Ginny Kosola: Experts Explain the Pension Issue
NY State Law Requires New Tiers for any Changes
Dec 19, 2005 1:49 pm US/Eastern
NEW YORK (WCBS) A two-tier pension system like the one being sought by the MTA in talks with the TWU is not unusual, says human resources expert Mitchell Langbert, an associate business professor at Brooklyn college.
The pension proposal, perceived as the main sticking-point in the talks between the union and MTA is actually not legally negotiable, says Edmund McMahon, director of The Manhattan Institute think tank.
Langbert says multiple-tiered pension plans have existed in New York state for many years, "I myself as a professor at Brooklyn college, part of the City University of New York, am part of a multi-tiered pension plan." Langbert says his benefits are not as generous as those of colleagues who have worked for the city longer.
The reason there are multi-tiered systems, and the MTA is seeking the two-tiered plan, is New York State's constitutional prohibition on reducing accrued benefits for existing workers. For the government to save money, it can only offer different benefits for new hires.
"What's unusual about this is that, in fact, pension benefits are not dictated by labor contracts in New York City and New York State government. Penison benefits are actually set by state law," says McMahon.
The state constitution absolutely guarantees that there can't be any reduction in a pension benefit for an employee who is on the payroll, says McMahon. The union is actually correct in making its argument to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that pensions actually are not a bargaining issue. PERB, he explains, acts as a mediating panel between the government and unions.
"Although the Taylor Law clearly outlaws negotiations, formally, around the issue of pension benefits, unions have been happy in the past to negotiate side benefits and side deals for changes in the laws to increase their pensions." But, McMahon explains, those side agreements must then be approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor.
As for where he stands on the pension issue for new MTA hires, McMahon believes the best solution would be to pay the workers more now, and give them a "defined contribution pension," such as a 401-K. "Very few of the people who ride subways and buses and pay the taxes to subsidize them can dream of retiring at age 55 with a full pension," he notes.
Ginny Kosola
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
NCATE and the Decline of Teacher Education
Last May 31 the New York Sun carried Jacob Gershman’s story about a Brooklyn College student named Goldwyn who was penalized for disagreeing with his professor about her views on diversity. Professor Parmar had asked other professors to evaluate the student’s “dispositions”, yet did not have a validated instrument to measure any such psychological trait. The Sun article quoted Professor KC Johnson, who was subsequently attacked by a group of education professors, backed by the faculty union, who demanded that the college suppress Professor Johnson’s extramural speech.
The Sun story alleged that Professor Parmar believes that “white people are oppressors.” Working with Steve Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), I contacted Arthur Wise, president of NCATE. Dr. Wise’s associate. Jane Leibbrand, NCATE’s vice president of communications, responded to my inquiries. My purpose in contacting NCATE was to inquire as to the basis of NCATE’s claim that education programs are capable of assessing and ought to assess dispositions in general and social justice in particular. Such a claim would depend on NCATE’s having evidence that such dispositions are correlated with teacher performance. Yet it is unlikely that such evidence is available for several reasons. First, there would need to be a meaningful definition of “social justice.” Second, if there were such a definition, its adoption by education schools would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution because such a definition would constitute a test of political ideology, which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943. The fact that NCATE argues that many states have adopted dispositional assessment and have included "social justice" in their requirements for teacher education suggests how suppressive the education establishment has become.
In response to my e-mail, copied below, Ms. Leibbrand claims that the assessment of dispositions, to include “social justice” dispositions, is supported by Darling-Hammond and Bransford’s book Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Ms. Leibbrand states:
“You will find dispositions discussed as part of a framework for teacher learning, and part of a learning community, in the volume, along with research citations.”
She points out that the Darling-Hammond and Branford book is 600 pages long and kindly points out that in “lay terms”:
“one must have knowledge of subject matter, but an ability to relate to children, individually and collectively, is also a key to good teaching, as I'm sure you agree.”
She also points out that 30-odd states that have developed model state licensing standards based on NCATE’s INTASC standards and that dispositions are a part of the standards.
