Why In the World Would Switzerland Impose Immigration Quotas?

On February 9, the Swiss narrowly passed a referendum to put a quota on immigration. The proponents, particularly those of the Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP), for the referendum were worried about the 1.8 million immigrants that have entered the Swiss nation over the past thirty years and how the exploding rate of immigration has adversely affected Switzerland.   The opponents were worried about the effects they have on the economy. Aside from violating the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of persons, what is the issue with this referendum?

A quota is a government-imposed limitation on the amount of goods and services. In the context of immigration, the quota limits the number of non-citizens that can become citizens. The economic effects of an immigration quota on the labor market are illustrated below, which is a net deadweight loss (C+D) in economic welfare.

This is a more simplistic depiction of immigration quotas, but the overall effect is the same: immigration restrictions are harmful. As I pointed out last year, keeping borders more open is an economically sound policy. Plus, developed countries like Israel, New Zealand, and Luxembourg, have comparable percents of foreign-born populations and handle the influx of labor. The reason why immigration is relatively high in the first place is because the Swiss are trying to fill a demand for skilled labor. I also find it interesting that the labor participation rate  hasn't decreased because of the flux of immigration, and the same goes with increased unemployment rate. If anything, immigration has decreased unemployment in Switzerland (Basten and Sigenthaler, 2013).

Considering the European Union's rigidities in the labor market, being overly punitive with the Swiss would be calling the kettle black. Regardless, Switzerland has just shot itself in the foot in terms of liberalized labor markets. I know that Switzerland has historically been a neutral power to prevent foreign powers from invading, but it's disappointing to see a country with a good amount of economic freedom pass a referendum that prevents economic prosperity will ultimately be a disservice to the Swiss people.

I Was Over the Moon to Find that Kiddush Levanah Is Not Moon Worship

Kiddush levanah (קדוש לבנה), or the sanctification of the moon, is one of the more peculiar practices in Judaism. Between the third and fourteenth days after the appearance of the new moon (מולד) [on Rosh Chodesh], one goes outside with a minyan and recites a series of prayers to bless the new moon (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 426:2). At first glance, קדוש לבנה seems like moon-worship, and for many moons, I felt that way because not only did the practice gave me that vibe (might have something to do with putting your feet together and lifting them three times), but also because moon-worship was also common amongst pagan cultures. However, I recently had a change of mind. Why?

For one, how is it any different when Jews say a bracha over anything else? Jews say brachot over food, smelling fragrances, lighting Shabbat candles, when we hear thunder, and many other instances. It does not mean we are worshiping the items, but sanctifying them in a moment of holiness. This would explain why one only glances at the moon briefly before saying the bracha rather than staring at it the entire time and fixating upon it. The prefatory Psalm 148 reaffirms this notion. 

We become closer to G-d by appreciating His creations, which is why anyone who blesses the new moon is as if he has greeted the Divine Presence (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 42a). After blessing the new moon, one uses the moon's light to recognize one's friends and co-religionists and to wish them Shalom Aleichem. Shalom Aleichem reminds us that because humans are created in His Image, we also greet our fellow man and wish him well. 

Symbolism of the moon also plays a pivotal role in bringing meaning to the practice. The monthly reappearance of the moon engenders a sense of renewal. Renewal helps us gain a sense of strength and hope, which is supposed to bring us joy. There is also symbolism in the moonlight. Much like the moon waxes and wanes, we also have high points and low points in life.  Moonlight illuminates in darkness. We can make it through in dark times because of the moonlight, which is why we should be appreciative of the moon. Unlike other brachot, which do not highly recommend the use of a minyan, קדוש לבנה does. The fact that it is optimal to recite the bracha with a quorum of ten shows us that we don't have to face the darkness of life alone. 

Additionally, R. Menahem HaMeiri points out that wonders of nature are a reflection of G-d's presence, which requires us to praise His greatness. During קדוש לבנה, we recognize G-d's might and control over nature (Beiur Halacha 426:2). We further recognize His strength by reciting Aleinu afterwards. 

קדוש לבנה is much more than just howling at the moon. קדוש לבנה provides us with a monthly encounter with the Divine that helps us get closer to G-d and appreciate His creations.

