What Hayek Can Teach Us About Government Planning

Much of modern policy debate revolves around the idea of government planning the economy. How should the healthcare industry be set up? How much testing should a product go through? At what wage should a business hire an employee? All of these issues involve some degree of control by the various levels of government. But do government officials really know the answers to these questions?

For a better understanding of these issues, we can look to Friedrich August von Hayek, the great twentieth-century Austrian economist. In 1945 Hayek published his essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” in which he challenged the idea of central planning.

First, Hayek pointed out that the issue is not whether there should be a plan or no plan. The issue is whether there should be one plan by a single central authority, or millions of plans by the millions of people coordinating in the open market.

But having millions of plans by millions of different people seems chaotic. In order for all those plans to be effective, they would have to take into consideration all the relevant knowledge about the availability and possible uses of different resources. In a decentralized system, how is the relevant knowledge being coordinated? The answer, according to Hayek, is the price system.

Prices convey important information. Higher prices tell us that a good is relatively scarce; lower prices tell us it’s relatively abundant. This information then shapes the way people plan for the future and how they allocate their own resources. For example, say steel suddenly becomes scarcer. This will cause the price of steel to rise, telling everyone else in the economy that their use of steel needs to be economized.

Some businesses that use steel might reduce production or find cheaper alternative methods of production. Consumers of products that use steel might reduce their consumption. Other producers of steel, seeing higher revenue potential, might try to find ways to expand output and bring more steel to the market. The actions of all of these different people and companies are coordinated because of the information they gained from prices.

There’s no need for a central authority to gather all the relevant information to create a single plan. In fact, much of the relevant knowledge cannot be conveyed to a central authority at all.

Characteristics such as quality and an employee’s ability to learn cannot be precisely measured. Therefore, any datasheet given to the central authority will not give a full picture of the economy. Furthermore, all of this information is constantly changing, so that even the information that is quantifiable becomes obsolete by the time it reaches the central planner. Prices solve both of these problems. People’s implicit, unquantifiable knowledge can be reflected in constantly changing prices.

Hayek’s insight is significant when we think about modern policy issues. The government cannot know how best to set up a healthcare system, how to regulate production, or what wage employees should be paid.

Missourians should keep this in mind when the government pretends to have these answers. While it may be reasonable for the government to make adjustments when the market can’t provide—such as public goods and addressing negative externalities like pollution—more often than not, the best policy is to leave it to the market.

Pandemic Pods Raise Important Questions About School Funding

The Wall Street Journal has a great story about pandemic pods, small schools families are starting to keep their kids learning during the coronavirus. Pods are cropping up around the country, with small groups of families meeting in each other’s homes and hiring teachers to instruct their children.

While much of the conversation about pandemic pods has been about their effects on parents and children, the Journal article looks at them from the perspective of the teacher. The author argues that pods can be great for teachers.

Think about it. Let’s say that each of the families of a pod agrees to pay $5 per hour, per child to the teacher. Seems like a pretty good deal for them. That means a teacher with a pod of eight students will make $40 per hour. If they follow a typical 180 school year at eight hours a day, that means they will make $57,600 per year, just shy of the $62,304 the article reports the average teacher in America earns. Now, it is true that they might not receive the same benefits, and longer or shorter schedules could alter their total compensation, but they would be teaching a class half the size of their typical class, with none of the bureaucracy, red tape, faculty meanings, or pointless professional development sessions for close to their typical salary. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the teacher, too.

This of course raises an important question: Why can’t traditional schools offer the same kind of learning environment? After all, the average public school student in America brings more than $14,700 per year into the classroom, meaning a classroom of only eight students would have $112,000 in revenue to pay a teacher. It is absolutely true that some students are more expensive to educate, buildings need to be maintained, and the like. But it is also true that lots of jurisdictions spend much more than $14,700 per student, and playing a bit with the numbers (by say allowing slightly larger classes for children with fewer needs and smaller classes for children with more) could free up large amounts of money to make sure every student is cared for.

