Advertisement

Privatizing Benefit and Socializing Cost: Market Education as Rent Seeking

  • E. Frank Fitch
  • Kathleen M. Hulgin
Article

Abstract

The current movement toward increasing privatization in general and market education in particular has been extensively examined in terms of its neoliberal roots and incompatibility with the aims of public, democratic education. This analysis presents a different critique, one that draws upon current economic theory and research to challenge the most fundamental assumptions and claims of market education. Contrary to presumed virtues of profit, competition and choice, we argue that the forces of rent seeking in the market model of education do not operate according to these principles and are exacerbating structures of inequality and segregation. We outline an alternative conceptual framework for understanding this model.

Keywords

Rent seeking Market education Behavioral economics Framing Segregation 

References

  1. Alexander, K. (2012). Asymmetric information, parental choice, vouchers, charter schools and Stiglitz. Journal of Education Finance, 38(2), 170–176.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, (2017). The racial politics of elementary school choice for black parents living in Brooklyn, NY. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2857&context=gc_etds.
  3. Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Apple, M. W. (2001). Creating profits by creating failures: Standards, markets, and inequality in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2–3), 103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110010020840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1985). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal, and radical debate over schooling. South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2008). The competitive effect of school choice policies on performance in traditional public schools. (No. EPSL-0803-261-EPRU). Tempe, AZ & Boulder, CO: Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University & Education and the Public Interest Center, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  7. Auguste, S., & Valenzuela, J. P. (2004). Do students benefit from school competition? The Chilean experience. Ph.D. dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, B., & Miron, G. (2015). The business of charter schooling: Understanding the policies that charter operators use for financial benefit. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/charter-revenue.
  9. Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the “competition state”. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bator, F. M. (1958). The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72(3), 351–379.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1882231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31–56.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Billingham, C. M., & Hunt, M. O. (2016). School racial composition and parental choice: New evidence on the preferences of white parents in the united states. Sociology of Education, 89(2), 99–117.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716635718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Böhlmark, A., & Lindahl, M. (2007). The impact of school choice on pupil achievement, segregation and costs: Swedish evidence. IZA Discussion Papers 2786, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  14. Bradbury, A., McGimpsey, I., & Santori, D. (2013). Revising rationality: The use of “nudge” approaches in neoliberal education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(2), 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2007, 2009). Charter schools: Hope or hype? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Buras, K. L. (2011). Race, charter schools, and conscious capitalism: On the spatial politics of whiteness as property (and the unconscionable assault on black New Orleans). Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burgess, S., Wilson, D., & Lupton, R. (2005). Parallel lives? Ethnic segregation in schools and neighborhoods. Urban Studies, 42, 1027–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carnoy, M. (2017). School vouchers are not a proven strategy for improving student achievement. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://www.epi.org/files/pdf/121635.pdf.
  19. Carnoy, M., & McEwan, P. (2000). Competition and sorting in Chile’s voucher system. Stanford: Stanford University. (in manuscript).Google Scholar
  20. Caruso, E. M., Vohs, K. D., Baxter, B., & Waytz, A. (2013). Mere exposure to money increases endorsement of free-market systems and social inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 301–306.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2013). National charter school study. Palo Alto: CREDO, Stanford University. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html.
  22. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, R. (2016). The national labor relations board says charter school teachers are private employees. The American prospect. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://prospect.org/article/national-labor-relations-board-says-charter-school-teachers-are-private-employees.
  24. Cook, J. (2016). The effect of charter competition on unionized district revenues and resource allocation. National center for the study of privatization in education working paper series. Columbia, NY: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  25. Cookson, P. W., Jr. (1994). School choice: The struggle for the soul of American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Darity, W. A. (2008). International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Detroit, MI: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Davey, L. (2009). Strategies for framing racial disparities: A frameworks institute message brief. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Davidson, K. L. (2014). How parents choose the ‘right fit’ and why it matters for public education (Order No. 3672398). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (1651538184). Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/docview/1651538184?accountid=2909.
  29. DeJarnatt, S. L. (2008). School choice and the (ir)rational parent. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 15, 1–847.Google Scholar
  30. Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elster, J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eng, N. (2016). Education inequality: Broadening public attitudes through framing: Education inequality: Broadening public attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 72(4), 676–695.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Epple, D., Romano, R., Zimmer, R., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (2015). Charter schools: A survey of research on their characteristics and effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ESSA. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).Google Scholar