Should We Care About the Ukrainian Political Unrest? A Look at Ukrainian Politics and Its Economy

For the past couple of months, Ukraine endured tumult that it has not seen since the Orange Revolution.   When President Yanukovych backed out of a trade deal for greater integration of the Ukrainian economy into the European Union, the Ukrainian people protested not only because it was symbolic as a rejection of the Western world, but also because Yanukovych's political corruption reached a threshold. Ukraine is a relatively new country that is divided both ethno-linguistically and politically. Although the pro-EU support seems to be in the western half of the country, there have also been protests in the eastern half that have been supportive of Yanukovych. On January 16, the Ukrainian government enacted anti-protest laws, which were later repealed. As if it were a surprise, it put Standard and Poor's in a position where it had to downgrade Ukraine's credit rating to a CCC+, right down into junk bond territory.

Ukraine scored #155 on Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index, and #126 on Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom Index, neither of which are flattering scores. Freedom House ranks Ukraine as only Partly Free. Even on the Corruption Perceptions Index, Ukraine scored 144 out of 177. What this scoring suggests to me is that Ukraine, much like its other Eastern European neighbors did in the past, are yearning for a free and democratic society. After the Cold War, we saw how countries such as Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Hungary become more free and better off in comparison to being part of the Soviet bloc. Bringing freedom and a better way of life to the second largest country in Europe [in terms of area] would certainly be the moral argument for why the international community should be interested in Ukraine.

There is also economics to consider, which are well beyond its robust agricultural sector. Ukraine's GDP reached $178B last year. In spite of having less than a $4K per capita GDP, Ukraine is geostrategically located as a key energy transit route, not to mention its natural gas reserves that are appealing to Russia. Putin's interest in Ukraine goes beyond the money he can make off of natural gas. He is looking to build a Eurasian in attempts to increase its sphere of influence and revive the glory that Mother Russia once had. Considering how repressive Russia had been of Ukrainian nationalism it would seem odd for Ukraine to acquiesce. If Russia succeeds in integrating Ukraine, a country with a large, military industrial complex, into the Russian empire, it could very well create a balance of politics scenario that we have not seen since the Cold War. Whether or not Russia acquires Ukraine, there is also the worry that Ukraine could fall into a civil war. I don't think the situation is that dire, but it is within the realm of possibility. 

Although I don't think Russia will fully recover its previous glory, they could still gain enough international clout to be a nuisance. So what can be done? Aside from some diplomatic pressure [for further trade integration], I am not sure that there is not much the West can do for Ukraine in this situation. Since the oligarchs of Ukraine have assets in the West, economic sanctions might put pressure on Yanukovych, but economic sanctions are not the most successful form of retaliation (e.g., Cuba, Iran). I would opine that since the impetus of the protests is due to domestic policy, the forces that will have the largest effects on the decision-making process of the Yanukovych regime will be domestic in nature. Even so, whatever pressures are put on the Ukrainian government, domestic or international, I hope they are enough to help integrate Ukraine further into the European Union.

Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools? What About Intelligent Design?

Back on Tuesday, Bill Nye the Science Guy duked it out with creationist Ken Ham over the debate of "Evolution vs. Creationism." I provided the footage of the debate down below.

Since my academic background is primarily in public policy, I'm going to stay away from the scientific jargon as much as possible. What I would like to do is discern the issue from a public policy standpoint and determine whether theories such as creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in schools.

Before answering the question, I should first specify the sort of schooling towards which this questioning is targeted. This is not geared towards homeschooling because in spite of accreditation requirements, parents who homeschool their children have more latitude in what they teach their children (As a side note, I am interested by the fact that even with the disproportionate amount of home-schooled children being Evangelical Christians, there is a growth of secular, home-schooled children). Similar arguments can be made for private schools, and to a lesser extent, charter schools. This primarily leaves us with the question of whether these theories should be taught in public schools.

This leads us to the next question of "what is scientific theory?" When used in the world of natural sciences, the word "theory" does not mean "a set of ideas that are presented to explain something, but may or may not be true." When we say "scientific theory," we mean to say "a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomenon that can be confirmed through observation and experimentation via the scientific method." I remember when I was in college, I took a course of the physics of light, and there was a lot of debate as to whether light was a wave, particle, or a combination of both. Even with the debate, there were still a set of high standards that was applied to the scientific inquiry.

