.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
19.2.05 [ Redefining the Model ] 5 comments
The Mincer Model is not as applicable as I would have hoped. It attempts to define the returns to advanced education whereas I would like to merely construct a supply and demand curve for University Education.
Though, increasingly, I must acknowledge further distinction in my objective function. For, there is separation with regard to the motives for education which are defined by field of study. For example, students of engineering, of ENCS, of Rural Economy, of EAS, and of business are more inclined to consider potential employment as the dominant factor in their choice to pursue education. In contrast, students of Arts (economics, sociology, psychology, history, fine art, others) are more inclined to consider an intrinsic value to education as the supreme influencing agent with respect to their choice to consider it.
Choice of institution is undeniably influenced by a person's means (personal income, socioeconomic factors), but Sa's and Florax's paper neglects the pursuit of life experience as a determining factor. I will suppose, not back by data but by intuition, that, in extension, it is Arts students who have a higher propensity to pursue the positive benefits of travel when choosing an educational institution.
So,
WtP( education ) = f( employability potential; propensity to knowledge [socioeconomic factors ]; propensity to life experience [socio-economic factors ]; travel cost; socio-economic factors [ heritage; income; region ]; lifestyle preference [ socio-economic factors ]; error )
SWtP( education ) = f( ΣWtP[ education ]; transfer value; productivity benefits; reduction in crime rate; error )
Cost( education ) = f( explicit operating costs; opportunity cost of instructors not in industry; opportunity cost of students not in industry; error )
Also, I can anticipate that there will be patterns of WtP( education ) = f( . ) that can be grouped by program; I am not confident that extending the model to account for this will provide any meaningful information.
We can, though, expect, if tuition is indeed priced at an equitable level, then SWtP(.)-ΣWtP(.) should equal the value of government transfers to education. Actually, no. Some of the external productivity benefits will be covered by private industry subsidy--I will assume this component away for now.
So, if tuition is fairly priced, then the cost to an individual student will equate to her personal benefits from education. And, the value of government transfers top educational institutions should cover the difference between the aggregate of personal benefits to school and the social welfare function from University Education.
There is another component which may need to be considered, however: the University itself may be a profit-maximizing institution, involved in a collusive agreement with other institutions. That is, barring student and government activities, the price of education may be too high (wrt social welfare) and enrollment too low (not even to cover all the personal benefits to education, given the cost). This, however, will require a bit more thinking before I can incorporate it.
Note: You must be logged in through PuTTY for this link to work (or via the U's ezproxy from home).
Post a Comment