Academia in Anarchy: An Economic Diagnosis, by James M. Buchanan and Nicos E. Devletoglou
I assumed that this book would about how to organize universities and research in an anarchist society. In fact, it is an economic analysis of the chaos at universities in the 1960s, such as those run by Students for a Democratic Society. Even so, much of the analysis comes down on the statist aspects of most universities.
The idea is well summarized by the table of contents:
- Students: Consumers Who Do Not Buy
- Faculties: Producers Who Do Not Sell
- Taxpayers: Owners Who Do Not Control
The book basically argues that if students actually paid the full cost of schooling, then they would have an incentive to buy what they want and feel attached to the service and environment they receive. One of main problems they suggest is that "with university education ... all prospective consumers find themselves in the curious situation of committing themselves in favor of a product they do not know. University education is like a blind date after all." [pg. 13] The book interestingly argues that tuition support for education is highly regressive, because university educated individuals are highly paid over the course of their life relative to the non-university educated. [pg. 25]
Similarly, the book argues that faculty should be paid on the basis of the service they provide to students and rent their supplies, offices, classrooms, etc from the university. For example, if faculty were paid based on student-hours of teaching, there would be an incentive to teach rather than an incentive to slack. One of the other perverse aspects of the university that the book discusses is that the policies are set by committees, but committees are made up of those who do not excel at the other aspects of the university (teaching and research), because they impose high costs on those activities, so the rules are made by the most incompetent faculty members. [pg. 55]
Finally, the book argues that taxpayers and boards should either enforce their ownership or get out of the game. The authors suggest that perhaps they do not because education is not the good that taxpayers are buying, instead education funding is the good. That is, education funding itself, regardless of outcome, is a good, because it is the moral thing to do. [pg. 71] I think this matches the veiled opinions of many people I know.
This book is definitely dated, but contains lots of gems applicable to today.