Now that we have a better grasp of "scientific theory," let's move over to the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Just for the record, these are not synonyms. According to Webster's dictionary, Creationism is "the belief that G-d created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible, and therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect." Creationism is a sectarian ideology based on biblical literalism, a literalism that I find to be irksome. Creationism is not taught with secular intent. Creationism should be left for Sunday schools, not for public schools. Doing otherwise would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, simply states that an intelligent, powerful being created the universe in a directed process. Note that the theory of intelligent design does not postulate who the designer is. It could be G-d, الله, or one of the deities from polytheistic religions. Heck, it can even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it would still be a form of intelligent design! The notion that the universe was created by design, rather than random mutations, is not an argument that inherently religious in nature. What's more is that there actually is a cogent case to be made for "design in nature," whether it comes in the form of the fine-tuned universe argument, cosmological argument, or the specified complexity argument. To secularly argue that there is intelligent design has a lot more validity than arguing that the world was literally created in six days and that the world is literally about six millennia old.

Before I go into the policy analysis, just a few words on how I personally feel on the matter. Unlike most of America, I do not find a dichotomy between science and religion. Science explains the "how," and religion explains the "why." Let's say that natural selection and random mutations are undeniably the mode through which we came into being, which based on discerning what I can from the scientific evidence, it's the most probable scientific explanation. I don't care because it does not violate my understanding of Torah in the slightest, and it does not shake my belief in monotheism because evolutionary theory and Judaism are not mutually exclusive. There's no contradiction in me being a theistic evolutionist.

In an ideal education system, I would like for school to be an institution in which students can openly discuss and debate varying points of view in a respectful, civil manner. This is why I am certainly not going to advocate for removing evolution from the classroom, but I'm also not going to say that evolutionary theory is as "open and shut" as one would like to think because it's not. With regards to this particular topic, the debate is framed in terms of "science versus religion," which is problematic. Creationists like to view their opponents as g-dless, condescending heathens, and evolutionists like to view their opponents as Bible-thumping troglodytes. Until people frame the debate in terms of "Was nature created by design or randomly," we're going to be stuck in this uncouth stalemate that perpetuates the idea that there is nothing in between atheistic evolutionist and creationist that would actually create a spectrum of viewpoints on the issue.

One of the simpler solutions, which evidently has a libertarian twist, is to get the government less and less involved in the education sector. A competitive market in education might not have answered the question of "Was nature created by design or randomly," but it would have mitigated the political tension by now. At the very least, we can think about policies (e.g., tax credits, school vouchers) that could allow for lower-income families to have better access to the education marketplace. Although there is some potential for allowing additional privatization of education, it would be relatively more prudent to figure out what to do with the public school's current K-12 curriculum.

Even if I am a proponent for more privatized education, we should still aim for a higher standard of intellectual discourse in our public schools as long as the public school system still exists. What could be done is seeking out some schools willing to pilot a science curriculum that can teach biology, as well as present cases both for evolutionary theory and intelligent design in a relatively fair, unbiased manner with supporting evidence for each side. If it's a success, then other public schools should take a cue from its success and implement it themselves. With that, we can theoretically preserve the First Amendment without having to quash intellectual debate (more on that below). It would be great to see ID taught in a secular fashion, as well as a reasonably objective one. However, I think this would be asking for too much with a country that is so divided on the issue. Not only that, an issue I find with the theory of intelligent design is that it does not meet the standard of falsifiability, which could arguably put ID out of the realm of the scientific method because even if there were unquestionably a designer, who is the designer responsible for the universe's creation? The interplay between evolution and how it relates to religious beliefs can be debated in a social studies or politics classroom. This alternative would allow for the discussion to be had, but to "leave science in the  science classroom," which would a compromise from my view, but something tells me this would not be an acceptable policy alternative for creationists.

I am thinking that in an American context, tweaking the curriculum without altering it greatly would work best because my main concern is that ID would be used as a gateway to advance the agenda of creationism (see Epperson v. Arkansas). With that in mind, if only evolutionary theory is to be taught in the science classroom, it should at least be taught with a presentation of its strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to being unquestionable dogma, so that students can understand evolutionary theory from all angles and allow for enough intellectual wiggle room in the event that evolutionary theory is incorrect. Although part of an education is teaching facts, the other part of an education is to enable students to think analytically and be able to problem-solve, which this latter policy alternative would permit. This curriculum stipulation would allow for students to think openly and critically while not having religion shoved down their throats or freedom of inquiry stifled. Given the political climate, this would be the best policy alternative to the status quo.

