Americans, convinced that education could be the panacea for all their ills, answered with vigorous action. Librarians, like all educators, rose to this new challenge, and programs designed to "Americanize" the immigrant, and thus render him harmless to the American way sprang up in all the major libraries in the country. Librarians left little doubt as to the true purpose of their aggressive new programs. One appropriately named librarian (Miss Countryman) proclaimed in 1903: "I believe still that the library should be an Americanizing institution. . . . Discontent with surroundings and ignorance are the causes of rebellion and disloyalty to one's country, and both of these the library may help to dispel from the foreigner. The philanthropic energy and perhaps some of the motive is captured for us by Jesse Shera's report of a conversation between Mr. Dooley, that perceptive critic of an earlier American scene, and his friend Hennessey: "Has Andhrew Carnaygie given ye a libry yet?" asked Mr. Dooley. "Not that I know iv," said Mr. Hennessy. "He will," said Mr. Dooley. 'Ye'll not escape him. Befure he dies he hopes to crowd a libry on ivry man, woman, an' child in th' counthry. He's given thim to cities, towns, villages an' whistlin' stations. They're tearin' down gas-houses an' poor houses to put up libries. Befure another year, ivry house in Pittsburgh that ain't a blast-furnace will be a Carnaygie libry. In some places all th' buildin's is libries. If ye write him f'r an autygraft he sinds ye a libry. No beggar is iver turned impty-handed fr'm th' dure. Th' panhandler knocks an' asts f'r a glass iv milk an' a roll. " 'No sir,' says Andhrew Carnaygie, 'I will not pauperize this onworthy man. Nawthin' is worse for a beggar-man thin to make a pauper iv him. Yet it shall not be said iv me that I give nawthin' to th' poor. Saunders, give him a libry, an' if he still insists on a roll tell him to roll th' libry. F'r I'm humorous as well as wise,' he says."2 Apart from this latter day criticism of these early philanthropic motives, the point to be made is that from the beginning, the public library represented a kind of alternative to public education services. In this sense it was more a traditional than a nontraditional educational resource. As Kathleen Molz has put it, the public library was viewed by some as the last and most independent stage in a hierarchical system of public education. Who could foresee that compulsory public education and the educational revolution led by John Dewey and others would produce a massive, formalized, almost monolithic educational system. So, the American public library, created to serve informally a wide variety of cultural, educational and informational purposes is described by some as having lost its way in a society which is increasingly complex and fragmented. On top of that, we are part of a continuing THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FINANCE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE 5 revolution in media services and resources which is placing new demands on the traditional role and pattern of services of the public library. At this stage, the public library is neither an integrated component of the public educational scene, nor is it adequately considered as a general service agency in the mainstream of government. That is the root of the problem. Whether by the particular nature of the services which it performs, or by the traditions of its philanthropic origins, the public library has remained as a quite separate and somewhat unrelated institution, almost quasi-governmental in nature. A recent analysis of state library policy points out that strong library programs, under aggressive leadership, can exist in any of our state political environments. The harsh fact, however, is that, whatever the reasons, many states have lagged in the development of adequately supported public library programs. Political leaders and constituencies in this country have not exhibited sufficient concern for progressive public library development designed to meet changing societal needs. The institution continues to dangle on the periphery of the political and governmental scene. The Role Issue Revisited The literature of the public library field can be described as peculiarly defensive particularly in the abundance of writing that deals with the role question. Some writers cite declining readership as evidence of a reduced role, and others raise questions as to whether the public library has lost its social usefulness. Without minimizing the importance of these data in guiding public libraries toward changes in the nature and pattern of services, this kind of evidence cannot be used to validly suggest a diminished role requirement. It can be argued that the nation suffers from its failure to make fuller use of the written record and from the diminution of contemplative skills and private perceptions attained thereby. Public education, in a compulsory setting, is increasingly criticized for performance failure and there is mounting concern over the steady ten-year decline in high school achievement test scores. The reason for these failures in part may be related to factors producing a reduced use of the public library. The point is that in coming to terms with these problems we can and should alter radically the forms and structures used in providing public education or public library services, but we cannot conclude that learning itself is no longer relevant to the needs of a modern society, or that public libraries have outlived their usefulness. Shera's response to the role question is worth noting. He sees the public library in terms of what it can and should do, and what no other agency in society does, or at least can do as well. The function of the library, regardless of its nature or clientele, should be to maximize the social utility of graphic records for the benefit of the individual and, through the individual, of society. The library, as a social invention, was brought into being because graphic records are essential to the development and progress of culture; hence, it is important that the citizen have access to those resources that will best enable him to operate effectively in his several roles as a member of society. The public library, as its name implies, has been predicated on the assumption that it could meet this objective for all strata of the population.3 In any event, consideration of public library financing problems should identify and distinguish among the several purposes and publics served by public libraries. The role and service perspective properly should encompass a library clientele which ranges from the most advanced of researchers to children engaging in their first reading experience. In this context, the public library includes, as Lowell Martin puts it in a later section of this report, both the unique collection of the New York Public Library at 5th