Eric Brunner and Jon Sonstelie, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
October 2002
This "occasional paper" by Eric Brunner of San Diego State University and Jon Sonstelie of the University of California at Santa Barbara is number 56 in the LONG series emerging from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Based on an analysis of who voted for and against California's voucher referendum in 2000, the authors conclude that homeowners without children probably base their stance toward vouchers on their defense of property values. Which is to say, childless homeowners in neighborhoods with good public schools are more apt to oppose vouchers because vouchers would be more apt to depress their property values, inasmuch as they would (presumably) reduce the demand for high-quality public schools. Conversely, homeowners in areas with bad public schools are more apt to favor vouchers. The authors suggest that this may be why it's so difficult to enact voucher programs in the U.S. It's an interesting argument - a tantalizing complement to Tom Nechyba's suggestion that vouchers would lead to greater residential integration because education-minded families would become more apt to buy homes in lower-priced neighborhoods. Still, it's the sort of analysis that only an economist could do with a straight face, because it assumes that economic self-interest is the dominant consideration in everybody's decisions about everything and it ignores the possibility that selflessness, civic-mindedness, or concern for one's neighbors might also affect decision making on hot public policy issues. Maybe those living in neighborhoods with bad public schools favor vouchers because they care about the educational opportunities available to their neighbors, nephews and fellow parishioners. Maybe they're tired of the disorder and trouble that often accompany inferior public schools. Maybe they actually care about the quality of life in their community and the future well being of their society. Perhaps I'm na??ve. But let's at least stipulate that other human motivations might be at work alongside those that economists are wont to discern. You can read it for yourself at http://ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00058/938_OP56.pdf.