  35. Fabricant, M., Fine, M., & Ebrary, I. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s at stake? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1), 1.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123–144). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Galbraith, J. K. (2008). The predator state: How conservatives abandoned the free market and why liberals should too. New York: Free Press. (1st free press hardcover ed.).Google Scholar
  39. Gauri, V. (1998). School choice in Chile: Two decades of educational reform. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harvey, D. (2005, 2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Henig, J. R. (1996). The local dynamics of choice: Ethnic preferences and institutional responses. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Howe, K. R., & Welner, K. (2002). School choice and the pressure to perform: Déjà vu for children with disabilities? Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hsieh, C., & Urquiola, M. (2004). When schools compete, How Do They Compete? An assessment of Chile’s nationwide school voucher program. Working paper No. 10008. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  46. Hsieh, Ch., & Urquiola, M. (2006). The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher program. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1477–1503.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Huff, A. (2013). Reforming the city: Neoliberal school reform and democratic contestation in New Orleans. The Canadian Geographer, 57(3), 311–317.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. James, O. R. (2013). Opt-out education: School choice as racial subordination. Iowa Law Review, 99(3), 1083–1135.Google Scholar
  49. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Karsten, S., Felix, C., Ledoux, G., & Meijnen, W. (2006). Choosing segregation or integration? The extent and effects of ethnic segregation in Dutch cities. Education and Urban Society, 38, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kasler, K. (2017). State Board of Education votes to claw back $60 million from ECOT for inflating enrollment. Statehouse News Bureau. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://statenews.org/post/state-board-education-votes-claw-back-60-million-ecot-inflating-enrollment.
  54. Knoester, M., & Au, W. (2017). Standardized testing and school segregation: Like tinder for fire? Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ladd, H. (2003). Chapter 1: Introduction. In D. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lakoff, George. (2014). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  57. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levine, M., & Levine, A. G. (2014). Follow the money: There’s no business like the ed. business…. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(4), 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lind, M. (2016). The real “takers” in America: The unproductive, rent-extracting rich. Salon.com. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://worldnewstrust.com/the-real-takers-in-america-the-unproductive-rent-extracting-rich-michael-lind.
  60. Lipman, P. (2015). Capitalizing on crisis: Venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 241–258.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.959031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lubienski, C. (2005). School choice as a civil right: District responses to competition and equal educational opportunity. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(4), 331–341.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500299809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lubienski, C., Gulosino, C., & Weitzel, P. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647.  https://doi.org/10.1086/599778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Luke, A. (2010). Australia: The challenges of poverty, pedagogy, and pathways. In I. C. Rotberg (Ed.), Balancing change and tradition in global education reform (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  65. Mickelson, R. A., Bottia, M., & Southworth, S. (2012). School choice and segregation by race, class, and ability. In W. Mathis, G. Miron, & K. Welner (Eds.), School choice: The evidence, politics, and policies for the 21st century. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Minbot, G. (2016). Neoliberalism: The ideology at the root of all of our problems. Economics. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot.
  67. Miron, G., Mathis, W., & Welner, K. (2015). Review of separating fact from fiction: What you need to know about charter schools. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-separating-fact-and-fiction.
  68. Miron, G., Nelson, C., & Risley, J. (2002). Strengthening Pennsylvania’s charter school reform: Findings from the statewide evaluation and discussion of relevant policy issues. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education.Google Scholar
  69. Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Mathis, W, J., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organizations, charter schools and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/schools-without-diversity.
  70. Mizala, A., & Romaguera, P. (2000). School performance and choice: The Chilean experience. The Journal of Human Resources, 35(2), 392–417.  https://doi.org/10.2307/146331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Molnar, A. (1996). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America’s schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nathanson, L., Corcoran, S., & Baker-Smith, C. (2013). High school choice in New York City: A report on the school choices and placements of low-achieving students. New York, NY: Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://media.ranycs.org/2013/008.
  73. Nir, A., Inbar, D., & Eyal, O. (2010). Israel: Equity and competition in the grip of centralized bureaucracy. In I. C. Rotberg (Ed.), Balancing change and tradition in global education reform (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  74. Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2013). Educational delusions: Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pietsch, M., & Stubbe, T. C. (2007). Inequality in the transition from primary to secondary school: School choice and educational disparities in Germany. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 424–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pizzigati, S. (2014). Hedge fund titans hum a happy tune as they target public schools. Perspectives. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/15/hedge-fund-titans-hum-a-happy-tune-as-they-target-public-schools/.
