Governments tend to foster inefficiencies. It’s simple logic: Politicians and laws help mitigate certain issues that the free market does not address and help those that capitalism misses. Economics says that, if solutions to certain problems were efficient or profitable, capitalism would step in and some corporation would do it.
And that is all fine and dandy. The only problems occur during political brokering—when certain entities get explicit protections or relief due to anything other than their benefit to the people. For example, allocating extra subsidies to specific corn farmers hinders competition and the benefits consumers receive from it.
Favoritism does have its benefits. Helping failing businesses can save jobs in the short run and allow those companies a second chance to innovate and compete. Certain specific interventions have come in order to stop volatility and prevent widespread turmoil. If a governing body’s purpose were to represent the people, however, competition—including allowing failing companies to fail—would be the correct thing to do. Less intervention would lead to lower prices, higher efficiency and less government spending. In theory, any job losses would be rectified when efficient corporations increase market share, and cuts of unnecessary or inefficient workers would further lower prices for consumers.
Are there problems? Yes, but there are many more problems with favoritism.
The one place where inefficiencies and ineffectiveness affect student life on a regular basis is through dining. Let me be clear from the start: Workers do their jobs and get paid for it. Although there is constant argument about the ineffectiveness of union workers, it is hard to blame people for taking a job that pays them well and allows them to feed their families. Ask any professional basketball player if they felt it was their responsibility to take less pay than offered. Despite the fact that there were teams losing money, none of the players placed the burden upon themselves. And why should they?
Instead, the inefficiencies are due to a problem with the dining system as a whole, especially in the way it fosters (or rather does not) competition amongst dining locations. In an effort to protect the interests of current dining locations on campus, Duke University has made significant strides to limit the amount of outside interferences. The University has helped prop up failing dining locations by eliminating the competition. Outside of ordering from vendors on Duke’s delivery (which administrators also attempted to limit this year), there is no way for students to use their food points outside of the campus limits. Local restaurants and other eateries are placed at a serious competitive disadvantage, as they are unable to provide their goods on students’ most widely used currency.
This obviously has its benefits. By only allowing students to use food points at locations on campus, Duke helps foster a community. Further, the University also maintains a well-defined location for security and Duke University Police Department officers to patrol.
The problem with this is that by maintaining a distinct barrier between the campus and local dining locations, there is a significant burden placed on students as consumers. With limited dining options, locations are not forced to be efficient or cost-friendly. Instead, they can make significant mark-ups.
Furthermore, by not extending the use of food points to off-campus vendors, Duke is hindering a more complete relationship between students and Durham’s rising small businesses. With a significant number of restaurants on Ninth Street and Erwin Road, the interaction between students and Durham residents would increase simply from opening up the dining options. Villanova University in Pennsylvania currently allows over 70 nearby off-campus vendors on their “Wildcard” plan, and many other universities blur the lines between off-campus vendors and those on campus. Nearby bagel shops, restaurants and even convenience stores allow students to use their student cards to make payments. Duke can implement a similar plan and allow local businesses of its choosing to use food or FLEX points. The University can also charge a fee to those businesses, causing them to mark up their products (and therefore help on-campus businesses compete) while also alleviating the dining deficit.
Obviously there are problems with allowing for off-campus dining options on food points. There are safety concerns with people wandering into Durham at night, but this can be mitigated by only extending the option of food points to nearby businesses as well as shutting off late-night dining at off-campus locations. Further, constant foot traffic from large numbers of students going throughout Durham will make picking off individual students more difficult.
In essence, allowing off-campus options on food points will increase competition, thus increasing quality of goods (and lowering prices) on campus while also providing more variety for students. Also, it will help foster a connection between Duke and Durham and create a mutually beneficial relationship. It is time Duke stopped allowing its students to be burdened by an underwhelming and inefficient dining plan.
Antonio Segalini is a Trinity junior. His column runs every Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.