Wrapping Our Heads Around the Idea of Women Wearing Tefillin

Recently, there was a controversial decision of Salanter Akiba Riverdale (SAR), a Modern Orthodox day school, allowing female students to wear tefillin (commonly translated as "phylacteries"; תפילין). While SAR is not the first yeshiva to allow this, SAR's actions nevertheless caused an uproar. If this isn't anything unprecedented, why the hullabaloo? Is a woman donning תפילין a violation of Jewish law?

The origin of the exemption of a woman from donning תפילין is the Mishnah (Berachot 3:3). The basis for this exemption is the notion that donning תפילין is a מצוה עשה שהזמן גרמא (time-bound, positive mitzvah), from which women are exempt. Interestingly enough, we see enough exceptions to this rule. Targum Yonatan ben Uziel, an ancient Midrashic, Aramaic translation of the Torah, viewed donning תפילין as a form of cross-dressing. Some agreed with this theory, but most halachic decisors rejected this notion because תפילין is not considered clothing. Another objection is due to the concern of having a pure body, or a גוף נקי (Piskei Riaz RH 4:3). With respects to גוף נקי, Rambam ruled (Hilchot Tzitzit 3:14) that the impure, like those who are ritualistically pure, are required to don תפילין. Also, words of Torah were not susceptible to טמאה (Berachot 22a), which means that נדה would not be an issue. Within the context of תפילין, the Talmud (Shabbat 49a) defines גוף נקי as flatulence, which is not limited to women. It can be easily argued that גוף נקי is not a sound basis for prohibiting women from donning תפילין.

Although one is exempt, this does not automatically mean that a woman is prohibited, either. The Talmud (Eruvin 96a) states that "Michal, the daughter of King Saul, used to don תפילין and no one protested." Even with this example, normative practice has been that women are not to don תפילין (Rema, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 38:3).

In spite of the Rema's ruling, there is plenty of precedent allowing for women to don תפילין. Rambam (Hilchot Tzitzit 3:9) ruled that women can don תפילין, but did not recite the bracha because the phrase "אשר קדשנו במצותיו" would not apply [to those who were not commanded to do a mitzvah]. Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah #421) rules under a similar vein, by saying that a woman is not obligated to don תפילין because it's a time-bound, positive mitzvah, but if she wants to, there is no objection. The Tosafot agrees with the permissibility, but disagrees with the "אשר קדשנו במצותיו" part (Tosafot, Ran RH 33a). In addition to Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbi Zerahia HaLevi, Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy also agreed with allow for donning תפילין to be permissible and optional for women (Hagahot Maimoniyot Tziztit 3:9).

If a woman is donning תפילין because she wants to act like a man or "stick it to the Man," then the intention is not pure, and I would have a problem with that. Conversely, I have never seen anyone question a man's intentions of donning תפילין that were solely based on his gender, which I find all the more odd because it is my understanding that traditional Judaism claims [at least in theory] that women to be on a higher spiritual plane than men, hence why it's one of the reasons why they are not obligated to perform the mitzvah of donning תפילין. Even so, the Rashba stated that a female who desires to don תפילין to fulfill a g-dly commandant, a woman can use Michal bat Saul as an example to justify the donning. If it is ruled permissible by prominent rabbis, there is no harm in a woman performing the mitzvah, especially when it is more laudable for someone to do a mitzvah voluntarily than one who is commanded to do so (Bava Kama 38a, 87a).

Views on women have changed drastically enough over time, which has the ability to alter halacha, or at the very least, our perceptions thereof. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 2:3) forbids donning תפילין because it is a form of studying Torah, from which women traditionally had been banned. If this is true, then the prohibition should have been lifted in 1917 when the Bais Yaakov movement was born and subsequently allowed women to study Torah. Aside from the Bais Yaakov movement, women were permitted to study Talmud in the latter half of the twentieth century. If the reason for not allowing women to don תפילין is because of a link between Talmud Torah and תפילין, then the link is severable.

Progress in the arena of "Judaism and women" goes beyond studying Torah. Take the recent development of the bat mitzvah ceremony. In even more recent times, R. Avi Weiss ordained three women to be a maharat, which is a religious leader that is comparable to being a rabbi. Furthermore, the idea of partnership minyanim is highly contentious. Other debates being hashed out are whether women can read from the Torah, dance with the Torah, or start a women's tefillah group.

