|
Over the last ten years, In the Public Interest has educated organizations, leaders, and journalists nationwide about the perils of privatization—how private interests are increasingly gaining control over vital public goods.
We’re going to continue to do that. But we’re also going to start showing what public control over public goods means and looks like—both a governing vision and practical examples from across the country.
Like Kansas City, Missouri, making public transit free for all. Or the Puerto Rican public school that assigned a social worker to every student. Or the small Florida town that opened its own grocery store.
Becoming “pro-public” means a few things:
- Reclaiming the ideal of the public in a free, democratic society.
- Arguing that there are market things and public things. They’re different things, like apples and oranges.
- Ensuring public goods have adequate resources—a more progressive tax system is a must.
So, what are we actually going to do?
We’ll continue to help build a pro-public movement that can effectively compete to govern in a way that puts public over private and creates public institutions that deliver on that promise.
Everything we do—our research, writings, trainings, policy work—will be oriented towards creating a larger, more inclusive, educated, connected, and active movement competing to govern across the country.
We’ll create tools and conduct training for leaders, organizers, and activists to fully use the tools and powers of governance.
We’ll develop and support new rules and revenue generators to expand access to public goods, rebalance economic power, and eliminate the corrupting influences of money in democracy.
We’ll lift up good things government does and has done—there’s plenty of that too.
And, of course, we’ll do everything we can to stop the spread of reckless privatization schemes.
Stay tuned. And send us ideas: info@inthepublicinterest.org
Read more about our shift to becoming a “pro-public” organization here.
Thanks for being in the fight with us,
Donald Cohen
Executive Director
In the Public Interest |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is sorely needed! Too often, advocates for public services are painted as “defending the status quo.”
For most of us, when we look at the status quo, it’s easy to see flaws — and tempting to believe that a private option would be better. The evidence in favor of public services is there, but it can be hard to trust when we can see — in our own lives — that public services still aren’t good enough.
Any good advocate for public services has to advocate for BETTER public services, not for the status quo. I’m happy to hear that In the Public Interest is headed in this direction!
You’re right that public service is often not “good enough,” but the decision to privatize may means someone is skimming off already scarce public dollars for private profit. I am trying to think of a situation where that public/private partnership has led to a better value service of higher quality. Wherever the marketplace has invaded the public sphere, someone ends up paying more or losing service. The market doesn’t care whether you need a service. It just cares whether you can pay for what they provide. If you can’t afford it, it’s of no concern to them as long as they have a clientele that can pay. I know there are situations where it makes sense to have a private vendor provide the service, but the division between legitimate uses of private resources vs. public services has gotten really blurred.
yes: more often than not when the argument is that the public service is ‘not good enough’ the next step is profiteering
“Any good advocate for public services has to advocate for BETTER public services.” I’m not so sure about this. I think today, the case needs to be made for public services, period– to counter fringe libertarian anti-govt-run anything sentiment that has been sneaking into the mainstream for over a decade via ALEC & rogue billionaires. In a number of states we have state legislatures pursuing these paths regardless of public sentiment [which also goes to publicly-funded election campaigns & dumping the Cit-United decision]. We also could use plenty of facts and figures countering decades of neoliberal public-private partnerships: show the $figures [higher cost to public] and anti-public-welfare results.
Your comment makes me think of old-timey sentiments, e.g., [‘60’s] Americans smugly comparing our comparatively efficient public services to European (& USSR) long lines—which has seemed gradually to morph into anti-public-services sentiments because… lines, time spent waiting, ‘lazy incompentent’ [read: protected by seniority] public servants. What’s the frikkin’ rush? Time = $. Spend some time, save a dime. Chat with the hoi-polloi. Get some perspective: we all need this service, so settle down & wait your turn.
I like the articles I’ve read published in Public Interest.
Thanks so much, Diane.
If Bernie wins the nomination, we should prepared for the lies and distortions about his beliefs and record. Bernie will be blamed for Venezuela. Venezuela’s problems are mostly the result of corruption, not just socialism. When people focus on Venezuela, we should be prepared to answer with Chile, a neoliberal cesspool of inequity, mass privatization and very little concern about the impact of policies on its people. We are already headed toward Chile’s mistakes in our economic policies. Trump’s policies will push us closer to this Chilean dystopia. If you read the link, you will see the direction in which we are heading. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/neoliberalism-chile-uprising-austerity-protests-pinera
Yes, Milton Friedman met with Pinochet to give him some hints about free market libertarian predatory capitalism. The libertarians had a love affair with Pinochet. What do the libertarian-free market-limited-government-Ayn Rand blow hards have to say about China. Commie China is the world’s 2nd largest economy. Hey, I thought that socialism/communism didn’t work? I am not praising or recommending China in any way, it’s an authoritarian police state and dictatorship that does not tolerate dissent or freedom of speech……….but it’s economically very successful.
