This brief monograph was written in an attempt to discover
the general situation of Disability Studies, given that this appears to have
become a growth area in academia with various typically illiberal aspects. The
findings bear out the initial impression. There is a style of argument, even
propaganda (for there is usually little genuine engagement with opposing liberal
views), that can be seen in many other areas of academia. It amounts to a
relatively new ‘progressive’ industry with various fashionable keywords,
phrases and ideologies—often not obviously related to disabilities in any
serious way—indicating the nature of the beast: progressive, radical,
oppression, bourgeois, empowerment, rights, equal opportunities, discrimination,
prejudice, citizenship, social justice, socially constructed, Marxism, Post
Modernism and Feminism. The overall picture is that disability has become
increasingly politicised along politically correct lines to the detriment of
society as a whole and, eventually, even to the disabled themselves. This is
largely caused by the endemic trahison des clercs in our tax-consuming[2]
and coercively monopolised university system.
The political approach is quite overt and even relished:
“The exciting thing about
disability studies is that it is both an academic field of enquiry and an area
of political activity … involving the classrooms, the workplace, the courts,
the legislature, the media, and so on.” [Davis, 1997, 1]
This is typically linked to ‘rights’ and
‘citizenship’:
“…in the United Kingdom the
evidence that disabled people are still denied their full rights to citizenship
is overwhelming.” [Johnstone, 2001, 24]
And underpinning these ‘rights’ is usually the modern
leftwing battle cry of ‘social justice’:
“Social justice is at the
heart of disability theory and changing morality in the Western world.” [Johnstone,
2001, 73]
The arguments
A main argument in the Disability Studies literature is
that ‘disability’ is socially constructed, often for sinister (bourgeois)
class reasons, rather than objective:
“That disablement is a
socially constructed concept in the service and shaping of power is now a
generally accepted orthodoxy.” [Johnstone, 2001, 164]
The idea is to turn the tables by explaining how markets
and industrialisation are the real problem rather than those labelled as
disabled:
“… the ‘problem’ is not
the person with disabilities; the problem is the way that normalcy is
constructed to create the ‘problem’ of the disabled person. … the social
process of disabling arrived with industrialisation.” [Davis, 1997, 9]
The idea of what is normal is supposed to be some kind of
bourgeois conspiracy:
“… the very term that
permeates our contemporary life—the normal—is a configuration that arises in
a particular historical moment. It is part of a notion of progress, of
industrialisation, and of ideological consolidation of the power of the
bourgeoisie.” [Davis, 1997, 28]
And so ‘disability’ has no objective meaning:
“At the heart of disability
studies is a recognition that disability is a cultural construction; that is,
that ‘disability’ has no inherent meaning.” [Davis, 1997, 29]
Disability is thus supposed to be at least on a par with
gender in its social construction or possibly even race, the two main areas that
lead the way in this kind of argument and industry (in fact, all three are
usually physical with race and sex largely genetic):
“Disability is not a
biological given; like gender, it is socially constructed from biological
reality.” [Davis, 1997, 260]
Tendentious politicised definitions sometimes replace any
serious attempt at argument:
“Disability The
disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social
organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical
impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of
social activities. (UPIAS, 1976: 3-4)” [Quoted in Barnes, 1999, 28]
Contra the complaints about industrialisation somehow
manufacturing ‘disability’, it is mainly the market that has eliminated a
vast amount of disability through increased wealth and advances in medical
sciences (which go hand in hand). Thus, polio and tuberculosis are things of the
past. Where disabilities remain, things like electric wheelchairs and
pain-killing drugs make life much easier for the disabled. But there is a grain
of, vacuous, truth in the ‘social construction’ claim. It is logically
necessary that if every aspect of everyday life were provided with full
facilities to counterbalance every aspect of every type of disability (or
‘impairments’, as the latest PC approach now prefers to put it[3])
then the disabled would, of course, be able to do everything that everyone else
does. In this sense, people are only ‘disabled’ by an environment that does
not fully compensate for their incapacities. But how relevant is this a
priori point? It stubbornly ignores three obvious things: 1. the fact that a
disability needs to be compensated for shows that it is an objective
disadvantage, and it is mere PC Speak to deny it; 2. the unimaginably vast
expense of creating such a logical possibility as universal compensating
facilities for each impairment; 3. the fact that this vast expense, or even any
degree of movement towards it, must be at the proactively imposed expense of
other people (to the extent that it is not paid for voluntarily, which must be
relatively limited).