When you view the issue through the lens of sociology and religious politics, as opposed to the halacha itself, the contention is threefold: 1) too much change is taking place too quickly, which violates the preservationist mentality of the modern-day Orthodox establishment that fears the slippery slope over the minutest change, 2) women are being shown enough inclusion where it irks a sizable amount of influential individuals, especially those who would rather not see women empowered and 3) since many consider donning תפילין to be "a man's mitzvah," this will be seen as a further blurring of gender roles, which is problematic for the Orthodox because Orthodoxy has very rigid gender roles.

Religious politics set aside, the halacha is pretty clear on the issue. Although it was not a practice of the vast majority of Jewish women to don תפילין and women are not technically obligated to don תפילין, there is legal precedent for permitting women if they choose to do so. If a woman finds that donning תפילין brings her closer to G-d and makes her a better Jew, we should encourage her to perform more mitzvahs, not less. We should encourage her to find spiritual meaning in her Jewish practice.

The reason why women and תפילין has been so contentious is because those in the Orthodox world are reaching a crossroads, a crossroads in which the leaders of Orthodoxy have to decide how they will view gender roles. Some Orthodox Jews want to maintain rigid, stringent gender roles in which a woman's role is to procreate, tend to the needs of the children, and take care of the house. Other Orthodox Jews do not view the topic as bifurcated as the ultra-Orthodox do. The issue of women donning תפילין is a case study of said divisiveness (As a brief side note, the issue of "Judaism and homosexuality" touches upon the gender bifurcation as much as "Judaism and women," which is why they are two exceptionally hot-button issues in the Orthodox world). As schismatic as the topic of gender might be, the extent of disagreement will shape the direction in which "mainstream Orthodoxy" heads. Will Orthodoxy as a whole continue to view women as mere baby-makers, or will Orthodoxy create a venue in which women can also fulfill their spiritual need to connect to G-d?

CBO Budget Report Shows Bad News for Obamacare Projections

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with their 2014-2024 Budget Outlook today. Although the entire document makes for a good read, I was most interested in the findings surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or what is more accurately labeled as Obamacare. I know there are those who like to think of Obamacare as the greatest innovation in the American health care industry, and would like to claim that it provides more accessible and affordable healthcare, although that is just another broken promise amongst broken Obamacare promises. For proponents, the price tag is worth the effort, which is why they are to look at the report as good news. However, when looking at the CBO report, I can only reaffirm what I can describe is my animus towards a further governmental intervention into an essential sector of the economy. What did the CBO report that I found perturbing?

For one, there is an issue with cost projections. Obama promised that Obamacare would not add a dime to our deficits, and also promised that Obamacare would not cost over $900B. Medicaid spending is expected to accelerate in 2014 because of the ACA (p. 13). Assuming no changes are made, the insurance exchanges are expected to increase spending by $18B this year alone (ibid). Spending for the combination of Medicaid and other health care programs is going to double, "largely because the ACA is expanding eligibility for Medicaid and providing subsidies for health insurance purchased through exchanges (p. 57)." Because of the ACA (those are the CBO's words, not mine), the percent of GDP that is to be spent on healthcare will increase from 5.1 percent of the GDP to 6.1 percent by 2024 (p. 16). What is the current projected grand total of Obamacare? $1.487T (Table B-1), which is nearly $600B more than he had promised.

Aside from cost, there is an issue with the labor participation rate, which has an effect on the employment rate. One of the provisions in Obamacare is to mandate that employers with over fifty employees have to either provide health insurance or pay a fine. Intuitively speaking, providing healthcare to employees, much like one's wage (see minimum wage argument), is a cost of labor. If the cost of each labor unit increases enough, the employer will be incentivized to reduce costs elsewhere, and that would include decreasing the amount of workers (p. 124). There were those who thought that the idea that Obamacare would cause higher unemployment was hogwash. Truth be told, this was one of those "wait and see" moments because we were waiting to have [preliminary] numbers come in. We've waited, and now what we're seeing isn't pretty. The ACA will further depress the labor force participation rate than the retiring Baby Boomers (p. 38), which means that the laws surrounding the ACA create a negative effect on employment. How much of an effect will that be? The CBO estimates that from 2017 to 2024 (p. 117), the number of hours worked will be reduced by 1.5-2 percent as a result of the ACA. Back in 2011, the CBO initially projected that the ACA would only cause 800,000 unemployed as a result of this bill (CBO, 2011, p. 31). However, the new projections put the full-time equivalent (FTE) decrease at 2.5 million by 2024 (CBO, 2014, p. 117), which is triple the initial estimation! Furthermore, the CBO estimates a reduction of roughly one percent in aggregate labor compensation over the period of 2017-2024 (ibid). Although employment is supposed to increase from 2017 to 2024, thanks to Obamacare, it will increase less than it would have otherwise.