Bernie’s already getting blasted because in a ’60 Minutes’ interview, he said there were some good things about Cuba like their public healthcare. He also mentioned what is wrong about Cuba, but the media is focusing on half the statement.
Not just the media.
Bloomberg and his corporate waterboy Buttigieg have gone into full attack mode against Sanders.
As I asked elsewhere. How would you like to have Buttigieg behind you in battle?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/02/24/corporate-tool-buttigieg-now-hammer-bash-sanders
Turns out Obama made virtually the same (true) points about Cuba , touting their education and universal health care systems. But of course, Obama never got trashed by the “liberal” media or Democrats because he was their darling (and still is).
“I believe the best way to defeat Donald Trump and deliver for the American people is to broaden and galvanize the majority that supports us on critical issues,” Buttigieg said. “Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans.”
Says the white guy in the white shirt and tie who got practically no African American votes in the Nevada primary, because he has left them out of his corporate sponsored “revolution”.
What an Oxfordmoron Buttigieg is.
Meanwhile Bloomberg continues to throw hundred million $ after hundred million $ down a rat hole to (among other things) “convince” African Americans (who remember him well for Stop and Frisk) that Bernie Sanders (who marched in the civil Rights marches of the 60’s) is the real racist.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Only an Oxfordmoron like Buttigieg would buy what Bloomberg is selling.
“Arguing that there are market things and public things. They’re different things, like apples and oranges.”
Thank God someone finally said it.
I have no idea who or what or when decided that we can’t have BOTH a public sector and a private sector. We always had both. We can continue to have both. No one has to choose between them.
Being FOR the public sector doesn’t mean you’re AGAINST the private sector, and vice versa. They’re different. They’re supposed to be different. That’s deliberate.
But both the “public” sector and the “private” sector should be controlled by the stakeholders, meaning the people. Not only should the people have control over their government, but they should have control over other areas of their lives that affect them – their jobs, their housing, the products they need, their banking/investments, etc. “Vote with your feet” doesn’t work in education, so why would it work elsewhere? It’s sounds good in theory that employees won’t choose to work for a bad employer or consumers won’t choose to buy bad products, but just like we see with education, people will in fact make “bad” “choices” often because there is little or no choice, and even when there is choice, finding the information you need about said choices is nearly impossible. All institutions, public or private, should be democratically run by the people most affected by them.
” All institutions, public or private, should be democratically run by the people most affected by them.”
Just what do you mean by institutions? I don’t know where to take this discussion without that idea being fully explained. My mind is taking me to some pretty scary places.
RE: private sector, can I assume you mean it needs to be regulated properly by citizens via legislation? I see most of our problems today as consequent to the deregulation of the private sector (&/or legislative ‘cheating’ by eliminating funding for monitoring/ enforcement). If that’s the idea, I like your concept of broadening the term “stakeholder” to include the public.
What you said.
All we have to do is look at healthcare and it’s privatization to realize that we really don’t want that for the education of our children. And yes….healthcare is fully privatized! No more community hospitals run by physicians, no more pharmacy’s owned/operated by trained pharmacists, rehab facilities that are run by corporations. I like having health insurance, but using it is as expensive as paying for it sometimes. The privatization of public goods is not good for society as a whole.
Certainly public control over public goods is a good idea, but what are public goods? Economists have a definition of what is, and is not, a public good based on 1) if the use of the good or service by one person interferes with the use of that good by another person so we have to decide who will get the good and 2) if it is possible to exclude some people from getting access to the good or service.
Using this definition, the examples given in the article are not public goods. I think it would be helpful if folks here would provide a definition of what is, and is not, a public good.
You haven’t gotten any more convincing in your absence, TE. By your definition, roads are not a public good because your use of a road could impede my use, and it’s certainly possible to exclude some people (for instance, those who don’t have cars). The fire department is also not a public good because there’s only so many fires they can put out, so if your house is burning, that could impede my use of the fire department.
But at least you have conceded that charter schools are not public goods since they exclude the more difficult to educate students. Thank you for that bit of honesty.
By economists’ own definition of a public good, economists are not a public good.
Ha ha ha.
