Unintentional Monopsony in Education

A relatively unintentional monopsony exists in the field of education. Unlike in situations where people or companies tried to establish intentional total control over the labor force, these developments in education were not simply established. The primary cause for a monopsonistic educational system stems from the fact that schools, especially in higher education, are not created very often, and their funding is heavily dependent on taxation in the surrounding region rather than on competition in the educational market. An underfunded school simply will lack the resources to provide competitive salaries for teachers without having to cut some teachers from the school.

Often, there are many schools in a region, all connected through the overarching school district. However, teachers who work for a public school do not work for the school, but rather the district. Teachers may find multiple potential schools to work at, but if these schools are controlled through the same district, the effect of changing schools is not going to make a significant impact on their salaries. Teachers also cannot simply move away to another location, as that requires the new location to have openings and can cost a lot, a problem when teachers are typically underpaid. In higher education, another problem exists for moving schools: specialization. A teacher who is specialized in a certain topic would have to find an opening for that same topic at another location, rather than being able to go and fill any open spots.

As a result of these factors, education ends up being a rather monopsonistic market, in which teachers can find themselves with essentially one option for work. Private schools help reduce this issue as they are independent of one another and do not require the same government funding to be established and stay running, but they are not nearly as common as public schools and can be much smaller in size, limiting the number of teachers who benefit from teaching there. Unfortunately, the effects of the unintentional educational monopsony can be harmful to some teachers' salaries, and unlike in intentional monopsonies, a single individual or organization cannot be held accountable for the state of education today.

Sources:
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/monopsony-and-higher-education
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-999-1006-x

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 20, 2019 at 11:54 PM

    This was a really interesting post and it showed me a unique perspective towards our education system. Looking into the issue further, what I found is that monopolies when it comes to education isn't a bad thing, either for teachers and students. One hallmark of monopolies is that is provides "companies," or in this case, schools, to focus more on their students and improving their quality. This is because they don't need to compete with other companies and can divert resources to improving themselves rather than being better than someone else. The main reason that this does not manifest in the American education system is because we do not improve efficiently, and if we could do that, we would reap the benefits of our education system being monopolistic. Furthermore, teachers have unions that allow for overall bargaining and ensure that teachers can get the right pay and resources. The problem isn't as simple as having no other option of where to work because teachers to have a way to bargain for what they want and need.

    Source : https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2017/12/free_market_reforms_in_education_is_monopoly_better.html
    https://ed100.org/lessons/teacherunions

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Cost of Inelastic Goods

Image
Many goods that are inelastic in terms of demand are ones that are essential or, in other words, necessary to one's self. There are several examples: basic foods, gasoline, or even medicine. I was interested in how producers can manipulate the prices of these goods and how the total revenue can change over time because those goods are inelastic. The first example I thought of was insulin. Considered inelastic because, without it, those who are diabetic might physically suffer, I looked at the price trends in the past couple of years. Just as I predicted, the price has been rising dramatically in the past decade or so as producers are taking advantage of the consumers' essential need for this good. There are about 7.4 million Americans that use insulin and many struggle to pay the costs of this increasingly expensive drug. So, while rising prices benefit insulin manufacturers, those same prices come at a serious cost for patients as the demand for insulin is inelastic. Other...
Read more

The New Taxi: Ubers

Image
In recent years the transportation industry has begun to change dramatically. At first, ride-sharing companies did not have much hold over the industry as taxicabs and rental cars dominated the needs of business travelers as they searched for transportation so they could reach their destinations. However, recently this industry has suffered a loss has rates of people using these amenities have dropped, but the rates of people using Uber have dramatically increased. Uber is a ride-sharing platform where you can request a ride from an app (sounds familiar right?) it's almost exactly like a modernized taxi. However, there are a couple key features that services like Uber provide in which taxis and the traditional temporary transportation do not. One of the key factors that draw its consumers is the easy use of the app and its services. Before you would need to take a chance and wave your hand in the street to see if you can catch a taxi or even call the number of a taxicab comp...
Read more

The Hidden Monopolies of the World

 Monopolies are all around us in the world, and not all of them are  obvious on the surface level like Google and Facebook. For example, you might be searching for hotel rooms and browse multiple "competing" sites like Travelocity, Trivago, or Hotel.com. What you most likely do not know however, is that all three websites are actually all owned by the same company; Expedia group. This illusion of free choice is used to hide the fact that Expedia essentially hold a monopoly over the industry and all hotel bookings actually go through them. These fake competitors which are all owned by Expedia Group controls 75% of the US online travel agency industry, Similarly, apple fans and Microsoft fans stubbornly stick to their respective brands of computers; not knowing that the laptops all come from the same Chinese manufacturer. Throughout all types of industries such as the ones listed earlier and others such as smartphones, supermarkets, beer, and even sunglasses, hidden parent co...
Read more