There is also the matter of the number of the uninsured in this country. Obama promised universal healthcare, but once again, the CBO is still projecting that 31 million will be uninsured (Table B-2), which is a long ways away from the goal. Furthermore, Obama won't be able to keep his promise of "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" because an estimated 12 million will lose their insurance because of Obamacare (ibid). And more bad news for Obamacare: there will be 2 million less insured this year because of implementation issues (Table B-4).

For those who were worried about taxes beforehand, you certainly have a right to be. One tax implemented is an excise tax on healthcare insurers (p. 88). The CBO is projecting a whole slew of other excise taxes [that will amount to $130B], three quarters of which will come from the ACA (ibid). The fines under Obamacare, which are not being called "taxes," even in spite of the Supreme Court ruling the individual mandate's justification under the Taxation Clause, will total to $27B in 2014 in rise substantially because of the ACA (p. 89). It's no surprise here that the Obamacare taxes will distort work incentives or create other economic distortions (p. 118, 122). Also, you have to love how the CBO calls the insurance subsidies an implicit tax on work (p. 120).

The only silver lining is that risk corridor program is supposed to save money (p. 114-115). Risk corridors notwithstanding, the numbers do not look promising. Granted, the CBO keeps emphasizing the uncertainty of its projections (p. 22) because a lot needs to unfold before we know the full effects of Obamacare. I agree: we're going to have to wait and see. Knowing that these projections have a propensity for getting worse as time passes, I can only surmise that Obamacare is going to have a larger, negative impact on the economy than any of us can foresee.

Universal Preschool Is a Grade-A Debacle

Mayor Bill de Blasio is picking up Michael Bloomberg's mantle of paternalistic governing. Last week, de Blasio went to Albany to try to convince Governor Cuomo to increase personal income taxes on the rich to fund a universal pre-K education program for the city of New York (see NYC Office of the Mayor's report here). With all the policy problems in New York, why is de Blasio advocating for universal preschool?

According to the report, "high-quality pre-K is among the most effective ways to reduce economic inequality (p. 2)." To put this in economic parlance, education is a positive consumption externality. Looking at the graph below, there is a certain amount of a good, e.g., education, that is consumed in the private, unregulated market. When it comes to positive externalities, there is an underconsumption in comparison to the socially optimal level of output. To compensate for this insufficient amount of education, the traditional response has been the government intervening in attempts to increase the amount of education, thereby increasing the output to the marginal social benefit.

After all, who doesn't like a more educated, more productive populace that not only decreases the need for long-term social spending, but also contributes to the continuation and progress of a democratic society? For being a developed nation, I'm often surprised at the quality of education in this country, and thusly would like to see more educated citizens. Perhaps there is a valid point in saying that universal preschool is an investment in the future of New York City (p. 3). Perhaps the investment being made is a bad one. Two questions I would like to answer here in order to get a better idea of just how good of investment universal preschool are the following:

1. Is preschool the investment in human capital that everyone thinks it is?
2. Even if preschool is a proper investment in human capital, should the government run a universal preschool program?

Before asking whether we should have the government universalize preschool, we should not simply assume that "more education is good," and instead discern whether preschool has a net benefit (see video below of Cato Institute panel of preschool education research). One of the most oft-cited studies of success is the Perry Preschool Project. The sample size from this study is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. That's why I prefer this study (Reynolds et al., 2011) that tracked 1,400 children in Chicago's inner city school program to find that those who attended preschool were 3-9 percent more likely to graduate high school and 22 percent less likely to be arrested before the age of 28. There is a question of whether the children who attended differed from those in the control group. The issues with any of these success stories is that the programs offered were high-intensive, targeted, high-quality programs, which are far and few in between when compared to the typical preschool program. However, a recent meta-study by the Society for Research in Child Development shows that early education is indeed a profitable investment.



