Public Goods And Public Policy: Characteristics & Examples

Characteristics of Public Goods

Discuss about the Public Goods And Public Policy.

Public goods comprise of two defining characteristics, one that is termed as ‘non-rivalry’ that denotes that an individual’s pleasure of using a product or a good which does not reduce the competence of the other individuals to enjoy similar entities. However, the other term used to describe public goods and entities is ‘non-excludability’ whereby individuals or citizens cannot be restricted from using the products. The quality of air is regarded as a classic example of a public good as an individual’s breathing fresh air will not cause any reduction of air quality to others and further people cannot be restricted from breathing the air (Kaul, Grungberg & Stern, 1999). Public goods can be defined in contrast to the private goods which are associated with both rival and excludable factors. Furthermore, various other environmental resources can be defined as public goods that include water quality, open spatial facilities, bio-diversity as well as stable climatic conditions. Such instances can be associated with the standardized and traditional public goods related to lighthouses, official statistics, national defence, national security and knowledge. From an economic perspective, it can be identified that public goods are of interest as in contrast with the private entities-these goods are considered as a source of market failure. Areas of concern lies with the dependency of public whereby individuals with very less incentives in order to voluntarily provide public goods when they can enjoy or utilize the benefits of non-rival as well as non-excludable public goods offers by others (Birdsall & Diofasi, 2015). However, in order to prevent these under-provisions of public goods can be regarded as one of the essential economic rationales for the government. While markets have been distributing private goods with utmost efficiency, governmental involvement is usually required for the proficient distribution and allocation of public goods. Furthermore, this provides a clear explanation of the reasons why goods like bridges, parks, police protection as well as fire departments are usually been aided with tax revenues which the government collects (Selway, 2011). Moreover, government can effectively serve as a organizing mechanism that provides public goods and commodities for the benefit of the society. In recent times, the notion of public goods has been becoming increasingly significant at local, national and global levels. The essay will evaluate the varying operational services of public goods at local, national and international level by shedding light on the various aspects of public goods.

Difference between Public Goods and Private Goods

Public goods is often associated with a technical term which comprises a narrower connotation than the ‘public interest’ and is defined by the features of services which private suppliers and distributors have the willingness to undersupply because they are unable to recuperate their full expenditures. Public goods comprise of two typical and unique characteristics such as once a public good is provided, it is crucial to eliminate non-payers from attaining the associated benefits because of the issue related to dependency that is termed as non-excludable public consumption (Bodansky, 2012). Secondly with the supply of public good, an individual’s consumption will not pose any limitations to its accessibility for others that is termed as non-rival consumption. However, with the existence of these characteristics, a private supplier or distributor will experience certain challenges and complexities in order to recover the expenditures of offering public goods because limited people would have the inclination to pay for the service whereas a large section of people will aim to have the dependency on these goods. However, in such circumstances, services may not be offered unless there is any governmental intervention and further subsidies the private distributor or directly offers services itself by recovering the costs by taxing the communities which generate beneficial factors (Morrissey, Te Velde & Hewitt, 2002). It is important to note that genuine or real public goods have the competence to offer an indivisible and undividable shared profit to the respective communities and do not comprise their availability that differs by a range of people from attaining the benefit once provided. However, it would be challenging to eliminate a person from obtaining the profits and benefits which has been provided (Jackson, 2010). All such public goods, private distribution excluding the ones offered by government contract have been regarded as infeasible and investing must be acknowledged from the communities which would generate profits and revenues. It is important to note that public goods can also be provided through private means. For instance, property developers may intend to provide ‘free’ roads along with public spaces to aid investors sell their developments (Kevane & Sundstrom, 2016). In addition to this, supermarkets tend to offer ‘free’ car parking facilities in order to gather increased number of customers. Similarly, internet facilities provide a wide range of ‘free’ or ‘dependent’ goods and services. Humanitarians, philanthropists, churches and sociable communities aim to offer several unique services (Mo?teanu & Cretan, 2011). It must be recognized that the lack or shortage of private aided provisions will not necessarily confirm the rate of desirability of the public provision. Certain goods and services are regarded as not viable to supply and further do not pose any explanations their expenditures because of its low demand (Selway, 2011). However, it has been noted that such goods and services cost more than the value they offer to the community and further to subsidise these goods will pose complexities to the issues by rising the chances of opportunity expenditures of the capital used to capitalize them (Khaykhadaeva, 2014).