I acquired the Darling-Hammond and Branford book and read it. I did not find any evidence of validation coefficients of any disposition. Nor do Darling-Hammond and Branford define the concept of dispositions. Nor did I find any discussion of a “social justice” disposition. Social science in general and psychology in particular are incompetent to meaningfully define or measure social justice disposition for obvious reasons.
I responded to Ms. Leibbrand with this information, but she did not respond to my further inquiry. For example, she did not respond with a page number on which Darling-Hammond and Branford provide validation of social justice orientation. Disappointed at NCATE's inability to support its views, I contacted Professor Darling-Hammond with a direct inquiry. Professor Darling-Hammond, who is associated with NCATE, also did not respond to my inquiry.
Scholars such as Richard Boyatzis and consultants such as the Hay-McBer group have worked on developing measures of managerial competencies, but the measures that they have developed involved a lengthy validation process. Asking individual academic institutions to develop such measures is absurd. Moreover, even the Hay-McBer measures are better used for coaching than for assessment (as in hiring or promotional evaluation as they were used with Student Goldwyn) because they can be gamed and hence are likely useless for such purposes.
One question is how incompetence of the magnitude reflected by NCATE's standards, the state education departments, the state superintendants of education and the teachers' unions, all of which are associated with NCATE, has insinuated itself into the heart of the educational establishment. Another question is what the public can do about it.
The first question is largely answered in Diane Ravitch's books on the history of education reform. It would seem that the public education system has deteriorated to the point where it is beyond repair.
The solution would seem to be to involve decentralization of education and the junking of the public school systems. The current state-dominated system has failed. Vouchers, charter schools and home schooling would seem to be reasonable alternatives.
My and Ms. Leibbrand’s e-mails follow.
Arthur Wise, President
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
2010 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Dear President Wise:
Sent Via E-mail and Hard Copy
I am an associate professor in the economics department of Brooklyn College and a member of the National Association of Scholars. I would like to bring to your attention an article that appeared in the New York Sun on May 31, 2005 concerning Brooklyn College's school of education and Professor Parmar's conflict with several students. In the course of the article The Sun mentions that your organization, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education ("NCATE" or "the council") has required that the school of education adopt specific standards concerning dispositional assessment of students and, in addition, assessment of social justice orientation. I quote the Sun directly:
In 2000 the council introduced new standards for accrediting education schools. Those standards incorporated the concept of dispositions, which the agency maintains ought to be measured...
To drive home the notion that education schools ought to evaluate teacher candidates on such parameters as attitude toward social justice, the council issued a revision of its accrediting policies in 2002 in a Board of Examiners Update. It encouraged schools to tailor their assessments of dispositions to the schools' guiding principles, which are known in the field as "conceptual frameworks." The council's policies say that if an education school "has described its vision for teacher preparation as 'Teachers as agents of change' and has indicated that a commitment to social justice is one disposition it expects of teachers who can become agents of change, then it is expected that unit assessments include some measure of a candidate's commitment to social justice."
On behalf of the National Association of Scholars, I would like to make several requests and inquiries, as follows:
1. May I please have a copy of the 2000 standards and the 2002 Board of Examiners update to which the Sun article refers?
2. May I have a copy of any available evidence (or citations of published research upon which you have relied) that validate (1)college or teacher assessment of student dispositions in general; (2) college or teacher assessment of "social justice orientation"; (3) any approach whatsoever to assessment of "social justice orientation" or teacher measurement of "student disposition" and which you have relied on in setting this standard?
3. May I have a citation of any other published rationale upon which you have relied in setting the standard and update?
4. May I have a copy of any publicly available evidence of due diligence on NCATE's part in setting this standard, such as minutes of meetings, internal memoranda, statistical studies or citations of published research upon which the standards were set?
5. May I have a list of institutions to whom such standards apply?
I thank you in advance for your assistance. My mailing address and phone number follow:
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Dr. Langbert:
As I mentioned in my previous email, dispositions were incorporated into state teacher preparation standards through INTASC in the early 1990s. In lay terms, one must have knowledge of subject matter, but an ability to relate to children, individually and collectively, is also a key to good teaching, as I'm sure you agree. Dispositions gets at this aspect of teaching, by looking at things such as fairness---does the teacher call on a few students repeatedly, and never call on other students? Does the teacher interact respectfully with the students, or yell at them? Etc. etc. I'm sure you would agree that these are important facets of the job that should be taken into account.