A second, related, main argument—often bound up with the
first—is that the disabled are an oppressed group but, unlike women and
non-white races, one not yet generally recognised as being so even among
‘progressives’:
“Progressives in and out of
academia may pride themselves on being sensitive to race or gender, but they
have been ‘ablelist’ in dealing with the issue of disability.” [Davis,
1997, 1]
And so the main problems are the similar ones of
‘prejudice’ and ‘discrimination’:
“…disabled men and women
have been subject to the same form of prejudice, discrimination and segregation
imposed upon other oppressed groups … on the basis of characteristics such as
race or ethnicity, gender, and aging.” [Davis, 1997, 174]
But genuine oppression surely involves such proactive
impositions as persecution, enslavement, and expropriation. What Disabilities
Studies regards as ‘oppression’ is merely failing to provide the full
benefits of opportunities completely equal to the non-disabled.[4]
And proactively to impose the costs of this provision to any degree, as they
advocate, would itself be—and is now, in fact—an oppression of the able for
the benefit of the disabled and the growing numbers of those employed in the
Disability Industry (it would be enlightening to know what percentage of what is
spent actually reaches the disabled themselves). Ironically, the
"helpers" of the disabled can actually oppress their clients in all
sorts of ways from bullying to bossing them about.
These two general arguments, about the supposed social
construction and oppression of the disabled, are applied to all the various
areas of disability mutatis mutandis. However, the hearing impaired
include a particularly vociferous vanguard interest group who wish to affirm
their difference as some kind of equally valid lifestyle that is mainly
inconvenienced by the attitudes of others. They are not really disabled at all
but an oppressed “linguistic community”:
“Nowadays, two constructions
of deafness in particular are dominant and compete for shaping deaf peoples’
destinies. The one construes deaf as a category of disability; the other
construes deaf as designating a member of a linguistic community.” [Davis,
1997, 154].
With disabilities generally, though,
“The Disability Rights
Movement has shifted the construct of disability ‘off the body and into the
interface between people with impairments and socially disabling
conditions’” [Davis, 1997, 154]
Thus all disabilities tend to form a politicised interest
group that is increasingly moving away from the traditional idea of seeking
voluntary help for those in genuine and deserving need and towards blaming
‘society’ for their lack of complete equality and demanding their
‘rights’ to this.
The ideological context of the arguments
These arguments are primarily informed by a view of the
state as enabling or, as they often say, ‘empowering’[5]
without looking too hard, if at all, at those at whose imposed expense all this
is supposed to take place. This is a standard anti-liberal argument that is
called some variety of socialism, notably Marxism, in modern times (but which
also goes back at least to the pre-Socratics in various forms). Some still cite
aspects of Marxism to explain why disability is ‘created’:
“Clearly the process of
industrialisation under capitalism is a major factor that has contributed to the
prevalence of disability … Central to this approach is what Marx called ‘the
industrial reserve army’.” [Davis, 1997, 172]
As mentioned, ‘Social justice’ in some socialist sense
is the main modern ideology to which they now appeal; but usually in a more
Marxian than Rawlsian version—to which they object:
“The concept of social justice
as a mutual consensus and cooperation in equal shares of any collective surplus
managed by the state, is changed—to a perception of social justice as
individual entitlement … from right-wing political thinkers in the United
States (e.g. Rawls 1971) ….” [Johnstone, 2001, 158][6]
But these arguments have also been influenced by Post
Modernist gobbledegook and other ‘radical’ philosophies:
“… the person with
disabilities will become the ultimate example, the universal image, the modality
through whose knowing the postmodern subject can theorize and act.” [Davis,
1997, 8]
The Politics of Disability: an Advert from the Web
"Do you want to
--
Discuss Queer Disability issues like civil rights, access, identity, sexuality
etc.?
Get connected with Queer Disabled activists around the world?
Join in the movement of Queer Disabled people?
If so, subscribe to the Queer Disability listserv, by clicking on this link
--" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QueerDisability
“Particular interest lies in
the impact of recent sociological debates, notably social constructionism and
feminism, as well as the suggested shift towards a postmodern society.”