Dienn77,
By the economists definition local roads are a public good because there are few ways to prevent you from using the roads and they are only rival when congested. Limited access highways are less so, and we see toll roads there. Fire companies are public goods as well. Fire companies used to be private companies, but the close proximity of cities meant that a person would call their fire company to put the neighbor’s fire out before it caught their own home on fire.
Of course technology can change things. London has a congestion charge placed on cars entering the center city on local roads. This is possible because of technologies that can trace the car. It also works the other way. Recorded music used to be excludable and rival. If you did not pay for the record or cd you could not listen to the music. It used to be rival because if you lent your record or cd to your friend you could not listen to the same recorded music. Technology has changed that so recorded music is a public good under my definition.
All schools exclude almost all students. That is the foundation of the school district and catchment area structure. If your criteria is that schools that exclude students are not “public goods” than any school you point at is not a “public good”.
The way you lay out the economic definition of public goods, there is no such thing as a public good because someone else will always be affected by the actions of others. Roads are not a public good because I may be in your way?! I seriously doubt that is what TE is saying. You don’t have to agree with TE, but he does have training in a field in which few of us, I suspect, can claim much experience. Ask for clarification, rather than shutting him down. So their “stupid ideas” have been in ascendance lately. Eventually, we’ll get to have our “stupid” on display again. The balance between public and private interests is way out of whack right now, but make not mistake, we need both.
Actually, by economists own definition, few things actually qualify as public goods.. Even air and water are not really public goods because the “use” of those by one person (eg, by a fossil fuel plant owner who fouls the air or by a factory owner who pours effluent into a nearby river and/or air) interferes with the “use” (in clean form) by another person and (as we saw in Flint Michigan) people can definitely be denied access to clean water (and this goes for clean air as well)
But how economists define public good is not even important or relevant here.
The much more commonly used and accepted definition of “public good” is something along the lines of “a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.”
By the way, it’s still just crickets from TE on the substantive criticism of Raj Chetty’s claims
https://dianeravitch.net/2020/02/19/study-stop-and-frisk-increased-dropout-rate/#comment-3000184
But I suspect that crickets are all we will ever hear.
Dienne, did you notice what TE just did there?
He changed his own definition from what does not qualify as a public good from
A) if the use of the good or service by one person interferes with the use of that good by another person so we have to decide who will get the good and 2) if it is possible to exclude some people from getting access to the good or service.”
TO
[if] “there are few ways to prevent you from using the roads and they are only rival when congested.”
“When I use a word,” HumpTE DumpTE said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
But as I said, TE s and/or the economists ‘ definition of “public good” is completely irrelevant in this case because Donald Cohen is quite obviously using the commonly accepted definition of a public good:
“A commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.”
TE changed his own definition of what does and does not qualify as a public good
I think the problem with Cohen’s definition is that it has nothing to do with the good itself, instead it is about how the good is produced and distributed. I have lived in places where the local government provided residential trash pick up, places where the local government required households to contract with a company to pick up the trash, and it has often been the case that businesses are required to contract with a company to pick up the trash. Cohen’s definition would make trash pick up a public good in some local jurisdictions, not in others.
Another example would be medical care. As readers often point out, medical care in the United States is largely provided at a profit. Under Cohen’s definition, therefore, medical care is not a public good.
Is that the definition that people want to use?
Very simple, TE. You don’t believe that anything is a public good, and you challenge us to find one.
Are you a consultant to ALEC? If not, you should be. You could pick up a nice chunk of change.
Do you think the police and Fire Departments are public goods? Clearly you don’t think free public highways are? Who keeps the air and water clean? Everyone on his own! How about the National Parks? Should they be open to drilling for profit?
So, if I am in charge of my own air and water, I can buy an expensive air filter and wear it and let everyone else breathe in the polluted air.
If I am in charge of my own water, I can buy a filter and let everyone else drink filth.
What a nice society you have in your head.
Dr Ravitch,
There are many things that are public goods. I make use of the GPS satellite system in many ways. It is a public good. I make use of local roads. As you can see in my answer to Dienne77, I think those are public goods along with fire protection. National defense, local policing are public goods. Lighthouses are another classic public good. Information creation is a public good, though we have a long history of attempting to privatize it in order to create incentives for people to create the information.
Cohn’s definition is not helpful because it describes the status quo, giving no guidance in deciding if something ought to be provided publicly. The economist’s definition of public good gives guidance. Because using the GPS signal is not rival, that is my use of it in no way interferes with your use of it, the GPS signal ought to be provided at no charge by the government.
I am sure that every one of the things you mention is a target for privatization.