The nation's top scholars have developed scholarly consensus on the foundational knowledge that teachers should have before teaching autonomously. They have set forth their conceptions in a volume entitled, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. It is available at www.josseybass.com . It is a 600 page volume with an extensive bibliography. The Preface to the volume states that the volume "outlines core concepts and strategies that should inform initial teacher preparation.....it focuses on content considered essential based on strong professional consensus and on research evidence." You will find dispositions discussed as part of a framework for teacher learning, and part of a learning community, in the volume, along with research citations. There is an emerging volume of research on dispositions, which are tied to teacher skills with children. You can scan ERIC or google. The field considered all of this in including dispositio! ns in the standards.
Jane Leibbrand
Vice President for Communications
NCATE
Dr. Langbert:
Here is relevant information for you on NCATE's treatment of dispositions.
1. Statement on NCATE and Dispositions
2. Copy of INTASC Standards with dispositions:
Here is information from INTASC, the group of 34 states that have developed model state licensing standards. Dispositions are a part of the standards.
INTASC homepage that explains the model state licensing standards
http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_new_teacher_assessment_and_support_consortium/index.cfm
See Core Standards link. The dispositions start on about p. 14, but read through the beginning to get an idea of what it is talking about.
http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_new_teacher_assessment_and_support_consortium/projects/standards_development/791.cfm
2. Copy of the 2000 Standards is at http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp under the section called 'unit standards.'
3. Copy of the Fall 2002 BOE Update at http://www.ncate.org/boe/boeupdates.asp?ch=29
4. List of NCATE accredited institutions: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/listofaccredinst.asp
Jane Leibbrand
Vice President for Communications
NCATE
2010 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel. 202/466-7496
fax: 202/296-6620
e-mail: jane@ncate.org
website: http://www.ncate.org
The Sun story alleged that Professor Parmar believes that “white people are oppressors.” Working with Steve Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), I contacted Arthur Wise, president of NCATE. Dr. Wise’s associate. Jane Leibbrand, NCATE’s vice president of communications, responded to my inquiries. My purpose in contacting NCATE was to inquire as to the basis of NCATE’s claim that education programs are capable of assessing and ought to assess dispositions in general and social justice in particular. Such a claim would depend on NCATE’s having evidence that such dispositions are correlated with teacher performance. Yet it is unlikely that such evidence is available for several reasons. First, there would need to be a meaningful definition of “social justice.” Second, if there were such a definition, its adoption by education schools would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution because such a definition would constitute a test of political ideology, which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943. The fact that NCATE argues that many states have adopted dispositional assessment and have included "social justice" in their requirements for teacher education suggests how suppressive the education establishment has become.
In response to my e-mail, copied below, Ms. Leibbrand claims that the assessment of dispositions, to include “social justice” dispositions, is supported by Darling-Hammond and Bransford’s book Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Ms. Leibbrand states:
“You will find dispositions discussed as part of a framework for teacher learning, and part of a learning community, in the volume, along with research citations.”
She points out that the Darling-Hammond and Branford book is 600 pages long and kindly points out that in “lay terms”:
“one must have knowledge of subject matter, but an ability to relate to children, individually and collectively, is also a key to good teaching, as I'm sure you agree.”
She also points out that 30-odd states that have developed model state licensing standards based on NCATE’s INTASC standards and that dispositions are a part of the standards.
I acquired the Darling-Hammond and Branford book and read it. I did not find any evidence of validation coefficients of any disposition. Nor do Darling-Hammond and Branford define the concept of dispositions. Nor did I find any discussion of a “social justice” disposition. Social science in general and psychology in particular are incompetent to meaningfully define or measure social justice disposition for obvious reasons.
I responded to Ms. Leibbrand with this information, but she did not respond to my further inquiry. For example, she did not respond with a page number on which Darling-Hammond and Branford provide validation of social justice orientation. Disappointed at NCATE's inability to support its views, I contacted Professor Darling-Hammond with a direct inquiry. Professor Darling-Hammond, who is associated with NCATE, also did not respond to my inquiry.
Scholars such as Richard Boyatzis and consultants such as the Hay-McBer group have worked on developing measures of managerial competencies, but the measures that they have developed involved a lengthy validation process. Asking individual academic institutions to develop such measures is absurd. Moreover, even the Hay-McBer measures are better used for coaching than for assessment (as in hiring or promotional evaluation as they were used with Student Goldwyn) because they can be gamed and hence are likely useless for such purposes.
One question is how incompetence of the magnitude reflected by NCATE's standards, the state education departments, the state superintendants of education and the teachers' unions, all of which are associated with NCATE, has insinuated itself into the heart of the educational establishment. Another question is what the public can do about it.
The first question is largely answered in Diane Ravitch's books on the history of education reform. It would seem that the public education system has deteriorated to the point where it is beyond repair.
The solution would seem to be to involve decentralization of education and the junking of the public school systems. The current state-dominated system has failed. Vouchers, charter schools and home schooling would seem to be reasonable alternatives.
My and Ms. Leibbrand’s e-mails follow.
Arthur Wise, President
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
2010 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Dear President Wise:
Sent Via E-mail and Hard Copy
I am an associate professor in the economics department of Brooklyn College and a member of the National Association of Scholars. I would like to bring to your attention an article that appeared in the New York Sun on May 31, 2005 concerning Brooklyn College's school of education and Professor Parmar's conflict with several students. In the course of the article The Sun mentions that your organization, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education ("NCATE" or "the council") has required that the school of education adopt specific standards concerning dispositional assessment of students and, in addition, assessment of social justice orientation. I quote the Sun directly:
In 2000 the council introduced new standards for accrediting education schools. Those standards incorporated the concept of dispositions, which the agency maintains ought to be measured...
To drive home the notion that education schools ought to evaluate teacher candidates on such parameters as attitude toward social justice, the council issued a revision of its accrediting policies in 2002 in a Board of Examiners Update. It encouraged schools to tailor their assessments of dispositions to the schools' guiding principles, which are known in the field as "conceptual frameworks." The council's policies say that if an education school "has described its vision for teacher preparation as 'Teachers as agents of change' and has indicated that a commitment to social justice is one disposition it expects of teachers who can become agents of change, then it is expected that unit assessments include some measure of a candidate's commitment to social justice."
On behalf of the National Association of Scholars, I would like to make several requests and inquiries, as follows:
1. May I please have a copy of the 2000 standards and the 2002 Board of Examiners update to which the Sun article refers?
2. May I have a copy of any available evidence (or citations of published research upon which you have relied) that validate (1)college or teacher assessment of student dispositions in general; (2) college or teacher assessment of "social justice orientation"; (3) any approach whatsoever to assessment of "social justice orientation" or teacher measurement of "student disposition" and which you have relied on in setting this standard?
3. May I have a citation of any other published rationale upon which you have relied in setting the standard and update?
4. May I have a copy of any publicly available evidence of due diligence on NCATE's part in setting this standard, such as minutes of meetings, internal memoranda, statistical studies or citations of published research upon which the standards were set?
5. May I have a list of institutions to whom such standards apply?
I thank you in advance for your assistance. My mailing address and phone number follow:
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Dr. Langbert:
As I mentioned in my previous email, dispositions were incorporated into state teacher preparation standards through INTASC in the early 1990s. In lay terms, one must have knowledge of subject matter, but an ability to relate to children, individually and collectively, is also a key to good teaching, as I'm sure you agree. Dispositions gets at this aspect of teaching, by looking at things such as fairness---does the teacher call on a few students repeatedly, and never call on other students? Does the teacher interact respectfully with the students, or yell at them? Etc. etc. I'm sure you would agree that these are important facets of the job that should be taken into account.
The nation's top scholars have developed scholarly consensus on the foundational knowledge that teachers should have before teaching autonomously. They have set forth their conceptions in a volume entitled, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. It is available at www.josseybass.com . It is a 600 page volume with an extensive bibliography. The Preface to the volume states that the volume "outlines core concepts and strategies that should inform initial teacher preparation.....it focuses on content considered essential based on strong professional consensus and on research evidence." You will find dispositions discussed as part of a framework for teacher learning, and part of a learning community, in the volume, along with research citations. There is an emerging volume of research on dispositions, which are tied to teacher skills with children. You can scan ERIC or google. The field considered all of this in including dispositio! ns in the standards.
Jane Leibbrand
Vice President for Communications
NCATE
Dr. Langbert:
Here is relevant information for you on NCATE's treatment of dispositions.
1. Statement on NCATE and Dispositions
2. Copy of INTASC Standards with dispositions:
Here is information from INTASC, the group of 34 states that have developed model state licensing standards. Dispositions are a part of the standards.
INTASC homepage that explains the model state licensing standards
http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_new_teacher_assessment_and_support_consortium/index.cfm
See Core Standards link. The dispositions start on about p. 14, but read through the beginning to get an idea of what it is talking about.
http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_new_teacher_assessment_and_support_consortium/projects/standards_development/791.cfm
2. Copy of the 2000 Standards is at http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp under the section called 'unit standards.'
3. Copy of the Fall 2002 BOE Update at http://www.ncate.org/boe/boeupdates.asp?ch=29
4. List of NCATE accredited institutions: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/listofaccredinst.asp
Jane Leibbrand
Vice President for Communications
NCATE
2010 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel. 202/466-7496
fax: 202/296-6620
e-mail: jane@ncate.org
website: http://www.ncate.org
Trade, Wal-Mart and New York Democrats’ Attack on the Poor
The Economist 's lead story this week on globalization ("Tired of Globalization: But in Need of Much More of it"—Nov. 5) mentions Senator Schumer’s proposal to impose a 39% tariff on Chinese imports. As well, the New York City Council, the politburo of the People’s Republic of New York City, has imposed a law imposing health insurance costs on large supermarkets in order to capriciously discriminate against Wal Mart. At the same time, there were anti-trade demonstrations in Argentina concerning the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and by implication the latest round of tariff-reduction talks that especially affect agriculture.
Schumer is a Harvard grad and, hopefully was exposed to David Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage in college (although along with the Harvard faculty’s belief that there are no differences between men and women, who knows what laws of economics they have concocted).
These latest assaults on economic freedom do what all restraints on economic freedom ultimately do—assault the poor. Schumer’s bill would forestall economic progress in China, in the long term reducing wage gains and diminishing learning of Chinese workers and future entrepreneurs. The ban on Wal-Mart means that those New Yorkers with low incomes must pay inflated prices for their groceries. The Doha round of trade talks would directly help the farmers of Brazil, Africa and other third world countries and low-wage people in America, while the agricultural tariffs that the demonstators seem to support help domestic producers such as Del Monte at consumers' expense.
I brought these issues up in my class at Brooklyn College, and was interested in how few students (a) had heard of the theory of comparative advantage, (b) had thought about the impact of trade on economic outcomes and freedom and (c) had heard of or were critical of the ban on Wal Mart and protectionism. One student argued that Asians who work in factories would be better off starving to death than working in American factories overseas because of poor factory conditions. This student did not say whether she wished her ancestors had so starved to death in the 19th century. Another student said that it is good that poor people in New York pay higher prices to supermarkets because they would just fritter away the money anyway. I questioned the student whether this wasn't the same economic philosophy that governs North Korea, and why wouldn't he want to live there.
It seems to me that the left’s use of universities and schools to ideologically brainwash students to believe in their failed and erroneous economic theories has worked. It will be a long path to counteract the economic ignorance that the schools and universities have wrought on the American public, and that shows itself in the illiterate discussions of trade among elected officials like New York's Senator Schumer and New York City's politburo, and among left wing demonstrators.
Schumer is a Harvard grad and, hopefully was exposed to David Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage in college (although along with the Harvard faculty’s belief that there are no differences between men and women, who knows what laws of economics they have concocted).
These latest assaults on economic freedom do what all restraints on economic freedom ultimately do—assault the poor. Schumer’s bill would forestall economic progress in China, in the long term reducing wage gains and diminishing learning of Chinese workers and future entrepreneurs. The ban on Wal-Mart means that those New Yorkers with low incomes must pay inflated prices for their groceries. The Doha round of trade talks would directly help the farmers of Brazil, Africa and other third world countries and low-wage people in America, while the agricultural tariffs that the demonstators seem to support help domestic producers such as Del Monte at consumers' expense.