More importantly, the average class size in America is not eight—it is twice that. I have to ask: Where the heck is all the money going?

I hope this pandemic pushes parents, teachers, and citizens to start asking questions about how school districts spend the large sums of money that they are given by taxpayers. Perhaps with more scrutiny, more students can get the individualized and rich learning environments that students in pandemic pods are slated to receive. That would be great for teachers too.

Why Are Business Regulations Bad for Consumers?

No matter your view on regulations, there’s no denying that they come with a cost. Regulations increase operating costs for businesses because businesses must devote resources (time and money) to compliance. Higher operating costs then translate to higher prices for consumers. All of which leads to a question: Are all 94,000 of Missouri’s regulations really worth paying for? Even the one that prohibits dental hygienists from receiving temporary licenses, and the one that dictates the placement and the type size used on that tags that go on mattresses?

A paper released last month by the Mercatus Center calculates how much regulations actually increase operating costs. The authors look at federal regulations in 28 industries and find that a 1 percent increase in industry-specific regulatory restrictions in one year is associated with a 0.2 percent increase in operating costs per unit of output in that year. Perhaps that seems like a small amount, but federal regulatory restrictions grew at an average annual rate of 3.55 percent from 1998 to 2017. This means that if nothing else affected operating costs, these regulations alone would have increased operating costs per unit of output by 17 percent over the past 20 years.

The Mercatus paper addresses federal-level regulations, but it’s safe to assume that Missouri’s numerous state and local regulations also bring about significant cost increases. Over time, these regulations mean increases in operating costs for businesses, and therefore increases in costs for consumers.

All regulations come with costs, so why are Missourians paying for needless ones? It’s been months since Missouri responded to the COVID-19 crisis by waiving regulations like the one prohibiting hospitals from establishing alternative sites of care, and the one that requires Missouri real estate brokers to keep a brick-and-mortar site open during business hours. Now, we should ask why these regulations existed in the first place and why we had to bear the cost of them. Isn’t it time for lawmakers and bureaucrats to get rid of all needless regulations? Cutting the red tape can lower costs for consumers and promote growth across the state.

New Study of COVID-19 In Schools Shows Good News

If you’re a new parent and also a nerd, there is a good chance that you were gifted Expecting Better sometime shortly after you or your spouse announced the pregnancy. It’s a great book. In it, Brown University economist Emily Oster breaks down the studies that much of parenting advice are based on and gives practical, data-informed advice on what to do and not do. (For new parents, her follow up book Cribsheet, is great too.)

The general message of both books is that there are a small number of things that parents should be very concerned about, but that the risks of many other things are overstated, often because people let emotion take precedence over empirical evidence.

It shouldn’t surprise us that when the coronavirus hit, Emily Oster would try to cut through the noise and the fear and get to the data. She partnered with the nation’s school administrator organizations to create an anonymous survey and then distributed it to school principals so they could report how many of their students and their staff have been infected by the coronavirus.

The first round of data has been released, and the numbers are promising. As of September 25, administrators report a confirmed infection rate of 75 cases per 100,000 students and 140 per 100,000 staff members. Expressed as a percentage, that is 0.075 percent of children and 0.14 percent of staff.

As an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins is quoted as saying in the Washington Post’s coverage of the survey, “We’re not seeing schools as crucibles for onward transmission. It’s reasonable to say that it looks promising at this point.”

It is early days, of course, and Oster will be continuously updating the data dashboard. It is also worth nothing that the first round of data is only from administrators responsible for around 200,000 of the nation’s 55 million schoolchildren. But, in a time of seemingly nothing but bad news, its good to see that least something is going well. Hopefully these trends continue and we can get our kids back in school and back on track.

Fall 2020 Educational Resources for Missouri Parents

Read the latest from Susan Pendergrass

Parents are angry and confused right now. Many are receiving mixed messages from school districts. Critical information arrives late in the process and changes frequently. It’s up to school districts and the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education to fix this. But that doesn’t seem likely to happen before school starts this fall—and parents need help right now. So we’ve created a resource page designed to help parents figure out what their options are and what sort of questions they ought to be asking. Of course, this is only a small subset of what is out there, but we hope you find the below information useful. Please feel free to share this with anyone you think might benefit.

