Dive Brief:

• Susan Dynarski, a professor of education, public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, writes for The New York Times that many economists count education as a sector in need of government intervention, even if they otherwise respect the power of free markets.
• While every member of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel either agreed or strongly agreed that taxi competition from car services like Lyft and Uber raises consumer welfare, only a little more than one-third believed students would receive a higher-quality education if they could use vouchers to cover the costs of a private or public school of their choice.
• Dynarski writes that economists often disagree about where to draw the line between free competition and regulation, but in most markets they agree there should be some type of balance — and she argues too much faith in the power of free markets can result in infeasible policy proposals.

Dive Insight:

President-elect Donald Trump, as a businessman, has advocated for less government intervention. Regulation tends to limit profits for corporations, even if it is often instituted for the protection of consumers or the economy as a whole. U.S. Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos has been a sharp critic of any type of regulation on charter schools in her home state of Michigan, and she has fought for voucher programs in Michigan and elsewhere.

Even where charter advocates support high accountability standards — which are enforced through regulation — DeVos has argued for more complete freedom. For both the president-elect and his education department nominee, offering families more choices for their children’s education is the goal. Critics, however, bristle at their claim that this goal remains whether those choices are good or not. Time will tell what impact the next administration will have on education, but it is clear it will not have a hand in limiting school choice.