I brought these issues up in my class at Brooklyn College, and was interested in how few students (a) had heard of the theory of comparative advantage, (b) had thought about the impact of trade on economic outcomes and freedom and (c) had heard of or were critical of the ban on Wal Mart and protectionism. One student argued that Asians who work in factories would be better off starving to death than working in American factories overseas because of poor factory conditions. This student did not say whether she wished her ancestors had so starved to death in the 19th century. Another student said that it is good that poor people in New York pay higher prices to supermarkets because they would just fritter away the money anyway. I questioned the student whether this wasn't the same economic philosophy that governs North Korea, and why wouldn't he want to live there.
It seems to me that the left’s use of universities and schools to ideologically brainwash students to believe in their failed and erroneous economic theories has worked. It will be a long path to counteract the economic ignorance that the schools and universities have wrought on the American public, and that shows itself in the illiterate discussions of trade among elected officials like New York's Senator Schumer and New York City's politburo, and among left wing demonstrators.
Review of Jane Jacobs' Dark Age Ahead
New York: Random House, 2004, 241 pp., $23.95 hardbound
Jane Jacobs’s book Dark Age Ahead, published last year, is a major disappointment. In her most famous book, Life and Death of Great American Cities, Jacobs’s arguments are close to those of the Austrians and other free marketeers. She argues that communities need to evolve spontaneously, and that large scale planning schemes such as the urban renewal of the 1950s had been a failure.
Dark Age Ahead shows that without an underlying theoretical grasp, even the most brilliant authors with the most brilliant insights, such as those evinced in Life and Death of Great American Cities, are likely to falter. In Dark Age Ahead Jacobs claims that Western civilization is teetering on a Dark Age because our culture cannot cope with technological change and interest group pressure on public policy. Ms. Jacobs defines a Dark Age to be a state of cultural amnesia, a “horrible ordeal” where a previous way of life slides into “an abyss of forgetfulness” (pp.6-7). She claims that five trends interactively evidence an incipient Dark Age. These include: (i) The decline of the suburban family and community, (ii) credentialing in higher education, (iii) second-rate science in fields like traffic engineering, (iv) incompetently managed public finance systems and (v) the decline of ethics in the accounting profession.
With respect to the decline of the family and community, Ms. Jacobs points out that the spirit of community characteristic of the urban neighborhoods of the 1950s is missing in twenty-first century suburban communities. Her point that modern urban planning has resulted in the deterioration of community spirit and family relationships is similar to arguments in Death and Life of Great American Cities.
In the second chapter, Ms. Jacobs argues that credentialing, or an emphasis on obtaining a degree regardless of the quality of the underlying education, has become the primary business of North American universities. Complaints about the rituals of higher education date back at least to Thorstein Veblen’s (1993) Higher Learning in America, and in light of this tradition Ms. Jacobs does a credible job of depicting higher education’s transformation into an employment signal. In her view credentialing has served the narrow economic interests of universities as well as employers.
With respect to second-rate science, Ms. Jacobs criticizes the lack of scientific imagination of traffic engineers, public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control, and Canadian economists.
In a chapter entitled “Dumbed-Down Taxes” Ms. Jacobs discusses the fourth trend, incompetently managed public finance systems. Ms. Jacobs argues that government works best when it is responsible to the people it serves, and that this objective is best satisfied when government finances are transparent. Government accounting and budgeting processes often serve to cloak what “provincial kleptocracies” (p.110) do with federal grants. Not enough resources are available for social programs, and there is an absence of fiscal accountability because government accounting information is obscure. Her concerns about fiscal responsibility and budgetary equity in Canadian provinces are similar to issues that face state governments in the U.S.
