A mother explains why she pays for tutoring:

“It’s quite pricey, but compared to private school, which averages about $20,000 for kindergarten, the price is right,” she said of the tutoring. “I just want the opportunity to have a choice.”

Parents will go to great lengths to have choices, even if it means subjecting their children to SAT-style practice tests at age three. Anyone who’s opposed to drilling preschoolers should support policies that would build more choices into the system. Little kids could relax if the gates to choice schools weren’t so heavily guarded.

(For more about kindergarten, see Matthew Kahn’s post applying mechanism design to the admissions process.)

The post More Kindergarten Admissions Craziness appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Child proof safety caps on medicine lull people into not hiding medicine from kids and kids break into the pills. Diabetic medicines for fighting high blood sugar lull diabetics into thinking they can eat lots of sweets.

In the rest of the post, he applies this idea to climate change policies.

Kahn’s insight relates to many facets of the nanny-state agenda, such as smoking bans and caloric restrictions on restaurant food. When restaurant patrons believe that their dining experience is sufficiently regulated to optimize health and safety, they won’t go out of their way to look for the most nutritious menus or the cleanest environments. While some people might be brought up to a higher level of health by the imposed standard, others might make worse choices than they would if they were on their guard.

I would expect complacency to be a negative side effect of most policies, but in some cases it could actually be a good thing. For example, Springfield local food advocates are really worked up about an impending economic collapse:

A food policy council should be created in the Springfield metro area because it would trigger an increase in the local food supply and protect the region if a catastrophic event severed the Ozarks’ national and global food link.

If something so disastrous happened that we couldn’t even bring food into Springfield, I doubt a defenseless community garden would survive unscathed. And even if the garden remained intact, the catastrophe would have to be remarkably well-timed to strike during those months when food can be harvested in Missouri.

I’m not a fan of farms on public land, but if a little garden can get these people to calm down and stop seeing the end of the global food system in the shadow of every tomato leaf, it might be worth it. (That’s assuming they really would be lulled into complacency and wouldn’t just proceed to demand more gardens.)

The post Nanny State Policies and Their Side Effects appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Matthew Kahn (scroll down to the Sept. 28 post) wonders how much of this effect can be attributed to what goes on in the classroom. He suspects that when parents see that their child’s new school is better than the old one, they work harder to supplement the child’s education at home. For instance, they might be more careful in checking that homework is completed on time.

I think this parental response probably does account for part of the charter effect. Caroline Hoxby herself points out in her talks about charters (you can watch one here) that parents may approach education differently when they’ve chosen a school, just as customers expect more from a restaurant they’ve chosen than from an office building cafeteria.

It’s an interesting question from the point of view of econometrics, but less relevant to policy. What matters is that charters spur student achievement. Whether 100 percent of the learning happens in school, or whether some of the benefits come from changes within homes, the fact remains that students who switch to a charter generally do better than their peers who lost the charter lottery. That’s one more good reason to let students attend charters if they want to.

The post Matthew Kahn on Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In some ways, the idea behind Cash for Clunkers was similar to the rationale for sales tax holidays. Both are intended to spur economic activity by giving consumers an incentive to spend on targeted items. Instead, each diverts spending from better uses, without generating new wealth.

To learn more about Cash for Clunkers, check out the entire post by Chris Edwards. For a mathematical analysis of the program’s effect on carbon emissions, see Matthew Kahn‘s August 12 post.

The post I Can Say This Much for Cash for Clunkers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’m still trying to understand what are the exact details of how the “green jobs” push translates into specific policies? Is this simply a relabeling of Keynesian public works projects? Is this a justification for a ramp up in basic research funding (I would support this!)?

I vote for the Keynesian public works option, but feel free to convince me otherwise in the comments.

The post Green Economics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.