HESA

Higher Education Strategy Associates

Tag Archives: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

March 14

The Free Tuition Impulse

A few weeks ago I presented yet more evidence about why free tuition was mostly a subsidy for the rich and was unlikely, on its own, to do very much with respect to equalizing access (scroll through here and here if you really want to read me on this subject, though I imagine most of you are pretty familiar with my spiel by now). Someone asked me: “why don’t people like the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) get this?  Surely they can read the evidence, why would they persist in touting a solution which is manifestly regressive”?

There are two possible answers to this question.  One is that in fact they have not read the evidence.  It exists, and they know it exists, but just haven’t read it.  As long as they don’t read the work which falsifies their notions, they can continue to hold these notions. To  paraphrase Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to read something, when his salary depends upon his not reading it”.

I actually got confirmation of this the other day on Twitter.  I was trying to get CCPA’s chief economist David MacDonald to explain why CCPA holds diametrically opposed positions on universal electricity subsidies (bad because they go disproportionately to the rich) and PSE subsidies (awesome, because they benefit the poor – which actually they don’t always, but that’s their story and they are sticking to it).  Basically, his two lines of defense were “it’s a public good” and “it doesn’t matter if most benefits go to rich because if we make education cheaper more poor students will go”.  The first, even if you assume he meant “there are positive externalities to higher education spending” (which is true) rather than “it fits economists’ description of a public good” (utterly false), is not a 100% sensible rationale as it arguably also applies to electricity to some degree (i.e. “there are positive externalities to people not freezing to death in their homes”).  But the second is ridiculous.  We know for a fact that tuition levels have almost nothing to do with access rates in part because targeted student aid actually works.  So I pushed him on it.  “Have you really read nothing about access problems in zero-tuition jurisdictions?  I asked.  Have you never looked at the rather substantive literature on finances and access”?  No reply.  Which, I think, tells you what you need to know.  People like David MacDonald and the CCPA simply do not want to know.  But that’s only half an answer: why don’t they want to know?  If they know that free tuition is ineffective as a remedy and regressive in distributional outcomes, why support it?  What other agenda is at play?

Well, a few years ago, when I was at a small event on Chile looking at the issue of tuition, I finally came to understand this problem.  A colleague and I were asking our Chilean counterparts: why do you want to make tuition free?  You must know it will make very little difference in access to higher education.  To which one of our counterparts replied:  the point is to get rid of the market.  The market must not decide in higher education.”

And so it is in Canada, I think.  The anti-tuition people are not fundamentally pro-access (though that is how they rationalize their position), so much as they are pro-state.  I suspect it’s partly due to a left-ideological stance which generally favours greater state involvement across the economy, but also partly to a naïve view about what would happen inside universities if the need to satisfy the market ever disappeared.  Such as: that public money would magically replace private money and continue to grow at a pace vastly outstripping inflation forever after.  Such as: nasty private sector Board member would be replaced by bureaucrats or more sympathetic public appointments or – better yet – make academics a majority on governing boards.   And magically, contrary to every bit of evidence from continental Europe, government running 100% publicly-funded universities would be less intrusive and meddling in institutional affairs than they currently are.

Once you realize that the free tuition argument is really a government vs. market argument and not a “how do we best equalize opportunities argument”, it becomes perfectly clear why evidence on the efficacy of tuition in promoting access doesn’t faze the usual suspects.  They don’t actually care about access.  They care about resisting the market.   The access stuff is just sheep’s clothing.

June 17

A Dreadful Argument About Tuition Fees

I see that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has just released a new paper by Hugh MacKenzie called The Impact of Taxation on the Higher Education Debates. It’s worth a read because it sets out the argument against higher fees in the most respectable terms possible – certainly more respectable that anything student groups themselves have come up with.

It is still, however, a pretty crap argument.

The spiel runs like this: the lazy talking point about how higher education subsidies mean that “the poor pay for the education of the rich” isn’t actually true. Our system of income taxes is quite progressive; the top income quartile pays about 69% of all taxes and the bottom quartile pays for just one percent. As a result, on a net basis, the bottom income quartile gains from the current system because they make up more than 1% of all university students.

MacKenzie is dead on about this. It’s where he goes from there which is problematic. He continues by arguing that its OK that subsidies for education, on aggregate, end up disproportionately with the children of wealthy families, because on average, the wealthy pay most of the taxes. Effectively, he argues that as long as the top income quartile doesn’t claim more than 69% of the expenditures of any program, and as long as the lowest income quartile gets more than 1% of the expenditures, the program is ipso facto progressive. And since higher education meets that test, it’s OK to spend more money on it.

This, to put it mildly, is an interesting definition of the term “progressive”. Education Savings Grants, which mostly go to the rich, would be considered progressive according to this definition. So, too, would the Bush Tax cuts (h/t Stephen Gordon).

Surely the relevant issue isn’t whether public subsidies can pass an unbelievably weak test such as this. The issue is how to ensure that subsidies are directed to those who need them most. This of course is what most people who argue for subsidy reform argue; higher fees for the rich, lower net fees for the poor through increased grants. For McKenzie this option is never considered; whether through ignorance or deliberate omission, he never mentions the billion or so in student grants which permit this kind of pro-poor price-discrimination.

MacKenzie self-righteously claims that anyone who disagrees with his views on progressiveness is just “appropriat(ing) the language of fairness” while “arguing against public policies whose goals include equalization of opportunity”. So be it. If arguing against providing rich families with bigger subsidies because they pay more taxes makes me anti-progressive, I’ll wear that label with pride.

The question is – why wouldn’t CCPA do the same?