I think the problem with HumpTE DumpTE’s definition is that “it means just what he chooses it to mean—neither more nor less.”
To say nothing of the fact that how an economist defines something usually hss little (if anything )to do with how the word is normally used .
Let’s go back to HumpTE DumpTE’s original comment, shall we?
“I think it would be helpful if folks here would provide a definition of what is, and is not, a public good.”
And I think it would be helpful if HumpTE DumpTE Could keep his own definition of what is and is not a public good straight from one of his comments to the next.
Sheesh, all the piling on against TE is unwarranted. He posed a valid & important question: what is your definition of public goods? He started us off w/a brief summary of the classic economic definition [incorrectly interpreted by dienne], then asked for other viewpoints. And no, SDP, your paraphrase is not necessarily the “much more commonly used and accepted definition.” This is a highly complex subject, debated since ancient Greek times, with different interpretations in philosophy, politics, economics, sociology, et al.
Meanwhile TE my only quibble in what you wrote is the narrow argument about [public] schools (re: catchment areas). The public good to be debated these days is K12 education itself, not how it’s delivered. The bent of education-reform has revealed itself to be challenging the very value to the public of K12 education;. The recent ed-reform jump from pushing charters to pushing vouchers, signals—to me at least [cynic here]—that charters were merely a stop on the intended bus-trip toward 100% privatized education. It is a very small leap from publicly-supported voucher schools to libertarian nirvana, eliminating school taxes—and compulsory K12 ed: let folks use the extra cash to obtain whatever 3R’s & job-training is available in the marketplace. Next up, eliminate child-labor laws.
The definition I gave is certainly more common than what TE gave, which, I m willing to bet no one outside economics has ever even heard .
And that TE believes his definition is somehow better than Cohen’s or anyone elses does not make it so.
My problem with TE is that he speaks on this blog only to condescend to us lesser persons. He is consistently negative and hostile.
But Diane
TE IS smarter than everyone else and teachers should just be glad he is here to impart his infinite wisdom to school them.
He’s a genius — because his son is (or tat least hat’s what he told us).
Correlation is causation, doncha know?
Also, not incidentally, he’s an economist and all economists are geniuses.
QED.
But , Diane,
Don’t let anyone (eg. at The Atlantic) ever tell you that ” Correlation is NOT causation”
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/forget-excel-this-was-reinhart-and-rogoffs-biggest-mistake/275088/
Fortunately for teachers (and the rest of society), TE and other economists have worked out all the “issues” and driven out all the imperfections from their own field and created the flawless Hope diamond that is mainstream economics and hence have time to devote to perfecting other fields like education who so badly need their wisdom and expertise.
We are supposed to live in a democracy. Everything public is supposed to be voted upon. It’s so simple and true. Why doesn’t everyone get that? Probably the same reason charter proponents like Bloomberg think they can buy elections.
Private things get to be voted on, too. Our legislation creates the nature of the society we live in, which most definitely includes the effect of private institutions on the public. We have to legislate regulation of the private sector: any study of history shows that unregulated capitalism results in elitism; do we want elitism? [Bulletin: we’ve got it already due to lax regulation of private sector.] And why wouldn’t Bloomberg “think he can buy elections”? The public’s lack of political will to regulate elections in the public interest has resulted in a free-for-all where only money talks—as paraphrased in the Cit-United decision. Couple that w/ 40 yrs of deregulating financial sector/ Wall St, & we have the twin factor created by trickle-up economics: billionaires dictate govtl policy. Bottom line: EVERYTHING is public.
Well, taking up TE’s challenge. First off, I like this link as a layman-friendly explanation of the economist’s definition: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp
The point in defining things this way is that it helps guide arguments for and against & degree of public subsidy for goods. For example, this Forbes article shows an argument against defining higher ed as a public good, although points toward partial govt subsidy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/08/18/if-higher-education-were-a-public-good/#6c88e7963dc6 “The key is that any social benefits conferred by higher education are finite, meaning government subsidies for education should be finite as well… Since a substantial portion of higher education’s benefits accrue to students personally, it makes sense that students should bear some or most of the cost. If higher education does create social benefits in addition to personal ones, there is an argument for some sort of government subsidy… College is not a public good and never will be, at least until projecting PowerPoint slides by bat-signal becomes the only way to deliver an economics lecture.“ Whether you agree or not, the economist’s framework suggests ways in which higher ed might move toward “public good” status. Perhaps, e.g., a case could be made for govt provision of free college courses broadcast on TV & radio.
