Public goods are those goods and services provided by the government because a market failure has occurred and the market has not provided them. Sometimes it is in our benefit to not allow for a market provision. In the case of police, national defense and public education it can be argued that private provision of these services would be less desirable for a variety of reasons. Public goods are economic products that are consumed collectively, like highways, sanitation, schools, national defense, police and fire protection. All members of society should theoretically benefit from the provision of public goods but the reality is that some need them more then others. For example the wealthy do not need welfare and the elderly still pay for school taxes. This leads to the inevitable argument about paying for public goods.... taxes! What goods and services should be provided and why do we provide them? Our society, depending on locality, has provided such public goods and services as public education, sanitation, police services, fire protection, libraries, infrastructure maintenance (roads, bridges, communications networks, etc..) and street lighting. Since we live in a market economy whenever we decide to provide a good or service publicly we must answer a variety of questions such as:
We should always ask whether or not a good is best provided by the market. If it can be efficiently provided by private means then this reduces the tax payers load. Some goods can be provided, or may be provided as this is often debatable, by the market but society is better served by providing the service or good publicly. Consider the case of education as an example. While it may be possible to efficiently and cheaply provide education privately, the good of society is better served by public provision. Some goods are what we call a pure public good. These are goods which cannot easily be divided or in which people cannot be excluded from. In this case provision by these public means is necessary. Back To Class Page Economists distinguish broadly among three types of goods along the private to public continuum. Purely private goods are purchased and used by individuals and families. Another way of explaining a private good is to say that my use (or consumption, in economist language) excludes your ability to consume the same good. Food is the best understood example. Food is eaten by one person. A family may purchase and cook for the family and their friends. People may share food with friends or with needy families through food banks, but only one person can eat a particular serving of food. Because private goods are purchased and consumed, traditional supply and demand analysis describes the market for private goods very well. The intersection of private demand curves and production supply curves correctly predicts the appropriate market price and quantity. Public goods are at the opposite end of the continuum. Classic examples include national defense and the internet. The characteristic that distinguishes a pure public good from a pure private good is that one person’s use does not diminish the ability of someone else to use the same good at the same time. You and I are equally protected by U.S. national defense. My consumption does not exclude your consumption. For that reason, traditional supply and demand analysis does not correctly identify how much defense to “produce” and how much each person should pay for his or her defense. In fact, since no business could charge each person for their defense, there is no market mechanism to identify how much each individual is willing to pay. Economists generally agree that pure public goods are properly provided by government and paid for by taxes. There are complicated ways to discern how much each person is willing to pay, but it is much simpler and more acceptable politically to use the tax system. Many goods, including the examples of mail delivery and schools, involve both public and private benefits. There is an expressed private demand for mail delivery and schools. Individuals are willing to pay private delivery services, such as Federal Express and UPS, to deliver mail and packages outside the postal service and families send their children to private schools at high costs, while still paying taxes for public schools. Even sending mail through the postal service is not free and students at primary and secondary schools pay more for many extras that enhance their education. Before government provision of mail service and schooling, private mail service and private schools were the only options. The reason that mail service and schools are also provided by the government is that having universal mail delivery and universal schooling have large public benefits in addition to their private benefits. Let’s look at schooling, in particular. If only the wealthy are educated, most of the population is confined to low-wage, low-skill jobs. The economy suffers and the country does not prosper. Moreover, if only the wealthy are educated, they will control the political agenda. Universal primary and secondary education, combined with subsidized higher education ensures the possibility of equal opportunity for all to move into high-skill, high-wage jobs and to effectively participate in politics. A larger population of high-wage earners contributes to economic growth. Economists refer to goods like schooling, mail service, vaccinations against communicable diseases, roads, and bridges, just to name a few, as having positive externalities. They would be provided privately for those who could pay, but having them available benefits many more people than those willing to pay privately. If large numbers of people are vaccinated, we can prevent pandemics, such as the 1918 flu epidemic. Everyone benefits from having roads and bridges. There is also an important coordination benefit from public support for the production of goods with positive externalities. The public mail service maintains a database of all addresses and zip codes that private mail services also use. The Centers for Disease Control coordinates information on diseases and adjusts vaccinations to account for changes in diseases. The National Weather Service coordinates information on weather that everyone can use to plan for everything we do in our lives, from weekend picnics to airline travel to agricultural planning to disaster preparation. Just as in the case of pure public goods, the private market does not have a mechanism for determining each person’s benefit from having such goods available. And, as in the case of public goods, there are complicated ways to figure out what each person or family is willing to pay. However, it is simpler and more acceptable politically to fund such goods (or the subsidies in addition to private payments) through the tax system.
If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them. Also, use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others.[1] Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.[2] This is in contrast to a common good, such as wild fish stocks in the ocean, which is non-excludable but rivalrous to a certain degree. If too many fish were harvested, the stocks would deplete, limiting the access of fish for others. A public good must be valuable to more than one user, otherwise, the fact that it can be used simultaneously by more than one person would be economically irrelevant.
Capital goods may be used to produce public goods or services that are "...typically provided on a large scale to many consumers."[3] Unlike other types of economic goods, public goods are described as “non-rivalrous” or “non-exclusive,” and use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others.[1] Similarly, using capital goods to produce public goods may result in the creation of new capital goods. In some cases, public goods or services are considered "...insufficiently profitable to be provided by the private sector.... (and), in the absence of government provision, these goods or services would be produced in relatively small quantities or, perhaps, not at all."[3] Public goods include knowledge,[4] official statistics, national security, and common languages.[5] Additionally, flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting are also common social goods. Collective goods that are spread all over the face of the earth may be referred to as global public goods.[6] For instance, knowledge is well shared globally. Information about men, women and youth health awareness, environmental issues, and maintaining biodiversity is common knowledge that every individual in the society can get without necessarily preventing others access. Also, sharing and interpreting contemporary history with a cultural lexicon, particularly about protected cultural heritage sites and monuments are other sources of knowledge that the people can freely access. Public goods problems are often closely related to the "free-rider" problem, in which people not paying for the good may continue to access it. Thus, the good may be under-produced, overused or degraded.[7] Public goods may also become subject to restrictions on access and may then be considered to be club goods; exclusion mechanisms include toll roads, congestion pricing, and pay television with an encoded signal that can be decrypted only by paid subscribers. There is a good deal of debate and literature on how to measure the significance of public goods problems in an economy, and to identify the best remedies. Paul A. Samuelson is usually credited as the economist who articulated the modern theory of public goods in a mathematical formalism, building on earlier work of Wicksell and Lindahl. In his classic 1954 paper The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,[8] he defined a public good, or as he called it in the paper a "collective consumption good", as follows:
A Lindahl tax is a type of taxation brought forward by Erik Lindahl, an economist from Sweden in 1919. His idea was to tax individuals, for the provision of a public good, according to the marginal benefit they receive. Public goods are costly and eventually someone needs to pay the cost.[9] It is difficult to determine how much each person should pay. So, Lindahl developed a theory of how the expense of public utilities needs to be settled. His argument was that people would pay for the public goods according to the way they benefit from the good. The more a person benefits from these goods, the higher the amount they pay. People are more willing to pay for goods that they value. Taxes are needed to fund public goods and people are willing to bear the burden of taxes.[10] Additionally, the theory dwells on people's willingness to pay for the public good. From the fact that public goods are paid through taxation according to the Lindahl idea, the basic duty of the organization that should provide the people with this services and products is the government.[11] The services and public utility in most cases are part of the many governmental activities that government engage purely for the satisfaction of the public and not generation of profits.[12] In the introductory section of his book, Public Good Theories of the Nonprofit Sector, Bruce R. Kingma stated that;
Non-rivalrous: accessible by all while one's usage of the product does not affect the availability for subsequent use.[11] Non-excludability: that is, it is impossible to exclude any individuals from consuming the good. Pure public: when a good exhibits the two traits, non-rivalry and non-excludability, it is referred to as the pure public good. Impure public goods: the goods that satisfy the two public good conditions (non-rivalry and non-excludability) only to a certain extent or only some of the time. Private good: The opposite of a public good which does not possess these properties. A loaf of bread, for example, is a private good; its owner can exclude others from using it, and once it has been consumed, it cannot be used by others. Common-pool resource: A good that is rivalrous but non-excludable. Such goods raise similar issues to public goods: the mirror to the public goods problem for this case is the 'tragedy of the commons'. For example, it is so difficult to enforce restrictions on deep-sea fishing that the world's fish stocks can be seen as a non-excludable resource, but one which is finite and diminishing. Club goods: are the goods that excludable but are non-rivalrous such as private parks. Mixed good: final goods that are intrinsically private but that are produced by the individual consumer by means of private and public good inputs. The benefits enjoyed from such a good for any one individual may depend on the consumption of others, as in the cases of a crowded road or a congested national park.[14] Definition matrix