[Barnes, 1999, 37]
“Radical theories—Marxism,
feminism (as examples) and the like—offer a more constructive model for
disabled politics because they seek to transform society and conceive liberty,
rights and freedoms as socially constructed—rather than individually
based—and socially denied by the exercise of power and oppression.” [Johnstone,
2001, 103]
The impact of the arguments
The primary impact of these arguments is intellectual and
on other academics, social workers, students and the vocal disabled themselves.
But to be effective the secondary intellectual impact must be on the
politicians, the ruling class, who will have to be converted in order to bring
about any desired changes. Ultimately, of course, ordinary members of the public
will be forced to bear the real cost of these various things.
One relatively recent example of proposed legislation seems
to epitomise the problem. This was that all new houses must be built without
doorsteps and have such things as wide enough halls and doorways to accommodate
wheelchairs just in case a disabled person might want to live there or merely
even visit (as it ‘discriminates against’ wheelchair users otherwise). But
doorsteps serve a useful function in keeping out water and dirt. And the extra
expense of wider spaces means that it might be cheaper simply to build every
wheelchair user a free house wherever he wants it. But as that might look too
obviously like an absurd privilege, we are lumbered with the even greater
overall expense. And universal wheelchair access to all buildings, which we seem
to be rapidly approaching, is considerably more diseconomic (insofar as it is
not a voluntary affair).[7]
According to Mindspring this has now become law:
“In March '98, Parliament passed the mandate … Among the
requirements are an accessible approach to the dwelling, a zero-step entrance
when topography permits, at least a half-bath on the main floor, wide halls and
doorways and accessible switches and electrical outlets.”
It would be possible to produce an economic analysis of the
diseconomies of every single aspect of what the Disability Studies industry
demands. They sometimes vaguely recognise the need for economy, but the best
they can usually offer is that the disabled would be more likely to be
productively employed rather than on state benefits (at what cost, they do not
try to calculate). In any case, it is an axiom for the industry that ‘social
justice’ trumps mere ‘bourgeois’ economics.
Opposition to the arguments
There is not much obvious published opposition to this
output. On the shelves of bookshops under Disability Studies, in particular,
there is next to nothing. The usual Public Choice theory applies. There is no
tax-money to be gleaned by opposing the appropriation of tax-money by others.
But there is tax-money to be shared in joining them or campaigning for an
alternative tax-consuming project. There is also the additional factor here that
anyone questioning such arguments might appear particularly heartless and,
especially in statist academia, possibly risk ostracism and professional
difficulties. At the extreme, the opposition are sometimes even hysterically
accused of Nazi eugenics and a form of attempted ‘genocide’ of the disabled,
especially when the opposition suggests that—completely voluntary—genetics
and abortions can help minimise undesirable disabilities:
“Our present situation
connects with the Nazi past in that once again scientists and physicians are
making the decisions about what lives to ‘target’ as not worth living by
deciding which tests to develop.” [Davis, 1997, 200]
The interests involved
The academics, social workers and disabled form a loose
interest group of sorts, but with significant differences of interest, along
Public Choice Theory lines. Behind the apparently scholarly and moral debate is
often the bottom line of ‘more resources’ (tax-funding) for this or that
activity. With academics and social workers there is more interest in ‘empire
building’ for themselves: more professionals with more control of more
resources. The vocal disabled often express a desire to take more direct control
of services and resources. In this they are competing with those officially
employed to make these decisions: “…if disability groups can organise
themselves effectively there is an opportunity for disabled people to be
collectively in control of the services they receive for the first time.”
[Hales, 1999, 95] However, it is unrealistic to overlook the active role of
idealism in all this. In nearly every case this will be a bigger factor than
financial interest. And many are just bored and actively look around for causes
to champion.
The numbers of asserted disabled is enormous and
questionable. Is it really plausible that as many as 15% in the US are disabled
in any serious sense? [Davis, 1997, 1] 20% of the working population in the UK are disabled according to the
Disability Rights Commission (Disability Briefing: February 2001). One in five
is remarkably high. Is it mere cynicism to think that these figures might
be inflated by various special interests, combined with lenient testing of such
claims?