Challenges in Providing Public Goods

At this juncture, it is important to recognize that the analysis of local public goods varies from the theory of generalized public goods as goods and services which have certain degree of distinctiveness to specific geographic locations may be termed as excludable by virtue of distance. Distinguishing goods as local genuine public goods further promotes that they are public only to the people belonging to a local community or jurisdiction (Hafer & Landa, 2004). As rural regions comprise of significant spatial dimension, several local public goods are perceived as consisting local characteristics. Such goods incorporates a constructive public perception of the locality or area, efficient local administrative systems, reduced taxation procedures and to a great extent offers increased rate of service opportunities, human as well as social capital (Selway, 2011). However, it is to be noted that only if these local public goods are valued instead of actively been utilized they would reveal certain vital characteristics of a globalized or international genuine public goods. Furthermore, for open access as well as shared property capital regarded as ‘common-pool resources’ it is either not viable or immensely challenging to eliminate or restrict consumers once the goods are provided either through natural resources or created by human proficiency although a competitive ground can be witnessed in consumption (de Mesquita & Landa, 2015). Several studies have demonstrated the constructive opportunities and competencies of the categorization of local people and residents which may result to the greater rate of efficiency and productivity of the provision of local public goods. The notion that local public goods could be offered in a proficient manner with the means of decentralization system of authorities which aim to compete for localities by further offering distinctive public goods and tax level packages (Birdsall & Diofasi, 2015). While on the contrary certain theorists are of the opinion that market-centric pricing methods have predominantly existed whereby certain level of spatial mobility would offer the local public goods equivalent to the private market’s performance (Deneulin & Townsend, 2007). Furthermore, local taxation systems undergo similar functions as prices in the market and make residential preferences for public goods and the expenditures of services the locals use as per their choices and interests. The primary challenges and complexities lie in comprehending these procedures are the rate of multiplicity of public centric mechanisms, and the way local taxes offer investments and aids for public goods along with its significances for accommodation facilities and rentals as well as the technology or proficiency of production of public goods (Deneulin & Townsend, 2006).