Questions parents should be asking superintendents, school board members and legislators:
  1. Can I have a portion of my child’s state funding to purchase in-person learning if my district isn’t offering it?
  2. Will the district make teachers available for micro-schools for those who want and need them?
  3. Could the district open some school buildings for students to do their virtual learning with an on-site teacher assisting?
  4. What if I don’t have high-speed internet access? Hot spots were insufficient last spring.
  5. I don’t like my school’s virtual education programming. Can I switch to MOCAP after the school year starts?
  6. Why hasn’t the state waived the requirement for receiving district permission to enroll in MOCAP this year?
  7. My child can’t attend school in person. Can I have state funds to enroll them in a high-quality virtual provider of my choice?
  8. If I decide to have my child stay virtual, do I need to register as a homeschooler?

Options that may or may not be available for this school year:

Missouri Course Access Program (MOCAP) – MOCAP has 11 providers of full-time virtual education that have been vetted and approved by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). A law passed in 2018 gives all Missouri students the right to request enrollment in any of the providers. Currently, districts are required to assess the request and determine if virtual education is a good fit for the student or not. Parents can appeal a denial of permission. Districts have an unlimited amount of time to respond to MOCAP enrollment requests.

UPDATE September 22, 2020 – 10 Day Deadline for MOCAP Review

Missouri Virtual Ed

Letter: Missouri online program virtual lifesaver for students

Missouri committee may propose changes to virtual education program

Missouri panel to request temporary removal of districts serving as MOCAP gatekeeper

Free virtual resources:

Khan Academy

NoRedInk

Virtual resources that cost money:

Virtual Stream tutors

Florida Virtual School

Micro-schools – A group of 10-15 multi-age students with one teacher. There are several national networks, but parents would have to work fast to create a micro-school at this point. Any that aren’t charter schools charge tuition.

What Is a Micro School? And Where Can You Find One? (edweek)

Acton Academies:

Acton Academy

Lighthouse International 

Prenda network:

Prenda

More on the Micro-school Movement (Forbes)

What are “micro-schools” and “pandemic pods”? (Today)

Why and How to Open a Microschool (gettingsmarter)

PODs – Groups of families that agree to have their children learn in-person together while limiting their access to anyone outside the group. These are being formed in Missouri, but with no public assistance.

Parents turn to “pods” as a schooling solution

YMCA of Metropolitan Columbus offering learning pods

College Station Taekwondo business offering learning pods

Kansas City YMCA

At least one parent has started a POD business

Watch: How to Start an Education Pod

“Little Pod Platoons” Are Education’s Answer to Lockdowns This Fall

“Pandemic Pods” Are Fundamentally Reshaping K-12 Education

Microschools on the rise in Arizona, with COVID providing added boost (AZ Mirror)

Parents Turn to “Pods” for School During Pandemic (WebMD)

Scholarships – Giving state money directly to parents to pay for tuition or tutoring. These are not available in Missouri, but could be. Each governor received flexible stimulus money under the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEERs) program. Governor Parson has received $54 million. So far, Governor Parson has allocated $24 million to higher education. The allocation of the remaining $30 million is unknown. Other governors have used portions of their GEERs funds to create scholarships for low-income students.

Oklahoma used GEER funding to create a scholarship that will help low-income families purchase curriculum content, tutoring services, and technology 

South Carolina used GEER funding to create SAFE Scholarships

Governors Direct Federal COVID-19 Aid to Private School Scholarships (EDweek)

SMI Podcast: The Case For Choice In Health Care

Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2G3INVh

Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a public policy research organization that she founded in 1995 to promote an informed debate over free-market ideas for health reform.

She has been instrumental in developing and promoting ideas for reform to transfer power over health care decisions to doctors and patients. She speaks and writes extensively about incentives to promote a more competitive, patient-centered marketplace in the health sector.