Avenue and 42nd Streets and the miscellany of donated books in the upstairs room of the local village hall. The three major functional areas, later defined, which the public library can and should serve are: (1) specialized and research services, (2) information services, and (3) educational-cultural functions and services. The need for these services is broadly defined to include all segments and strata of the general population. In a society featuring the self-realization of each individual, the definition of what is included in specialization, research, information, educational and cultural services is, like beauty and the beholder, in the eye and mind of the seeker-whoever the person and whatever his station in life. The public library is the unique social institution which seeks to meet these widely varying needs. So, while discussion of the role question should not avoid consideration of performance failures, neither should it ignore intrinsic values and societal needs. It should be recognized that the public library is still functioning, welcoming all comers, providing valuable information and resources, and assisting in the search for knowledge and constructive enjoyment of the world in which we live. Accordingly, our social institutions and government must recognize more fully the value of the public library and take actions needed to exploit fully its potential through strengthened organizational support and adequate funding systems. The Library Services Act of 1956 represented the first evidence of national government concern with this problem, but it began as a gap-filling device to spur the growth of rural libraries. Moreover, the level of national fiscal support and the funding mechanism established under the Act cannot be described as a full, THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FINANCE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE 7 adequately supported national commitment for public library development. State support has lagged in its development and is also at a low level. Local support carries the brunt of the load in patterns which vary widely in accordance with tax base capacities and, particularly in urban centers, the need for other essential services. Application of the Public Goods Theory to the Funding of Public Libraries Public library expenditures currently represent only a small proportion of the total cost of governmental services provided by any and all levels of government. The general thrust of this report is to examine the level and assess the pattern of services provided by public libraries, as a basis for outlining alternative funding systems for their support. Such services impact directly on users, but their existence has broader, more indirect effects on individual communities and society at large. Interest and concern have been expressed by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and others on the need to explore the public goods theory to assess its relevance to public library finance issues. The objective of this examination is to determine whether the theory can produce guidelines useful in the development of alternative funding systems. Public Goods Theory: "Private Goods" Versus "Public Goods" Public goods theory attempts to offer an explanation of what governments do and a justification for what they should be doing. In this connection, the theory provides distinctions between goods (and services) that are privately versus governmentally provided and between goods that are privately consumed and public goods. Economists refer to "private goods" as those goods and services for which the consumer who purchases the good pays the full cost to the seller. The transaction takes place in the private sector and the individual consumer is thought of as receiving the full benefit of that good. On the other hand, "public goods" are transferred in the public sector, and are thought of as providing societal benefits as well as individual benefits. Such goods are not paid for on an individual basis. The pure public good is not restricted in its consumption to particular individuals. The classic example is national defense. This good is available to all in the nation and no one is prevented from enjoying (consuming) it. Furthermore, it is not desirable to attempt to restrict the consumption of such a good to particular individuals. It is neither 8 ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY desirable nor possible to charge a price for a pure public good. Finally, once such a good is provided for some individuals, it can be almost freely provided for others also. Public goods have been classified as follows: 1. Those services thought of as providing widespread social benefits that are financed from taxes. These taxes generally bear little relationship to individual benefits. These services are part of the "general environment." Hence, user fees cannot be assessed nor prices charged. Examples of such services are national defense, foreign relations, space exploration, public health, and law enforcement. 2. Those services that are also part of the general environment, but for which user fees are assessed. These user fees are determined to cover most or all the costs. 3. In between the above two extremes are a variety of services that could technically be sold at prices to cover costs. For a variety of reasons, however, such services are financed wholly or in part from general taxes and philanthropic gifts. Examples include public housing, sewerage, symphony orchestras, public and secondary schools, and public libraries. Theoretical Rationale for Funding Services Four reasons are generally cited for public funding of the above described intermediate group of public goods which includes public libraries. First, at prices or fees to cover full costs, consumers of all or most income groups may buy less of the service than is in their own longrun interest. The reason may be lack of knowledge or shortsightedness. This argument has been especially prominent in connection with higher education, the belief having become widespread that students and their families may be persuaded by immediate financial considerations to forego investments that would pay off in the long run. Secondly, the good or service, though capable of being consumed individually and yielding individual benefits, also provides "external" benefits or by-products to society-at-large in forms that improve the general environment. Higher education, or public libraries, may help produce an enlightened citizenry or may enrich and advance the culture to the benefit of those who never attend college or enter public libraries. Third, the distribution of opportunity may be widened. The prices of strategic goods or services such as housing, food, health services and education may exclude low income people from opportunity. One way to spread opportunity is to sell such critical goods or services at below. cost or no cost. |