Role of Government in Distributing Public Goods

However, certain theorists reveal some varying ideas associated with the operative systems of public goods at a global level. It has been noted that global public goods effectively provide benefits and profits to people in both affluent and deprived nations. However, public goods operating at the global level have been playing a significant role in providing protection and safety to social, economic as well as administrative development of the past century. Furthermore, they are viewed as fundamental in administering global risks and challenges related to change in climatic conditions like global warming, harmful diseases as well as financial deprivation which can influence the developing or progressive nations (Kline & Moretti, 2014). In order to demonstrate certain degree of disparities among the operations of public goods it is important to note their level of competencies to offer significant rate of quasi-universal profits and capitals. Global public goods namely institutions, methods and consequences provide vital rate of quasi global advantages encompassing over one group of nations, with vast range of populace along with expanding to both existing as well as future generations (O'neil, 2015). However, similar to local genuine public gods, global public goods are also regarded as non-rival and non-excludable whereby a nation’s utilization of goods does not have any influence or condense the chances of usage by others and once there has been availability no nation can be eliminated or restricted from profit distribution (Daviet, 2016). For instance, it must be noted that IMF’s surveillance of international financial markets and associated financial systems aid to identify systemic challenges and hazards during the initial phase of world economy. Thus this results to the early admonition system which promotes countries to take actions in order to reduce the level of risks related to global crisis (Birdsall & Diofasi, 2015). On the other hand, in the context of local public goods the rate of accessibility of adequate resources and people have been identified have been recognized in contradiction to the nations reveals the undergoing complexities and dissents local administrative bodies undergo while operating than the central or international government. The spatial capacity of the region has been taken into consideration while evaluating probability and feasibility level of the residents to resettle in an area with the rate of services as well as taxation systems whereby they show the inclination towards the services provided by the community which will further conform to the demands and desires of the constituents (Kotchen, 2005). While these further pose restrictions to the local government from raising returns and profits from the range of taxpayers to provide services that would facilitate resources and benefit a negligible section of the residents. In contradiction to the local body of governance, it has been noted that the central government have the competencies to attain economies of scale and opportunities in raising revenues and resources from the itinerant taxpayers such as labour, trade and businesses. Thus there have been circumstances where it has been proficient for central government to collect incomes and profits to the local bodies of government through the means of several grants and funding (Kotchen, 2009). This has been perceived as most evident in the procedure of road and transport funding in Australia. However, with the means of these procedures, central government accumulate petroleum taxations as well as road-user charges and further directs these revenues to the goods supplier of the state roadways also to local councils in order to help taxpayers-aided local roadways. However, it has been recognized that certain nations comprise of local earnings and sales taxes, public goods are often collected as adjuncts to the central taxes and absconds the local authorities with low liabilities in establishing their individual rates. It has been noted that the mobility of taxable public goods such as labour and trade is considered as vital cause to the reason local governance often use land revenues for example property rates in order to invest genuine public goods. As land possess no ability to be mobile, taxing has been immensely simple and further yields increased rate of profitability of revenues by improving its ability to suit the local government applications in comparison to other forms of taxation systems (Morrissey, Te Velde & Hewitt, 2002). The recent major alterations must recognized at this juncture, whereby the transformations of village authority and administration has been viewed from an appointed to an electoral system in rural China that has provided a massive opportunity in order to empirically evaluate the influence of democratic authority on public goods provision. Studies reveal that village leaders in 1980 were generally elected by the increased levels administration and had been apprehensive with the needs and demands of the affluent class in comparison to the needs and requirements of local agricultural sectors (Zhang, Fan, Zhang & Huang, 2004). However, these major institutional transformations along with significant variations catering several regions have facilitated to quantitatively evaluate the distinctive impact of elections on local public goods provision.

Importance of Local Public Goods

At this juncture, it is significant to note that international legal system has arrived considerably lately to the domain of global public goods discourse. Global goods have been considered to incorporate certain rate of externalities and further give rise to certain recognizable issues and complexities related to it in such a level that public gods possess the competence of providing uncompensated profits to the global community level and tends to be under-provided. As there lays no possibility of states to be barred from attaining the revenues and profits of a global public good whether they have been supplied to its creation or not, these public goods have the competences to pose dependence on the efforts and performance of others. On the contrary, the degree to which global public goods have been considered as unconstructive, their production has been referred as being over-provided. As a result, the theoretical aspects associated with global public goods have been considered to be immensely significant.  At this juncture, the concern associated to changes in climatic conditions must be taken into consideration, whereby the decrease of global greenhouse gas has been recognized as a factor of global public good. At such a situation, the states will perform in order to condense the rate of emissions further resulting to the appeal of developing a global climate change system such as the Kyoto Protocol that necessitates the action of the states (Kotchen, 2005). Furthermore, a proposal of making international law as a tool would not only have aided to the co-existence among states but also would have facilitated the production of global public goods which is considered to be significantly important. Operative systems associated with global public goods have often being associated with the factors of climate change issues (Selway, 2011). With the dependency of climate change mitigation on the collective and cumulative level of decrease in the global emissions, emissions reduction executed by any individual state reveals an understanding of the cost-benefit perceptions only with the association to the global agreement that further requires decrease in emissions by the significant emitting nations. This acted as a foundation behind the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, that was adopted by the US Senate before the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol disagreements whereby it has been revealed that the Senate collectively declared that any degree of transformation in the climatic condition agreement would not be accepted which required the US to provide reduction to the level of emission but barring the developing nations (Kaul, Grungberg & Stern, 1999). Moreover, the global public goods have posed certain severe challenges to the domains of international legal systems as they require active involvement and observance by significant public good suppliers who are the ones whose vital involvement and contribution has been considered as a significant influence on the level of public good as a whole.