Medicaid Enrollment Continues to Climb

Over the past six months, Missouri’s Medicaid rolls have grown by 15 percent. There are now more than 975,000 Missourians on the program, which is the highest enrollment has been since the beginning of 2018. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic downturn, an uptick in the size of Missouri’s Medicaid program is not necessarily surprising. The question is whether there is more to the story.

Prior to the coronavirus making its way to Missouri, our state had experienced nearly two years of steady Medicaid enrollment decline. As I wrote back in March, there was widespread concern about the drop-off. There was also fundamental disagreement in Jefferson City regarding what was driving the decline. One of the suspected causes was improved efforts on the part of Missouri’s Medicaid agency to ensure that each recipient was truly eligible to receive Medicaid-covered services.

By March, the downward trend had turned the other direction. In response to COVID-19, the federal government passed multiple relief packages that sent aid to states. One of the bills, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, increased the share of Medicaid expenses covered by the federal government. But that funding came with strings attached. In fact, in order to receive the Medicaid relief funds, states had to agree not to terminate eligibility for any Medicaid participant unless the individual died, requested a voluntary termination of their eligibility, or moved to another state.

This guidance was contrary to prior federal requirements, which had stipulated that states verify the income of their Medicaid enrollees at least once per year to ensure continued eligibility. It should be no surprise that removing such a check would lead to a spike in enrollment. If someone loses their job and enrolls in Medicaid, they will no longer be removed from the program once they’re employed again (and no longer qualify) unless they go out of their way to inform the state they would like to terminate their coverage.

What began with the laudable goal of making it easier for Medicaid recipients to maintain health coverage during an unprecedented pandemic is now likely to make it harder to balance Missouri’s already cash-strapped budget. Instead of Medicaid enrollment rising and falling with the unemployment rate, the program will continue to grow even as more Missourians head back to work. For example, Missouri’s unemployment rate has dropped more than 3% since May, yet Medicaid enrollment is more than fifty thousand higher.

Make no mistake, even with the federal government agreeing to pay a higher share of Medicaid expenses, there is still a cost to Missourians. As state agencies prepare to release their budget requests on October 1, and the federal government debates further relief packages, it will be important to keep track of how the cost of responding to COVID-19 will impact Missourians for years to come.

St. Louis Is Shrinking. Let’s Reverse the Trend

The headline “St. Louis is America’s fastest-shrinking city” should set off alarm bells for St. Louis lawmakers and citizens. It’s true that St. Louis City has struggled to attract and keep residents for some time, but that shouldn’t numb us to the reality of this pressing issue. The city needs to be a more attractive option for businesses and citizens if we want to reverse this trend.

A recent report from business resource AdvisorSmith analyzes population data of cities with more than 250,000 residents. With a compound annual growth rate of −1.1 percent, St. Louis tops the list as the fastest-shrinking city. This means that St. Louis City’s population fell by an average of 1.1 percent each year from 2014 to 2019. That’s a huge difference from the fastest-growing cities; Henderson, Nevada, and Irvine, California, both grew by an average of 3.1 percent each year over the same period.

So why is St. Louis shrinking?

It’s probably a combination of many things. High crime   and poor school performance certainly play a part, but there are other problems. Policies that place onerous burdens on businesses and residents can prevent both economic and population growth. The city’s earnings tax means that city residents and workers lose an additional 1 percent of their income to taxes. Numerous special-taxing districts make sales taxes as high as 11.679 percent in some areas of the city. Stringent business regulations make it harder for businesses to operate and hire workers. Does this sound like an attractive place to live, work, or start your business?

Our city continues to make headlines for losing population. If we want to stop this trend and attract residents and businesses to St. Louis, action is needed. Addressing the crime rate and poor schools will be challenging, but other cities such as Indianapolis (with a strong school choice environment, some crime rates trending down, and a growing population) have done so. With respect to taxes and regulatory policy, repeal the earnings tax, cut red tape, and rein in special-taxing districts. With a focused effort on doing the basics well and getting government out of the way of business, St. Louis City might start to grow again.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging