The rationale for the bill, which was originally written by two student organizations at the University of Missouri–Columbia, is certainly well-intentioned. As a student with at least two more years of textbook buying to anticipate, I am particularly drawn to ideas that mitigate the costs of education. In practice, however, all three of the bill’s provisions have fundamental flaws. Ideally, these faults would merely render the potential act ineffective, so that it causes no harm despite the fact that it will do no good. It is more likely, though, that the act would actually increase costs to students.

The bill would oblige textbook publishers, upon request, to provide to professors a price and revision history, and a list of alternative formats. Currently, those interested in this information can simply check the Internet or ask a sales representative. Professors who are not interested would be completely unaffected by this provision, because it only requires producers to provide this information if asked. Further, legally mandating this unnecessary condition would impose marginal sales burdens on bookstores and publishers. The associated costs would be passed on to consumers, at least in part, in the form of higher prices.

Why would students want their professors to select textbooks based on price, anyway? Content is a much more important factor. Considering the generally small deviation in the prices for comparable textbooks and the fact that books constitute a tiny fraction of overall education expenses, even the most cash-strapped students should be willing to trust their professors’ selections.

Successful textbook authors enjoy an intellectual monopoly. This is because few potential competitors can meet the tremendous input costs of time and expertise that go into creating worthwhile textbooks, and fewer still can undertake the significant risk that a new book will not attract sufficient market share from the existing standard. This market power over such a narrow consumer base allows the publishers of successful books to charge high prices. In order to partially reconcile monopolistic pricing with what consumers think is fair, publishers often attach less popular books and resources to the core text. This way, students receive more for their money and authors retain their profits.

If Missouri lawmakers take away the option to bundle books, producers will have little trouble reclaiming their lost profits elsewhere. Authors of quality textbooks could simply charge more for their individually profitable works without facing much penalty from eagerly subscribing professors. Also, students interested in using supplemental materials would suffer as decreased profitability from unbundling would limit their continued production. In some cases, students might save the relatively small costs of supplements they don’t want, but price hikes and the forfeit of some potentially useful supplements are more probable.

The last portion of the bill would allow excess scholarship funds to be spent on required texts at school bookstores. Although it seems sensible, this provision would likely promote harmful inefficiencies. The appropriately narrow parameters of scholarship funds give students little incentive or means to shop for bargain prices. Although scholarship recipients may not be overly concerned with thrift when spending the money they’ve been granted, scholarship donors and public funds would suffer from having to consistently back purchases made at campus store premiums. Carefree spending by scholarship students would directly profit authors and publishers, which would only drive up textbook prices by further encouraging frequent revisions. If the same excess scholarship money were instead passed on to tuition-paying families, education would be less costly in general and textbook purchases would be subject to the efficiency of the market.

The proposed Textbook Transparency Act is fraught with problems. Rather than opposing successful authors who provide superior resources, Missouri lawmakers should realize that textbook prices are ultimately driven by supply and demand. If nothing else, the practical inefficiencies of this bill should alarm everyone interested in its goal of lowering education costs. Student groups should focus their energy on informing peers about cost-saving alternatives to campus bookstores rather than appealing to potentially costly and assuredly inefficient legislative mandates.

Dan Grana is an intern with the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is an undergraduate student in economics and history at the University of Notre Dame.

In fairness to the cities, the changes to the law are indeed unclear. An open reading makes one wonder whether any future TIF projects must be passed by both a municipal and county TIF commission, or just one of the two. According to lawyers familiar with the issue, bonds for upcoming projects will not be issued until these questions are settled. While I have no personal objection to seeing our area’s latest strip mall proposal face bonding problems, the General Assembly should nonetheless return to the statute language (RSMo 99.820) to rectify these issues. It should clarify the statute in the direction of more authority at the county level, though, and less at the municipal level.

Which level of government should really be making these decisions about tax increment financing or other types of tax incentives? The debate tends to weigh two sides: cities that presumably know what is best for their city and their residents, or higher levels of authority that can hopefully consider the larger picture — which generally affects much more than just the cities. I believe the county level works best here. After all, county government is local government by every measure. I trust that the powers that be in Saint Louis County are not so far removed in their Clayton skyscrapers that they have no idea what is best for the people of Saint Ann.

Counties are also large enough to put proposed tax incentives into perspective, making decisions outside of a municipal vacuum. If these incentive decisions were made at the county level, cities would no longer face the fear and pressure to “remain competitive” with surrounding cities by issuing generous incentives. Cities would certainly maintain a voice in the process, along with school districts, through rotating appointments on the county TIF commission that would be determined by the locations of future proposals.

In their lawsuit, the cities claim that the new statute is unconstitutional because it treats Saint Charles, Saint Louis, and Jefferson counties differently from the state’s other counties. This claim strikes me as absurd. Our statutes contain numerous laws written especially for one county or another. Because the lawsuit involves six cities from Saint Louis County, I’ll give two — out of many — examples where Saint Louis County is treated differently from the rest of the state. The legal process for municipal annexations and incorporations is different, and more controlled, in Saint Louis County than elsewhere, and only taxing districts in Saint Louis County are allowed to declare varying tax rates for multiple property classifications. Are these laws, and the many others like them involving cities and counties throughout the state, all also unconstitutional?

If judges and elected officials ultimately determine the commission power rests at the county level, we could expect an end to TIFs and similar giveaways in Saint Charles, and a reduction in their use in Saint Louis and Jefferson counties. The tremendous fiscal discipline shown by Saint Charles, while still experiencing great economic growth, demonstrates why these decisions should be made at the county level. And while it has not been quite as sagacious as Saint Charles, Saint Louis County has been more discriminating in its use of incentives than have many of the municipalities within its borders.

All of the prominent abuses of TIF in Saint Louis County — most famously at the West County Mall — have occurred within municipalities, rather than in the unincorporated areas. Similarly, the ugly case of tax incentives and eminent domain abuse that was recently heard by the state Supreme Court occurred in the city of Arnold — not unincorporated Jefferson County. I believe the residents of all three counties would be better served by having countywide commissions and elected county officials responsible for tax incentive determinations.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.