In capitalist societies, goods and services have a cost (not necessarily the same as value) determined in theory by their supply as well as demand. Professionals essentially deliver a service (application of their often specialised knowledge in a particular field), to their consumer (eg: client, employer, etc).

The knowledge monopoly derives from the fact that it is inefficient or not economical for the client to undertake the training and gain the experience to carry out the service themself, but also that there a limited supply of the professional in a particular field. Some fields are much more difficult to enter than others’, with examples of the former being the medical profession in particular.

Obviously being an accredited doctor brings a large set of responsibilities to the patients dealt with, and thus it is in the best interests of the patient to be under the care of a qualified and competent doctor. However, there is a severe lack of doctors in the public system, leading to more work pressure per doctor, which leads to higher renumeration (high demand, limited supply). Indeed, it is the monetary reward that inspires many to enter the profession. The question must be asked: do stressed and overworked doctors necessarily deliver a better service?

So why not more doctors? The medical profession is the one of the most difficult to enter. A high school student must either produce a near-perfect ENTER score, or be able to invest signficant amounts of money for a full-fee paying place (and a slightly lower score). These hefty requirements are again driven by short supply and high demand.

Why not offer more places? Universities can maximise their revenue by maintaining a lucrative service, offering more places reduces that, and thus it is not in their best interests to do so. (Especially given there is chronic underfunding of Universities and other Tertiary institutions…)

Notice the catch 22? Less places leads to fewer doctors, leads to higher sallaries, leads to greater demand to become a doctor, and so forth. Those in the profession also establish “professional” organisations which on one hand “ensure” a level of qualification and quality control, also essentially establish a monopoly on the trade of that particular service.

As a side note, public hospitals are also underfunded, and it is ultimately the patient who foots the bill and covers the costs of increased sallaries. A problem is when some cannot afford treatment (even with some government subsidies), which then undermines the equity of an important public service.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 3rd, 2006 at 11:40 pm and is filed under Humanity & Society, Miscellany. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.