Views of the disabled
Quite a few of the academics prominently involved in
Disability Studies are themselves in one or more of the disabled groups. Many of
the vocal disabled use the arguments in more popular literature, including
newsletters. There is a current campaign slogan implicitly designed to
politicise the disabled: ‘nothing about us, without us.’ Though ostensibly a
modest demand that the disabled be heard, what this really amounts to is a
demand that the disabled have some political influence in any decision that
might affect them in any way whatsoever (rather as ‘stakeholder theory’,
with respect to business activities, also attempts to do):
“… there is a need for much
stronger statutory underpinning of consultation, with enforceable legal rights
for disabled people.” [Hales, 1996, 17]
“These would include comprehensive
anti-discrimination laws ... and the appropriate resourcing of the nationwide
network of organisations controlled and run by disabled people to ensure their
implementation.” [Hales, 1996, 44]
There is also now Disability Awareness Training, as
‘awareness training’ has long existed for race and ‘gender’. This
embodies the idea that “negative attitudes underpin discrimination against
disabled people.” [Hales, 1996, 121] That discrimination in employment might
be entirely rational, economic and a liberal right is rarely considered. But
Disability Equality Training goes even further, with,
“its routes in the struggles
of disabled people to gain equal opportunities and social justice. Disability
Equality Training is primarily about changing the meaning of disability from
individual tragedy to social oppression … and the links with other oppressed
groups.” [Hales, 1996, 121]
On the other hand, we have the likes of Evelyn Glennie, the
famous percussionist, who does her best to fit in with normal life despite her
deafness without making a fuss or wishing to impose on others. Her championing
of this attitude has made her something of a bête noire among the
disability lobby.
However, the average disabled person is probably no more
politicised or vocal than the average, politically apathetic person. Despite
this, they will not be indifferent to voting for the candidate who promises them
things at others’ imposed expense: the form of vote-buying that is not merely
legal but inherent to representative democracy.
The impact on medicine
There appears to be something of a power struggle between
the medical profession, broadly conceived, and academics, particularly
sociologists and political scientists but there are now some who are explicitly
Disability Studies specialists. The medical professions, though they have their
own Public Choice agenda to some extent, tend to want to treat the disabled to
give them as normal a life as possible. The academics tend to wish to politicise
the debate—disputing the very idea of what is ‘normal’, as we have
seen—and seek more ‘resources’ and ‘rights’. As the academics are more
or less professional arguers with an armoury of ‘isms’ and more of a
specific interest group with respect to this issue, they seem to be getting the
better of the medical profession and this is likely to continue. At times this
must appear to the layman to go beyond parody:
“Feminists have been
challenging medicine’s authority for many years now … I look forward to the
development of a full feminist theory of disability.” [Davis, 1997, 275]
A particular problem is that cures and even ameliorations
for various disabilities are seen as threats by those who see the attitudes of
society as the problem—and maybe who want to protect their own empires. The
laudable medical aim of reducing or eradicating various disabilities in various
liberal ways, including entirely voluntary genetics and abortions, is sometimes
opposed by disability groups:
“The disability rights agenda
opposes genetic diagnosis on the grounds that it devalues the lives of disabled
people.” [Johnstone, 2001, 89][9]
“…genetic testing is a form
of contemporary barbarism to which society has not yet awoken…” [Johnstone,
2001, 89]
At their most extreme, they even seem to want to increase
the population of those who are similarly disabled. A recent case is the deaf
lesbian couple that sought to maximise the chances of having a deaf child, by
insemination from a deaf man. Setting aside whether this might leave the child
with a legal claim against the parents for intentional harm, why should he ever
receive any subsidies from taxation for what was entirely deliberate and not
even perceived as undesirable?
Possible future areas of research, conferences, and publications
Perhaps it would be a useful corrective to attempt some
anti-Disability Studies in the form of research, conferences and publications
explicitly criticising Disability Studies as it currently exists. In responding
to Disability Studies, the medical professions are the natural allies of the
intellectual opposition and their voices would have authority with both
politicians and the public. They also have ‘common sense’ on their side. Of
course, one should not rule out involving economists, philosophers, etc., and
the disabled themselves (especially when they are economists, philosophers,
etc.)
In addition to some general and much needed anti-Disability
Studies research, here are three specific research proposals to tackle the
problem.