Ms. Jacobs’s observations with respect to the fifth trend, the decline in professional ethics, notably with respect to the accounting profession, reflects the recent series of corporate scandals involving Adelphia, Enron, Lucent, Tyco, Worldcom and other large firms. This chapter is weak because it confuses issues involving government accounting with the corporate scandals, and fails to address either government accounting or the scandals coherently. Harvard professor Robert N. Anthony (Anthony and Young, 1993) has spent a substantial part of his notable career arguing that government and private sector accounting should not be treated all that differently, and conservative economists such as Mancur Olson (1983) have developed theories that explain the lack of transparency of public sector accounting in terms of special interest group pressure. But problems with government accounting are at most obliquely related to the private sector accounting issues that have been relevant to Enron et al.
An underlying problem with Dark Age Ahead is that Ms. Jacobs’s definition of Dark Age is vacuous. Ms. Jacobs’s definition of a Dark Age as cultural forgetting implies that 18th century American culture is in a Dark Age of cultural forgetting because the techniques of slave driving, horse-drawn carriage driving, and blood letting as a medical cure have been forgotten. Rather, some form of compulsion, elimination of free choice, or erosion of transportation or communication systems would seem to be necessary for a Dark Age.
Social scientists sometimes accuse economists of methodological imperialism when the economists extend their neoclassical paradigm to adjacent fields. In this book Jacobs seems almost imperialistic in discussing education, labor economics, general science and political science.
I had philosophical quibbles with much of the book. For instance, Ms. Jacobs’ claims about the Centers for Disease Control study are overdrawn. Rather than suggesting a Dark Age, the incentive structure provided to government researchers likely offers clues as to why their work was of poor quality. The solution might be to redesign the incentive structure, although the special interest group pressures that government employee unions pose may play a role. Perhaps Ms. Jacobs should have included a chapter on the role that public sector unions play with respect to economic decline.
Likewise, in the chapter on government finance, Ms. Jacobs intelligently argues for fiscal accountability in government. But she also condemns “neo-conservative” approaches to “reinventing government” such as requirements that government programs pay for themselves. Of course, the reason voters often have favored such “neo-conservative” reforms is the very lack of accountability and misuse of government monies that she observes in other contexts. Ms. Jacobs seems to argue both that (a) government programs should be encouraged even though (b) government behaves unaccountably.
Ms. Jacobs is a fine writer and imaginative observer, but this book is far from her most important work. Rather than indicating a Dark Age ahead, many of the issues that she adduces could best be resolved by limiting government, a solution that she paradoxically opposes. It is a significant loss to libertarians that Ms. Jacobs lacks the theoretical rigor that would have directed her toward a more consistently free market solution set. Her ideas are garbled and self-contradictory. This book represents a loss to anyone seriously interested in seeing reform of liberalism’s failed institutions.
References
Anthony, R.N. and Young, D Management Control in Non-profit Organizations Seventh Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2003.
Jacobs, J. Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
Olson, M. The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983
Veblen, T. The Higher Learning in America, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1993.
Jane Jacobs’s book Dark Age Ahead, published last year, is a major disappointment. In her most famous book, Life and Death of Great American Cities, Jacobs’s arguments are close to those of the Austrians and other free marketeers. She argues that communities need to evolve spontaneously, and that large scale planning schemes such as the urban renewal of the 1950s had been a failure.
Dark Age Ahead shows that without an underlying theoretical grasp, even the most brilliant authors with the most brilliant insights, such as those evinced in Life and Death of Great American Cities, are likely to falter. In Dark Age Ahead Jacobs claims that Western civilization is teetering on a Dark Age because our culture cannot cope with technological change and interest group pressure on public policy. Ms. Jacobs defines a Dark Age to be a state of cultural amnesia, a “horrible ordeal” where a previous way of life slides into “an abyss of forgetfulness” (pp.6-7). She claims that five trends interactively evidence an incipient Dark Age. These include: (i) The decline of the suburban family and community, (ii) credentialing in higher education, (iii) second-rate science in fields like traffic engineering, (iv) incompetently managed public finance systems and (v) the decline of ethics in the accounting profession.
With respect to the decline of the family and community, Ms. Jacobs points out that the spirit of community characteristic of the urban neighborhoods of the 1950s is missing in twenty-first century suburban communities. Her point that modern urban planning has resulted in the deterioration of community spirit and family relationships is similar to arguments in Death and Life of Great American Cities.