Challenges in identifying public goodsThe definition of non-excludability states that it is impossible to exclude individuals from consumption. Technology now allows radio or TV broadcasts to be encrypted such that persons without a special decoder are excluded from the broadcast. Many forms of information goods have characteristics of public goods. For example, a poem can be read by many people without reducing the consumption of that good by others; in this sense, it is non-rivalrous. Similarly, the information in most patents can be used by any party without reducing consumption of that good by others. Official statistics provide a clear example of information goods that are public goods, since they are created to be non-excludable. Creative works may be excludable in some circumstances, however: the individual who wrote the poem may decline to share it with others by not publishing it. Copyrights and patents both encourage the creation of such non-rival goods by providing temporary monopolies, or, in the terminology of public goods, providing a legal mechanism to enforce excludability for a limited period of time. For public goods, the "lost revenue" of the producer of the good is not part of the definition: a public good is a good whose consumption does not reduce any other's consumption of that good.[15] Public goods also incorporate private goods, which makes it challenging to define what is private or public. For instance, you may think that the community soccer field is a public good. However, you need to bring your own cleats and ball to be able to play. There is also a rental fee that you would have to pay for you to be able to occupy that space. It is a mixed case of public and private goods. Debate has been generated among economists whether such a category of "public goods" exists. Steven Shavell has suggested the following:
There is a common misconception that public goods are goods provided by the public sector. Although it is often the case that government is involved in producing public goods, this is not always true. Public goods may be naturally available, or they may be produced by private individuals, by firms, or by non-state groups, called collective action.[17] The theoretical concept of public goods does not distinguish geographic region in regards to how a good may be produced or consumed. However, some theorists, such as Inge Kaul, use the term "global public good" for a public good which is non-rivalrous and non-excludable throughout the whole world, as opposed to a public good which exists in just one national area. Knowledge has been argued as an example of a global public good,[4] but also as a commons, the knowledge commons.[18]
Graphically, non-rivalry means that if each of several individuals has a demand curve for a public good, then the individual demand curves are summed vertically to get the aggregate demand curve for the public good. This is in contrast to the procedure for deriving the aggregate demand for a private good, where individual demands are summed horizontally. Some writers have used the term "public good" to refer only to non-excludable "pure public goods" and refer to excludable public goods as "club goods".[19] Digital Public GoodsDigital public goods include software, data sets, AI models, standards and content that are open source. Use of the term “digital public good” appears as early as April, 2017 when Nicholas Gruen wrote Building the Public Goods of the Twenty-First Century, and has gained popularity with the growing recognition of the potential for new technologies to be implemented at scale to effectively serve people. Digital technologies have also been identified by countries, NGOs and private sector entities as a means to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A digital public good is defined by the UN Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, as: “open source software, open data, open AI models, open standards and open content that adhere to privacy and other applicable laws and best practices, do no harm, and help attain the SDGs.” Yosemite National Park, an example of an environmental good.
Public goods are not restricted to human beings.[23] It is one aspect of the study of cooperation in biology.[24] The free rider problem is a primary issue in collective decision-making.[25] An example is that some firms in a particular industry will choose not to participate in a lobby whose purpose is to affect government policies that could benefit the industry, under the assumption that there are enough participants to result in a favourable outcome without them. The free rider problem is also a form of market failure, in which market-like behavior of individual gain-seeking does not produce economically efficient results. The production of public goods results in positive externalities which are not remunerated. If private organizations do not reap all the benefits of a public good which they have produced, their incentives to produce it voluntarily might be insufficient. Consumers can take advantage of public goods without contributing sufficiently to their creation. This is called the free rider problem, or occasionally, the "easy rider problem". If too many consumers decide to "free-ride", private costs exceed private benefits and the incentive to provide the good or service through the market disappears. The market thus fails to provide a good or service for which there is a need.[26] The free rider problem depends on a conception of the human being as homo economicus: purely rational and also purely selfish—extremely individualistic, considering only those benefits and costs that directly affect him or her. Public goods give such a person an incentive to be a free rider. For example, consider national defence, a standard example of a pure public good. Suppose homo economicus thinks about exerting some extra effort to defend the nation. The benefits to the individual of this effort would be very low, since the benefits would be distributed among all of the millions of other people in the country. There is also a very high possibility that he or she could get injured or killed during the course of his or her military service. On the other hand, the free rider knows that he or she cannot be excluded from the benefits of national defense, regardless of whether he or she contributes to it. There is also no way that these benefits can be split up and distributed as individual parcels to people. The free rider would not voluntarily exert any extra effort, unless there is some inherent pleasure or material reward for doing so (for example, money paid by the government, as with an all-volunteer army or mercenaries). The free-riding problem is even more complicated than it was thought to be until recently. Any time non-excludability results in failure to pay the true marginal value (often called the "demand revelation problem"), it will also result in failure to generate proper income levels, since households will not give up valuable leisure if they cannot individually increment a good.