1. One radical alternative approach is to produce a report
arguing that it is possible to encourage people to take out proper private
insurance; both for themselves and their children should they become disabled
and possibly for their unborn offspring should they be born disabled (insurance
would be higher if one declines or fails a genetic test). It ought to be
possible to show that it is quite likely that the disabled will end up having a
better deal than they currently do. After all, it is now generally recognised
that pensions would have been significantly higher if the money supposedly taken
for so-called National Insurance (really a tax on employing people) were
properly invested like a real insurance scheme instead of being spent by the
government so that later taxpayers bear the burden of state pensions. Even if
this were a compulsory scheme, that would be an improvement. Such an approach
could be phased in to ensure that no currently disabled are left without
support.
2. Produce detailed calculations of the vast expense that
the bureaucracy of managing disability costs, along with the expense of such
things as universal wheelchair access, and then argue that we should instead
offer the disabled more direct cash—but at a tax-saving, obviously—to spend
as they wish. This might have significant support from the disabled themselves,
whose opinions certainly ought to count for more than those in the Disability
Industry who wish to ‘administer’ and ‘help’ them. Having seen how
relatively inexpensive this ought to be, an eventual move back towards
voluntary, charitable, provision of genuinely deserving cases might then become
much more practical (or at least phasing in such a thing as far as politics
allows).
3. More generally, there could be a well-argued attack on
the coercively monopolised and tax-subsidised university system. This should
show how it could efficiently be physically de-politicised (no imposed monopoly,
no tax-money) so that its employees are more likely to become ideologically de-politicised.
Fully free-market institutions tend to be pro-market. It will just take time to
get rid of the old guard. This should help to destroy the source of much of the
illiberalism that is generating all these various industries (and vast amounts
of general anti-liberal propaganda besides, which is influencing the wider
society as well as corrupting the minds of so many young people who will become
tomorrow’s decision makers). A Public Choice School analysis of the various
vested interests could be included.
Conclusion
Thanks mainly to the free market, the (dwindling proportion
of the) objectively disabled have never had it so good. But this initial survey
indicates the politically imposed harm that is currently occurring and the
greater harm that is due. The very idea of Disability Studies ought not to
presuppose that there is an ‘oppressed’ group that needs to be
‘empowered’ with its ‘rights’, though one could be forgiven for thinking
this on looking through the mainstream literature.The severely disabled
are rightly sympathised with and helped on a voluntary basis. The idea that any
degree of disability gives you the automatic moral or legal right to
compensation to bring you up to some normal level of welfare[10]
is both impracticable and immoral. It also creates perverse incentives and moral
hazards that inflate the numbers of the ‘disabled’ in a variety of ways.
With ever more rights to be included at others’ imposed expense, and rights to
things paid for with other people’s money, the disabled are in danger of being
changed from the proper object of decent voluntary help, where there is genuine
need, into a privileged and growing interest group of oppressors of more
ordinary people—who will rightly regard them with a certain scepticism, at the
very least.
Bibliographical references
There is a plethora of books on Disability Studies. It
might be possible to compile a bibliography of recent books alone as long as
this article. I have mainly restricted myself to quoting from the following four
books, as these appear to be in every way typical of the literature in the area
while offering a broad selection of writers (though I have always cited them by
the first editor or contributor), disabilities dealt with and academic
disciplines.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. & Shakespeare, T. (1999) Exploring
Disability: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge, Polity
David, Lennard J. (Ed) (1997) The Disability Studies
Reader, London, Routledge
Hales
G. 1996 (Ed) Beyond Disability: Towards an Enabling Society London, Sage
Johnstone,
D. (2001) An Introduction to Disability Studies, second edition, London,
David Fulton Publishers
Relevant websites of
interest
The following are
the URLS of only a handful of websites that are of particular interest, but
these link to many others as well.
[1]
The original version of this paper was commissioned as a report with set
headings and style of approach. Thus it is not how I would otherwise have
written it and might read somewhat awkwardly in places. But rather than
beginning afresh, which would be time-consuming, or abandoning a piece that
seems to say something not said elsewhere, which is a contribution to the
debate even if it were entirely mistaken, I present it more or less as I
finally submitted it.