  77. Policy Matters Ohio. (2007). 2007 annual report of Policy Matters Ohio. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://www.policymattersohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Annual_report07.pdf.
  78. Portales, J., & Heilig, J. V. (2014). Understanding how universal vouchers have impacted urban school districts’ enrollment in chile. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(72), 1–39.Google Scholar
  79. Posner, R. A. (2013). Why is there no Milton Friedman today? Econ Journal Watch, 10(2), 210–213.Google Scholar
  80. Rangvid, B. S. (2007). Living and learning separately? Ethnic segregation of school children in Copenhagen. Urban Studies, 44, 1329–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  82. Rawles, K. (2013a). Punishing students for not making eye contact? How charter schools’ prejudiced policies undermine equality. AlterNet. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://www.alternet.org/education/punishing-students-not-making-eye-contact-how-charter-schools-prejudiced-policies.
  83. Rawles, K. (2013b). Education who is profiting from charters? The big bucks behind charter school secrecy, financial scandal and corruption. AlterNet. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://www.alternet.org/education/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and.
  84. Recharge Ohio. (2009). Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjRFVIVP2zY.
  85. Renzulli, L. A. (2006). District segregation, race legislation, and black enrollment in charter schools. Social Science Quarterly, 87(3), 618–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rihm, L. M. (2016). Every student succeeds act: Advancing equity for students with disabilities in charter schools. National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESSA/ESSA-StudentswithDisabilitiesinCharterSchools.pdf.
  87. Rugh, J. S., & Massey, D. S. (2010). Racial segregation and the American foreclosure crisis. American Sociological Review, 75(5), 629–651.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410380868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sakwa, R. (2008a). Russian politics and society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Sakwa, R. (2008b). Russian politics and society (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. (fully rev. and updated).Google Scholar
  90. Saltman, K. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Saporito, S., & Lareau, A. (1999). School selection as a process: The multiple dimensions of race in framing educational choice. Social Problems, 46(3), 418–439.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1999.46.3.03x0253s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts as a choice? U.S. Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Science, 20, 1–8.Google Scholar
  94. Savani, K., Stephens, N. M., & Markus, H. R. (2011). The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: Victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22(6), 795–802.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611407928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: In three volumes 1 (1st ed.). London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, D. (2016). Voodoo accounting: Charter schools and the state school aid formula. Plunderbund. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://plunderbund.com/2016/05/03/voodoo-accounting-charter-schools-and-the-state-school-aid-formula/.
  99. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Information and the change in the paradigm in economics. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 460–501.  https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  101. Stiglitz, J. E., Abernathy, N., & Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. (2016). Rewriting the rules of the American economy: An agenda for growth and shared prosperity (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  102. Strauss V. (2015). Troubled Ohio charter schools have-become a joke literally. Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/12/troubled-ohio-charter-schools-have-become-a-joke-literally/?utm_term=.07311fd4df1a.
  103. Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  104. Thomson, K. S. (2010). Externalities and school enrollment policy: A supply-side analysis of school choice in New Zealand. Journal of School Choice, 4, 418–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Torche, F. (2005). Privatization reform and inequality of educational opportunity: The case of Chile. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 316–343.  https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.  https://doi.org/10.1086/29636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. United States. Congress (107th, 1st session: 2001). (2001). No child left behind act of 2001: Conference report to accompany H.R. 1. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.Google Scholar
  108. United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the secretary of education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Commission: [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor].Google Scholar
  109. Valenzuela, J., Bellei, C., & de los Rios, D. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system: The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 217–241.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.806995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Von Mises, L. (1952). Planning for freedom. South Holland: The Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
  111. Weber, M. (2010). Special education from the (damp) ground up: Children with disabilities in a charter school-dependent educational system, Loyola University New Orleans. Journal of Public Interest Law, 11, 217–237.Google Scholar
  112. Wells, A. S. (1996). African American students’ view of school choice. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 25–49). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wells, A. S. (2015). Diverse housing, diverse schooling: How policy can stabilize racial demographic change in cities and suburbs. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/housing-school-nexus.
  114. Yoon, E., & Gulson, K. N. (2010). School choice in the stratilingual city of Vancouver. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social SciencesUniversity of Cincinnati, Clermont CollegeBataviaUSA

Personalised recommendations