« Tipping is hard | Main | Real business cycle theory is not dead »
The power of competition, or should there by library fines?
"Libraries are facing competition from television, magazines, the internet, e-books, yet they have this archaic and mad idea of charging people money for being slightly late," said library consultant Frances Hendrix - a loud voice in the debate which has been taking place on an online forum for librarians. "It's all so negative, unprofessional and unbusinesslike; like any business, libraries need not to alienate their customers." Liz Dubber, director of programmes at reading charity The Reading Agency, agreed. "My personal view [is that] they're past their sell-by date because they do sustain a very old-fashioned image of libraries which is out of sync with today's modern library environment and the image libraries are trying to project - tolerant, responsive, flexible, stimulating," she said.
Some critics have described the fines as "alienating." But are there alternatives?:
One librarian suggested adopting the ancient practice of some monasteries, in which monks who offended in the handling of books were publicly cursed. Another pointed to Soviet Russia, where they said that offenders' names were published in newspapers to shame them into returning their books. In New Zealand town Palmerston North next week, library users returning late books are being challenged to beat librarians on Guitar Hero to have their fines waived.
In any case this economist will suggest higher fines for very new and popular books and also commonly used reference manuals, combined with lower fines for everything else.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 18, 2008 at 03:38 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
In Britain, words such as "tolerant, responsive, flexible, stimulating" tend to be uttered by Stalinist bullies.
Posted by: dearieme at Aug 18, 2008 5:44:48 AM
How about getting rid of government libraries and allowing the free market to decide whether library fines should be eliminated? Free markets encourage experiments, some of which fail and others succeed.
Posted by: at Aug 18, 2008 6:13:54 AM
The libraries have the right to set their strategy themselves, even if some people call it stupid. They have the right to be stupid.
When you don't like a price, you don't buy it. If you want to negotiate, you may say "If the price were lower, I would buy it." But you cannot (and should never try to) force the seller to lower the price. Trying to force someone's individual decision is a violence.
Posted by: hyokon at Aug 18, 2008 6:29:19 AM
I've never seen libraries, at least in terms of letting people borrow books, as being a "business" and certainly never thought of people who go to libraries to read and/or check out (borrow) books as library "customers." If they want to be in the business of renting media for profit, there's already an established business model for that - video rental. Pay $X for new releases for a rental of Y days, with $Z for every day over Y as a late fee. Very simple. Libraries can all adapt that business model if they want to try to make a profit.
Is the purpose of a library really to make a profit? They call them "public libraries" for a reason, and I've certainly never heard of a "private library"... taxpayer dollars fund libraries. They offset their operating costs with charging for the Xerox machines and maybe for initial membership fees (though I recall a library card being free).
Libraries, as in brick and mortar places to go to pay to "rent" physical paper books, would never survive. Nobody's ever even suggested it would be a viable business model.
Late fees on books are not like traffic tickets - they've never been a source of revenue for local governmental units.
Posted by: Bruce at Aug 18, 2008 7:03:48 AM
"A practice common in business is insufferable by government. Pay for government services? Insufferable!"
(From Libertarianism in One Lesson; The Second Lesson, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/twolesson.html)
It's very hard to find a financial service without late fees. Credit cards and mortgages for example. Or try bringing back a rental car or video a few minutes late without being charged for another entire day. So libertarians whine about a few cents late fees at public libraries, but will not criticize entire industries whose most profitable practices are late fees.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Aug 18, 2008 7:04:22 AM
The libraries have the right to set their strategy themselves, even if some people call it stupid.
They would if they were independent, self-supporting organizations. But they're not -- they live on yours and my tax $$.
I often wish I had the $250 year I pay in library taxes here to spend on books and CDs from internet vendors. Never any late fees on those because I never have to return 'em. Also, they're never already checked out by somebody else, I never have to worry if the librarian has the same tastes as I do and has decided not to buy the title I want, and I never have to drive to get the books (or return them) -- which generally makes used books bought over the net cheaper than 'free' books from the library if you figure the cost of driving and parking to check out and return and especially if you put any value on your time. Even better is when the books and music I want are available instantly in electronic form -- especially books in the public domain, which are available both instantly and for free.
