Comments on P. G. Hare and D. T. Ulph

  • J. A. Mirrlees
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (PCBS)


Paul Hare and David Ulph have considerably advanced the theoretical analysis of educational policy. I do not claim, nor would they, that their model supersedes less precise arguments about education. It is still possible for informal discussions to keep in play more considerations than their mathematical model does. But the greater apparent realism of purely verbal discussions makes it impossible to derive clear and definite conclusions. Plainly the question how and to what extent education should be subsidised can be answered satisfactorily only in the context of an economic model where income taxation exists, and has a reason to exist. Such a model can be handled only by means of mathematics. Hare and Ulph show how this can be done. In my remarks, I shall concentrate on their model’s limitations, which they have themselves emphasised, and speculate about the conclusions that would flow from a yet more realistic model.


Educational Policy Private Return Informal Discussion Precise Argument Educational Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Mirrlees
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuffield CollegeOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations