to return to such exchanges. Thank you.