However it’s a very narrow framework. This article shows how the economist’s definition is used by school-choicers to declare public K12 ed not a public good, and where it goes wrong: https://kappanonline.org/abowitz-stitzlein-public-schools-public-goods-and-public-work/ I find their argument on the narrow side too, as it speaks only to the bare bones [supporting democratic govt/ liberties/ ideals – the ‘civics’ argument]. I’d favor something that also speaks to the economic benefits of a labor force with basic education, and the social benefits of having the community you depend on for services likewise equipped. Such a view may seem to regular folks as crashingly obvious, but in these days where fringe libertarianism has snuck right into the halls of fed govt, good to have in one’s arsenal.
Some (not I, of course) might say that TE is applying the economists’ definition of public good to education precisely because it allows him to “conclude” (based on economists own arbitrary definition), that public schools and public education are NOT a public good.
It’s very easy to get lost n the TE woods, but let’s face it, ALL of these definitions of public good are subjective and as a famous Supereme court saying about something else goes, “I know it when I see it”
What it comes down to is this:
Whose definition are we gonna accept? TE’s or Diane’s?
Graffiti Grows in Hartford”
(Versification of Diane Ravitch)
by Some DAM Poet
Graffiti high up on the wall
Says “Schools are not a business”
“But public good for one and all”
Though some have clearly missed this
“Tools or Jewels?”
Public schools are public jewels
A common public good
They aren’t simply business tools
But for the neighborhood
Sometimes you have to climb a tall tree to see your way out of the woods.
The thing that one must bear in mind (and that some may not be aware of) is that TE always has some “point” to make in posting here. Always
So what might seem to be nothing more than “innocent” questions are meant to facilitate his making that point ,– in this case, that public schools are NOT a public good.
His approach is too clever by half and most people can see through it, but he nonetheless keeps using it, like one would use an old bald tire.
Tiresome indeed.
Exactly right.
His facile points are meant to undermine and discredit the very idea of public school because it wasn’t right for his son.
An N of 1 is not reliable.
Yeah, TE can get annoying, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t say some things worth exploring. I found bethree’s comments very helpful in understanding an economic point of view. TE doesn’t always explain things very well, but sometimes the knee jerk reaction to TE cuts off any possibility of conversation, and responses begin to sound like an echo chamber. If I understand others points of view that aren’t an exact mirror of my own, I can make more intelligent arguments myself.
I’m all in favor of debate.
I’m not in favor of condescension.
You see all of TE’s postings, so you probably have a better sense of his antics. I am glad you let him post every once in awhile as long as he doesn’t get going on “catchment.”
“TE Tires”
His tires have no treads
And even spare in bed’s
Got nothing on its rim
The tread is paper thin
“A TE jerk deserves a knee jerk” is what my mother always said.
Just so it is crystal clear.
The bogus stuff TE has been pushing here has not been without consequence.
His support for the seriously flawed study’ of Chetty et Al along with their suggestion to “fire teachers sooner rather than later” based on bogus VAM scores has taken a heavy toll, including loss of jobs and livelihoods and even, possibly, one suicide of a teacher (Rigoberto Ruelas, who killed himself soon after his “low” VAM score was published in the LA Times)
So, if it seems some of us (including Diane?) are responding in a knee jerk fashion to this fellow, there is a long history and key context behind it.
Not incidentally, when confronted directly with it, TE won’t even address legitimate criticism of Chetty et Al either because TE is himself clueless or because he knows he can’t respond without confirming Chetty’s own cluelessness. So TE conveniently ignores the criticism and instead makes vacuous comments about “the orthodoxy of this blog” and the like. How honest is that?
https://dianeravitch.net/2020/02/19/study-stop-and-frisk-increased-dropout-rate/#comment-3000184
If others want to take seriously what TE has to say, feel free.
But you can count me with the ” knee jerk opposition.”
If the past is any indication, the chance is pretty good he is trying to jerk people around.
I know it when I see it”
I know it when I see it
The claim that schools are bad
I know it when I see it
I know when I’ve been had
I know it when I see it
The claim that VAM is valid
I know it when I see it
A statustician salad
I know it when I see it
The economic tripe
I know it when I see it
It’s mushy when it’s ripe
I know it when I see it
The BS and the good
I know it when I see it
It all is understood
Knew I could extract some verse from you eventually, SDP! Masterful as usual. Especially love “business” & “missed this.”
WHOA! “The claim that VAM is valid… A statistician salad” !!!
Thank you, bethree, your links and explanations are very helpful.
thanks! I kind of like prickly people, so I try to understand where they’re coming from…