We also have to remember that not all preschools produce the same results. According to a University of Virginia study (Pianta et al, 2009, p. 50), the gains in the average preschool are nowhere near the gains in high-quality preschools in which the achievement gap is not closed nowhere near as proponents would like to think. I still have some skepticism about whether preschool doesn't come with deleterious effects. According to a Stanford study (Loeb et al, 2006), those who spend many hours in preschool have stunted social and emotional development. Similar, negative results can be shown from a Quebecois study (Baker et al, 2005). Regimenting and regulating a child's time like this has the ability to erode a child's cognitive skills, so at the very least, we should recognize that preschool comes with marginal diminishing utility. Also, I can argue that such factors as the frequency with which one talks to their parents, the diet parents feed their child, and overall involvement in a child's life do more for a child's social development than preschool education. Too much institutionalized time severs time from one's parents, which can also cause developmental issues.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume that preschool can be beneficial, provided that it is done so in moderation. Should we allow the government to be actively involved in this endeavor? Aside from running a national demonstration project that utilizes randomized design, we can look at precedent to determine efficacy. The beauty here is that I don't even have to say "Hey, look at the government's dismal handling of K-12 education" because the federal government has been involved in early education programming since 1965. Head Start was started by the Johnson administration, and ever since, it has been a complete failure. Even by the admission of the United States Department Health and Human Services, the bureaucratic agency that handles Head Start, "the benefits of access to Head Start at age 4 are largely absent by the 1st grade for the program population as a whole (p. xxxviiii)." What good is a preschool program like Head Start if it has no lasting effects? How does that help the poor? Maybe a "cookie cutter" approach doesn't work. Perhaps providing the states with block grants and putting universal preschool on the state level would work better……or not.

The issue of fade-out is not solely confined to the Head Start program. Tennessee also used random experimental design in its universal preschool program, but also shows no lasting, long-term effects (Assessing the Impact of Tennessee's Pre-Kindergarten Program, p. 34), and actually show that the effects have largely diminished by the second grade (p. 6). This is important because the Tennessee program is a "gold standard" in the sense that Tennessee met nine out of the ten benchmarks for NIEER's education standards.

Additionally, we should take a look at the Georgia and Oklahoma cases because those program have been around the longest in America. Those who point to Oklahoma as a success do so on the basis of regression discontinuity design (RDD), which compares the scores of those who just completed the program with age-adjusted scores of students who just began the program. RDD does nothing to answer the question of whether government intervention adds value to preschool. Also, RDD is a flawed methodology because it is not a truly randomized experiment because the parents of the so-called control group are already cognizant of the fact that their children will soon enter government schooling. Even so, looking at test scores, Oklahoma has not made gains in reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In the Oklahoma case, there is no persistence of the early gains made (Hill et al, 2012), and the same can be said about Georgia (Henry et al, 2005), especially since the costs of Georgia's program outweigh the benefits (Fitzpatrick, 2008, p. 31). With Georgia and Oklahoma, any success in academic achievement is marginal and is limited to certain sub-groups. Those over at Oxford (Merrell and Tymms, 2011) found that Sure Start, England's equivalent of Head Start, showed that preschool education had no lasting effects on children.

I think we should ask ourselves with this fade out effect takes place at around the third grade level. Perhaps it's the Matthew effect. Perhaps it is the disarray of the K-12 education system. Finland starts formal education at age seven, and it is touted as a great success in education, so perhaps instead of blaming the problem on there not being enough preschool education, we should reflect on the state of the the K-12 education system and how mismanaged it has become.

Here are some policy alternatives: we could create school vouchers for preschoolers to better target economically disadvantaged children, reform and revamp K-12 education so perhaps the benefits of preschool education have more staying power, eliminate ineffective or duplicative programs so we can stop the crowding out effect, an early education tax credit to incentivize quality education, or figure out ways to increase parental involvement in their children's lives because education begins at home. Whatever the policy alternative, before investing into a program that will cost $98.4B over the next decade if done on the federal level (don't forget that de Blasio hasn't put a price tag on his pet project of statewide universal preschool), maybe, just maybe, we need to ask ourselves whether the government should be expanding a program with what on a good day can be classified as dubious success.