Abstract

This paper challenges Christopher Winch's arguments against the neo-liberal critique of state intervention in education. First, the nature of education and its consumers are shown to imply that education can indeed be described as a commodity. Second, even if the prisoner's dilemma does model the provision of education nevertheless self-interest can bring about a co-operative, mutually agreeable solution. Third, while democratic states are unlikely to be able to ensure educational equality or equity, even in the form of adequate educational opportunities for all, the evidence and logic of markets suggest that markets will not similarly be handicapped. Thus in each case, it is argued, the neo-liberal critique of state intervention in education survives largely unscathed.