Posted by: Slocum at Aug 18, 2008 7:07:20 AM
I've been advocating the idea of Permanent Checkouts for at least some e-books (with quotas so libraries don't become bookstores in disguise). See some recent thoughts at:
http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/04/26/library-books-you-can-keep-forever-and-other-ideas-to-help-public-libraries-survive-the-digital-era/
Fines are no small detail for low-income families worried about the costs. The Permanent Checkout concept would be one way to encourage use of libraries by those who normally shied away from them.
David Rothman
TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home
http://www.teleread.org/blog
Posted by: David Rothman at Aug 18, 2008 7:14:10 AM
Let me add that right now library systems typically provide for auto expiration borrowed of e-books.
Still, the idea of letting people actually KEEP some e-books for private use would be a nice little wrinkle and encourage the building of personal libraries.
David Rothman
TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home
http://www.teleread.org/blog
Posted by: David Rothman at Aug 18, 2008 7:23:30 AM
I sense Palmerston North having a wave of intentionally late books, at least until their librarians become legendarily good through long practice.
Me, I have recently fallen in love with my public library, which must be loads better than Slocum's -- I can walk to the local branch, it's part of an extensive library consortium meaning that the books I have access to through it are extremely diverse if I'm willing to wait a few days, I can request anything in the system online, I can get access to some databases from home, I can even check out free passes for local museums and the like. Now if only the online request system ran more like Netflix...
Posted by: Andromeda at Aug 18, 2008 7:48:10 AM
Another view: the reason public libraries have not only survived but thrived is because they provide a service to the community that the free market cannot.
As for fines, at least in my town they are minimal (20 cents a day?) and it's hard to imagine anybody being "alienated" by them.
As for the commentors who complains about his taxes going to fund libraries, you're always free to move to an area that doesn't have them. The fact that you continue to live in a place that does indicates that it's worth it to you.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Aug 18, 2008 8:11:59 AM
Dan Tarrant,
The fact that you continue to live in a place that does indicates that it's worth it to you.
That only indicates living in his town is worth a premium of $250/year over living elsewhere—perhaps because of other amenities, perhaps because of commute times, perhaps for emotional reasons. But not because the library itself is worth anything to him at all.
Posted by: nicole at Aug 18, 2008 8:52:11 AM
As a librarian in a consortium that has recently been through this debate and chosen to eliminate fines, I found the reasons given in this article for doing away with fines a bit odd. I don't know whether patrons really find the fines "alienating" as much as either a hardship or a nuisance, depending on the patron's ability to pay. I don't worry about them being unprofessional or "un-businesslike", however, as library fines are a long established part of the "business model" for many western libraries, and they are generally expected and accepted by patrons. Anyway, patrons can usually have the fines waived or reduced just by asking.
We eliminated fines mostly because they don't really work as an incentive to get people to return their items on time, which is what we really want. Ten or twenty cents a day is not really likely to register with very many people as a significant expense, even if the fines on a stack of books over a couple of weeks add up to a great deal of money. We'll send a replacement bill if an item is very overdue, which usually encourages people to return it.
Posted by: jonvw at Aug 18, 2008 9:04:04 AM
Prince William County Libraries in Virginia have a "Fortunate Find" category for new and popular titles. The rules require a shorter borrowing period, and higher fines, and no right to renew.
For all other books, renewal is easy and virtually unlimited. When a book is requested by another borrower, renewals are no longer allowed.
The only way anyone could end up with significant fines is by being stupid or lazy.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist at Aug 18, 2008 9:09:49 AM
Nicole is right, Tarrant values his community enough for all reasons to prefer it to alternatives. That said, it is a little like people complaining about their $50 cable bills, by saying that they would rather have 1/2 the channels for $25, because they don't watch channels 2,6,7,9...etc. Take away the library, and the mix of people in the community, etc. may change. Or the library may be part of a delicate political compromise to also fund the local Little League fields and foot patrolmen. On another note, $250 per person for the library is a lot of cash. I doubt that our library receives more than $20 per person. On the other hand, they fund raise extensively and recently squeezed me for a $1,000 capital campaign pledge to help build a new children's wing. And the library is great. Not getting all necessary money from government helps keep the library more energetic.