In the second chapter, Ms. Jacobs argues that credentialing, or an emphasis on obtaining a degree regardless of the quality of the underlying education, has become the primary business of North American universities. Complaints about the rituals of higher education date back at least to Thorstein Veblen’s (1993) Higher Learning in America, and in light of this tradition Ms. Jacobs does a credible job of depicting higher education’s transformation into an employment signal. In her view credentialing has served the narrow economic interests of universities as well as employers.
With respect to second-rate science, Ms. Jacobs criticizes the lack of scientific imagination of traffic engineers, public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control, and Canadian economists.
In a chapter entitled “Dumbed-Down Taxes” Ms. Jacobs discusses the fourth trend, incompetently managed public finance systems. Ms. Jacobs argues that government works best when it is responsible to the people it serves, and that this objective is best satisfied when government finances are transparent. Government accounting and budgeting processes often serve to cloak what “provincial kleptocracies” (p.110) do with federal grants. Not enough resources are available for social programs, and there is an absence of fiscal accountability because government accounting information is obscure. Her concerns about fiscal responsibility and budgetary equity in Canadian provinces are similar to issues that face state governments in the U.S.
Ms. Jacobs’s observations with respect to the fifth trend, the decline in professional ethics, notably with respect to the accounting profession, reflects the recent series of corporate scandals involving Adelphia, Enron, Lucent, Tyco, Worldcom and other large firms. This chapter is weak because it confuses issues involving government accounting with the corporate scandals, and fails to address either government accounting or the scandals coherently. Harvard professor Robert N. Anthony (Anthony and Young, 1993) has spent a substantial part of his notable career arguing that government and private sector accounting should not be treated all that differently, and conservative economists such as Mancur Olson (1983) have developed theories that explain the lack of transparency of public sector accounting in terms of special interest group pressure. But problems with government accounting are at most obliquely related to the private sector accounting issues that have been relevant to Enron et al.
An underlying problem with Dark Age Ahead is that Ms. Jacobs’s definition of Dark Age is vacuous. Ms. Jacobs’s definition of a Dark Age as cultural forgetting implies that 18th century American culture is in a Dark Age of cultural forgetting because the techniques of slave driving, horse-drawn carriage driving, and blood letting as a medical cure have been forgotten. Rather, some form of compulsion, elimination of free choice, or erosion of transportation or communication systems would seem to be necessary for a Dark Age.
Social scientists sometimes accuse economists of methodological imperialism when the economists extend their neoclassical paradigm to adjacent fields. In this book Jacobs seems almost imperialistic in discussing education, labor economics, general science and political science.
I had philosophical quibbles with much of the book. For instance, Ms. Jacobs’ claims about the Centers for Disease Control study are overdrawn. Rather than suggesting a Dark Age, the incentive structure provided to government researchers likely offers clues as to why their work was of poor quality. The solution might be to redesign the incentive structure, although the special interest group pressures that government employee unions pose may play a role. Perhaps Ms. Jacobs should have included a chapter on the role that public sector unions play with respect to economic decline.
Likewise, in the chapter on government finance, Ms. Jacobs intelligently argues for fiscal accountability in government. But she also condemns “neo-conservative” approaches to “reinventing government” such as requirements that government programs pay for themselves. Of course, the reason voters often have favored such “neo-conservative” reforms is the very lack of accountability and misuse of government monies that she observes in other contexts. Ms. Jacobs seems to argue both that (a) government programs should be encouraged even though (b) government behaves unaccountably.
Ms. Jacobs is a fine writer and imaginative observer, but this book is far from her most important work. Rather than indicating a Dark Age ahead, many of the issues that she adduces could best be resolved by limiting government, a solution that she paradoxically opposes. It is a significant loss to libertarians that Ms. Jacobs lacks the theoretical rigor that would have directed her toward a more consistently free market solution set. Her ideas are garbled and self-contradictory. This book represents a loss to anyone seriously interested in seeing reform of liberalism’s failed institutions.
References
Anthony, R.N. and Young, D Management Control in Non-profit Organizations Seventh Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2003.
Jacobs, J. Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
Olson, M. The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983
Veblen, T. The Higher Learning in America, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1993.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
