{"title":"ADAM SMITH ON PUBLIC PROVISION OF EDUCATION","authors":"James R. Otteson","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"229 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000645","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.
期刊介绍:
The mission of JHET is to further the objectives of the History of Economics Society. These are to promote interest in and inquiry into the history of economics and related parts of intellectual history, facilitate communication and discourse among scholars working in the field of the history of economics, and disseminate knowledge about the history of economics. JHET therefore encourages and makes available research in the fields of history of economic thought and the history of economic methodology. The work of many distinguished authors has been published in its pages. It is recognised as being a first class international scholarly publication. All articles are fully peer reviewed.