亚当·斯密论公共教育

IF 1.2 3区 经济学 Q1 HISTORY
James R. Otteson
{"title":"亚当·斯密论公共教育","authors":"James R. Otteson","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"229 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ADAM SMITH ON PUBLIC PROVISION OF EDUCATION\",\"authors\":\"James R. Otteson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1053837222000645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"229 - 248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000645\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000645","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

大多数研究亚当·斯密的学者认为,斯密支持公共提供教育,以抵消劳动分工带来的有害后果。斯密对公共资助教育的假定认可被一些学者认为是他比古典自由主义更倾向于进步主义的证据,或者这偏离了斯密反对政府干预市场的强烈假设,也许是不一致的。本文认为,这些解释是有缺陷的,因为史密斯最终并不主张公共提供教育。他提出了这个想法,并探索了它的潜在好处,但他最终没有支持它。史密斯还提供了对公共教育持怀疑态度的理由,这表明他的最终立场可能倾向于反对它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ADAM SMITH ON PUBLIC PROVISION OF EDUCATION
Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The mission of JHET is to further the objectives of the History of Economics Society. These are to promote interest in and inquiry into the history of economics and related parts of intellectual history, facilitate communication and discourse among scholars working in the field of the history of economics, and disseminate knowledge about the history of economics. JHET therefore encourages and makes available research in the fields of history of economic thought and the history of economic methodology. The work of many distinguished authors has been published in its pages. It is recognised as being a first class international scholarly publication. All articles are fully peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信