Posted by: liberarts at Aug 18, 2008 9:21:28 AM
When I was a lad in the '70s, the fine at my library was a nickel a day. At my library today, the cost of the fine is... a nickel a day. The head librarian is a friend of mine, and she says that she thinks that people would go nuts if she raised the fine. I'd actually like my library to go to the Netflix model. I'd pay a certain amount per month, they'd mail me my book of choice, I'd mail it back when I am done. No late fees.
Posted by: Buzzcut at Aug 18, 2008 9:38:16 AM
"In any case this economist will suggest higher fines for very new and popular books and also commonly used reference manuals, combined with lower fines for everything else."
Yes! Thank you! One need not do back-bends to come up with "cool" alternatives like guitar championships or SHAME people or whip people or throw rocks at people, at least until the power of supply and demand have been exhausted. A little common sense; thank you for that.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 18, 2008 9:44:17 AM
nicole writes:
"That only indicates living in his town is worth a premium of $250/year over living elsewhere—perhaps because of other amenities, perhaps because of commute times, perhaps for emotional reasons. But not because the library itself is worth anything to him at all."
Living in a civilization is kind of a package deal; you can't decide what particular public amenities you want your tax dollars to fund any more than the way you can't eat at a restaurant and ask them to deduct a few cents off your tab because you don't like the expensive wall decor.
And just because you don't use the public library doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to the quality of the community as a whole, which is really what you're paying for when you pay a community's taxes.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Aug 18, 2008 9:47:15 AM
"All government activity is use of force, and thus violence. Yes, this includes public libraries: don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public libraries?"
(Better quote from Libertarianism in One Lesson; The Second Lesson, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/twolesson.html)
At our public university library staff get four-month check-outs and unlimited renewals unless someone else requests an item (and even then it's never recalled early, you still have until the current due date). Students have shorter checkouts. Reference material never leaves the library (that's why it's called reference). Class reserves are checked out by the hour for in-library use and fines are calculated by the hour also. I don't know if they have fines, but at some point they'll probably charge the item to your student account and you won't get any transcripts sent out until you're paid up.
Posted by: Jim at Aug 18, 2008 9:54:30 AM
"Libraries face competition" -- and they think a major factor here is late fees?
This is hard to believe, given the high education level of librarians.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Aug 18, 2008 9:55:40 AM
As a frequent library patron, I want other users to be incentivized to return books that I want sooner, and late fees are a way to make that happen. And I'm perfectly willing to pay my share as well. That said, it would be possible to only charge late fees on overdue material that another user has requested (i.e., you borrow with an unlimited time horizon until somebody requests an item, from which point you only have a remaining one/two/three week period with the item before you being to accrue fines).
Posted by: Nick E at Aug 18, 2008 10:31:23 AM
With my forgetfulness, to me libraries are effectively book rental services with a three week free trial period for each book. :)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Aug 18, 2008 11:11:01 AM
Why not emphasize the concept of sharing, by allowing direct emailing from a patron interested in a book, to the current holder? Explain why you are interested in the book, ask if they have finished it and even what they thought of it!
Thus, a relationship can be established, (instead of an abstract transaction) and an agreement reached between two individuals without intrusion of a higher power. If the current holder just can't be bothered now, one could even offer to come by and pick it up!
Posted by: malcolm klein at Aug 18, 2008 11:44:24 AM
Personally, I liked the strategy my old college library used. If the book was requested by another patron, then it was a dollar a day, otherwise you essentially had a 28 day grace period, which after that time you were charged $10 plus the replacement fee for the book (though if you returned the book it'd just be the $10 fine). Popular books, videos, etc. had a 25 cent fine.
Apparently, the $10 after 28 days was done since too much time was being spent collecting minuscule fines from patrons.
Posted by: champthom at Aug 18, 2008 12:19:18 PM
malcolm klein: Privacy. You'd have to create some sort of anonomizing server that would obfuscate any indentifying information. Even then you'd risk idiots signing their name at the end and suing because they were allowed to violate their privacy...
Posted by: Levi at Aug 18, 2008 1:09:21 PM
Fairfax has varying checkout periods depending on the newness/popularity of the books, 3 renewals permitted unless someone else wants it, but still assesses late fees.
I like the policy. If I could keep books until requested by another reader, they might well get lost among my own books. And even though I make use of the website to get into the waiting list for new books (like Tyler's), I do browse the shelves and take out books I see. If the book is in someone's home, I am less likely to become aware of it.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Aug 18, 2008 1:34:40 PM