[2] This tax-consumption is on
balance, or net, even where universities might also have substantial non-tax
funding as well—such as the Open University. That academics are not (net)
taxpayers but always tax consumers cannot but influence their attitudes to
calling for more ‘resources’ (tax funding). [http://212.67.202.149/~articles/tax.htm]
[3] But why stop at the
possibly denigrating idea of ‘impairments’? They might yet go on to
assert that they are not even objectively impaired but merely different. For
which differences are impairing depends on the social and technological
conditions.
[4] It sometimes clarifies
matters to consider these things at a personal level. Taking this conception
seriously, one would apparently be actively ‘oppressing’ (all?) disabled
people if one were biased in favour of marrying an able-bodied person.
[5] An irony that is clearly
unintended here is that such ‘empowering’ is indeed an illiberal power
over other people, proactively to force them to fund and accept the
disabled/impaired/different. It is, then, a licence rather than a liberty
they seek.
[6] Apparently Rawls’s views
on coercive redistribution to help the worst-off group are
‘right-wing’—compared to these academics at least.
[7] It also leaves the country
wide open to Dalek invasion, of course.
[8] I cannot locate a more
definite reference for the relevant legislation, but the main point is that
this is the sort of diseconomic thing we have and that we can increasingly
expect.
[9] Unless, perhaps (see the
next paragraph), it is deliberately used to create a disabled person.
[10] Cf. Ronald Dworkin and
Will Kymlicka, passim, extending John Rawls’s arguments on Social Justice.
Top 50 books of all time : by Old Hickory:- "I have limited the selection to the books I have read. I keep to the norm of not recommending to others books I have yet to read. Clearly, books I have not read by now suggests a judgement of some sort."
Requires Adobe Acrobat
Reader. This is available
for free at www.adobe.com
and on many free CDs.
There is a style of argument, even propaganda (for there is usually
little genuine debate with opposing liberal views), that can be seen
in many other areas of academia. It amounts to a relatively new
‘progressive’ industry with various fashionable keywords, phrases
and ideologies—often not obviously related to disabilities in any
serious way—indicating the nature of the beast: progressive,
radical, oppression, bourgeois, empowerment, rights, equal
opportunities, discrimination, prejudice, citizenship, social justice,
socially constructed, Marxism, Post Modernism and Feminism.
And proactively to impose the costs of this provision to any degree,
as they advocate, would itself be—and is now, in fact—an
oppression of the able for the benefit of the disabled (and the
growing numbers of those employed in the Disability Industry: it would
be enlightening to know what percentage of what is spent actually
reaches the disabled themselves).
The academics, social workers and disabled form a loose interest group
of sorts, but with significant differences of interest, along Public
Choice Theory lines. Behind the apparently scholarly and moral debate
is often the bottom line of ‘more resources’ (tax-funding) for
this or that activity. With academics and social workers there is more
interest in ‘empire building’ for themselves (more professionals
with more control of more resources). The vocal disabled often express
a desire to take more direct control of services and resources.
The numbers of asserted
disabled is enormous and questionable. Is it really plausible that as
many as 15% in the US are disabled in any serious sense? [Davis, 1997,
1] 20% of the working population in the UK are disabled according to
the Disability Rights Commission (Disability Briefing: February 2001).
One in five is remarkably high. Is it mere cynicism to think that
these figures might be inflated by various state handouts for
registering as disabled, combined with lenient testing of such claims?
On the other hand, we
have the likes of Evelyn Glennie, the famous percussionist, who does
her best to fit in with normal life without making a fuss or wishing
to impose on others. Her championing of this attitude has made her
something of a bête noire among the disability lobby.
The usual Public Choice theory applies. There is no tax-money to be
gleaned by opposing the appropriation of tax-money by others. But
there is tax-money to be shared in joining them or campaigning for an
alternative tax-consuming project. There is also the additional factor
here that anyone questioning such arguments might appear particularly
heartless and, especially in academia, possibly risk ostracism and
professional difficulties.
More generally, there could be a well-argued attack on the coercively
monopolised and tax-subsidised university system. This should show how
it could efficiently be physically de-politicised (no imposed
monopoly, no tax-money) so that its employees are more likely to
become ideologically de-politicised. This should help to destroy the
source of much of the illiberal nonsense that is generating all these
various industries (and vast amounts of general anti-liberal
propaganda besides, which is influencing the wider society as well as
infecting the minds of so many young people who will become
tomorrow’s decision makers). A Public Choice School analysis of the
various vested interests could be included.