[27] This implies that, for public goods without strong special interest support, under-provision is likely since cost-benefit analysis is being conducted at the wrong income levels, and all of the un-generated income would have been spent on the public good, apart from general equilibrium considerations. In the case of information goods, an inventor of a new product may benefit all of society, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for the invention if they can benefit from it for free. In the case of an information good, however, because of its characteristics of non-excludability and also because of almost zero reproduction costs, commoditization is difficult and not always efficient even from a neoclassical economic point of view.[28] The Pareto optimal provision of a public good in a society occurs when the sum of the marginal valuations of the public good (taken across all individuals) is equal to the marginal cost of providing that public good. These marginal valuations are, formally, marginal rates of substitution relative to some reference private good, and the marginal cost is a marginal rate of transformation that describes how much of that private good it costs to produce an incremental unit of the public good. This contrasts to the Pareto optimality condition of private goods, which equates each consumer's valuation of the private good to its marginal cost of production.[8][29] For an example, consider a community of just two consumers and the government is considering whether or not to build a public park. One person is prepared to pay up to $200 for its use, while the other is willing to pay up to $100. The total value to the two individuals of having the park is $300. If it can be produced for $225, there is a $75 surplus to maintaining the park, since it provides services that the community values at $300 at a cost of only $225. The classical theory of public goods defines efficiency under idealized conditions of complete information, a situation already acknowledged in Wicksell (1896).[30] Samuelson emphasized that this poses problems for the efficient provision of public goods in practice and the assessment of an efficient Lindahl tax to finance public goods, because individuals have incentives to underreport how much they value public goods.[8] Subsequent work, especially in mechanism design and the theory of public finance developed how valuations and costs could actually be elicited in practical conditions of incomplete information, using devices such as the Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism. Thus, deeper analysis of problems of public goods motivated much work that is at the heart of modern economic theory.[31] The basic theory of public goods as discussed above begins with situations where the level of a public good (e.g., quality of the air) is equally experienced by everyone. However, in many important situations of interest, the incidence of benefits and costs is not so simple. For example, when people keep an office clean or monitor a neighborhood for signs of trouble, the benefits of that effort accrue to some people (those in their neighborhoods) more than to others. The overlapping structure of these neighborhoods is often modeled as a network.[32] (When neighborhoods are totally separate, i.e., non-overlapping, the standard model is the Tiebout model.) An example of locally public good that could help everyone, even ones not from the neighborhood, is a bus. Let's say you are a college student who is visiting their friend who goes to school in another city. You get to benefit from this services just like everyone that resides and goes to school in said city. There is also a correlation of benefit and cost that you are now a part of. Climate change is a really serious matter in our given time. You are benefiting by not having to walk to your destination and taking a bus instead. However, others might prefer to walk so they do not become a part of the problem, which is pollution due to gas given out by auto mobiles. Recently, economists have developed the theory of local public goods with overlapping neighborhoods, or public goods in networks: both their efficient provision, and how much can be provided voluntarily in a non-cooperative equilibrium. When it comes to socially efficient provision, networks that are more dense or close-knit in terms of how much people can benefit each other have more scope for improving on an inefficient status quo.[33] On the other hand, voluntary provision is typically below the efficient level, and equilibrium outcomes tend to involve strong specialization, with a few individuals contributing heavily and their neighbors free-riding on those contributions.[32][34] Economic theorists such as Oliver Hart (1995) have emphasized that ownership matters for investment incentives when contracts are incomplete.[35] The incomplete contracting paradigm has been applied to public goods by Besley and Ghatak (2001).[36] They consider the government and a non-governmental organization (NGO) who can both make investments to provide a public good. Besley and Ghatak argue that the party who has a larger valuation of the public good should be the owner, regardless of whether the government or the NGO has a better investment technology. This result contrasts with the case of private goods studied by Hart (1995), where the party with the better investment technology should be the owner. However, it has been shown that the investment technology may matter also in the public-good case when a party is indispensable or when there are bargaining frictions between the government and the NGO.[37][38] Halonen-Akatwijuka and Pafilis (2020) have demonstrated that Besley and Ghatak's results are not robust when there is a long-term relationship, such that the parties interact repeatedly.[39] Moreover, Schmitz (2021) has shown that when the parties have private information about their valuations of the public good, then the investment technology can be an important determinant of the optimal ownership structure.[40]
Generally speaking, these are items that are neither exclusive nor competitive in nature. Roads are a good illustration of this. Once they have been made available, the vast majority of people can make use of them, such as those who have a driving license. However, when you utilize a road, the amount of advantage that others can receive is limited to a certain extent, as a result of increasing traffic congestion. Education is another example of a quasi-public good. Different degrees of schooling require distinct classifications. While elementary and secondary education are considered meritocracies, higher education is better regarded as a quasi-public utility. In comparison, knowledge is frequently referred to as a global public good(Chattopadhyay, 2012).
|
What is the name for goods that are provided by the government for the good of the whole of society?
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 estudarpara Inc.
