Given the breakdown of belief in public goods we see erupting around the country, it seems possible the public libraries will face severe funding crises in the next decade or two, possibly so severe that they will become less public if they manage to survive. Would this necessarily be a bad thing?
In some places, they have already become slightly less public. Several systems are outsourcing their operations to LSSI, which now runs about 65 public libraries in the country. While there’s always an uproar from librarians about LSSI, community reaction seems to be mixed. Regardless, the libraries run by LSSI are still publicly funded, if not publicly operated.
Outsourcing is only a viable option if there’s still a belief that the service being outsourced is a public good. Cities outsource garbage collection, because garbage collection is a public good, or at least the lack of it is a VERY obvious public bad.
But what of public libraries? Their disappearance would immediately harm many people, indirectly harm others. Unfortunately, once a society gives up believing in public goods, rather than merely the avoidance of public bads, the harm isn’t immediate or universal.
What would happen if we had a future in which, say, the Tea Partiers were actually the small government movement dedicated to the Constitution they claim to be, and that the movement won so many elections at so many levels that they could just eliminate most government services that weren’t absolutely necessary for social survival?
Admittedly, this is a long shot, because there’s a big difference between holding up signs at rallies reading “Obama, Read the Consitution!” or “Say NO to Socilism” and actually governing, and the Tea Party movement itself seems little different from the incoherent amalgam of libertarians and conservative Christians that formed Reagan’s base, only without a charismatic leader to make it work.
But let’s say that or something like it happens. The vast majority of the country decides that only absolutely minimum government is acceptable. All but the total loonies will probably vote to fund police, fire, and sanitation services, but much else will go. Or maybe cities just run out of money and close their libraries. That might be the death of public libraries, but not necessarily the death of libraries available to the public.
Rather than disappear, it seems more likely that if they’re really needed public libraries will devolve into various pre-20th century forms, probably some variety of subscription library. Subscription libraries were 18th and 19th century predecessors to public libraries where citizens who wanted to read would pay a fee to a library or buy shares in order to access their books and magazines.
The difference between exclusive subscription libraries and public libraries is obvious. With public libraries, most people pay for the libraries somehow, but they don’t necessarily pay in proportion to their library use. Billionaire Bob pays property high taxes but probably doesn’t use the library, whereas Penurious Pete pays little, but might spend every afternoon there.
Eventually, public libraries replaced other library models because important and influential citizens decided the benefits of libraries outweighed the burdens of taxation, but that might not be the case now. A lot of influential citizens aren’t exactly what we’d consider public minded.
Subscription libraries couldn’t afford to be as open as public libraries are now, which doesn’t mean they would be closed to the public. The kind of people who would pay for a library would also realize it’s benefit to all. Maybe there would just be different levels of service.
For example, these libraries might still offer bestselling fiction, DVDs, and other frivolities. These could be restricted to subscribers only. Educational material, children’s books and programs, and such might be offered to everyone out of a sense of charity.
On the other hand, these libraries really would be privatized, and thus could do what they like, so they might offer their services for free, or free to children, or on a sliding fee scale depending on income or neighborhood, not on usage.
Without taxes supporting libraries, there’s no reason not to ask everyone to contribute something if they want to use the library. Whatever the fee, it would still be significantly less than individually purchasing all the books and computers and whatever else the library supplied.
This regression would be the end of the public library movement as we’ve known it for over a century, but there could be advantages. Libraries that managed to stay open would know that everyone who helped support the library actually wanted to support the library.
They would be immune from funding cuts by politicians. They would be protected from book challenges, since the response could be, if you don’t like the book, don’t subscribe to the library.
Eventually, they would come to serve exactly the needs of the community members that funded them, whatever those needs might be. The library users would have a greater sense of owning their library, because they would. Libraries wouldn’t have to advocate to an uncaring public, because such libraries would inarguably be necessary and useful.
Some new thing might emerge that would be less ambitious perhaps, but acutely focused on what the actual users wanted from their library, instead of trying to woo everyone with every service.
Would this be such a bad thing?