Thus few questions have been raised in order to understand the role of international regulative systems in the provision of global public goods (Kotchen, 2005). It has been recognized that global institutions can effectively offer a forum for dealing with disagreements and negotiations and further aid to condense transaction expenditures. Furthermore, international laws can encourage and support a learning as well as development procedures, through which several nations can bring amendments to the process of their analysis of the rate of expenditures and profits of providing the global public good (Selway, 2011). It can be stated further that if states declare that the costs associated with functioning has been greater than the actions this would aid in transforming public goods into a less complex matter which would be solvable. However, certain theorists have stated that several local government actions have been efficiently dealing with externalities of the public good and policies (Kotchen, 2005). For instance, it has been recognized that the local government of New Zealand are obligated to many of the distinctiveness associated with the growth and developments in Europe during the occurrence of Industrial Revolution as well as the responses to the climatic pressures and health hazards created by the increased rate of urbanization as well as the population density and industry (Bodansky, 2012).

Modern theorists state that externalities in recent times have been regarded as a cause for several other economic involvements such as the committee intervention with conservation, factors related to tourism development and significant events. However, these may occasionally be explained as in the perspective of rates satisfaction for owners of the private properties that offer increased rate of benefits and profits to the community such as maintenance and preservation of historic sites or public access to free spatial areas (Selway, 2011). However, while focusing on such circumstances, it would have been advantageous for committees and councils to offer funding and contribution which are not ambiguous and are subjected to spending reviews and suggestions (O'neil, 2015). Furthermore, such an approach tends to show similarities to the council provision of certain services further signifying that few local public goods expose affirmative externality factors provided by council activity (Zhang, Fan, Zhang & Huang, 2004). While on the contrary, few of the theoretical benefits for committees from being involved in events and public spaces can be counterfeit. Moreover, certain significant projects are also considered to have aided privately through the means of ticket sales, brand promotion, sponsorships as well as distribution of costs (Daviet, 2016). As a result, any taxpayer investment has been regarded as subjected to referendum of taxpayers. Furthermore, the current approach underpins that externalities are omnipresent and several do not necessitate a government response. As there have been certain degree of risks related to governmental incompetence are as immense as the market failure, higher rate of dependency must be positioned on private explanations to the issues related to externalities.

Although, the terminology associated to global public goods may be new to the domain of international law, the essential characteristics as well as implications of global public goods are common and highly recognizable. From the above discussion it can be concluded that global public goods are externalities writ large. The operational procedures of global public goods further create incentives to dependent ride. However, in many circumstances global public goods necessitate international supremacy and authority to provide. Thus it can be concluded that international governance is required not only to aid to offer public goods at the global level which would be under-provided but further to safeguard against the self-contributory behaviour by the state which by offering a global public goods create undersized shrift  to the unconstructive externalities. The essay explicitly focused on the way public goods have been functioning with local, central and international bodies of governance at varying degrees by shedding light on the way various governance complexities and issues of legitimacy have been posing challenges to the operations of public goods.

References

Birdsall, N., & Diofasi, A. (2015). Global Public Goods for Development: How Much and What For. Center for Global Development, 5.

Bodansky, D. (2012). What’s in a concept? Global public goods, international law, and legitimacy. European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 651-668.

Daviet, B. (2016). Revisiting the principle of education as a public good.

de Mesquita, E. B., & Landa, D. (2015). Political accountability and sequential policymaking. Journal of Public Economics, 132, 95-108.

Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2006). Public goods, global public goods and common good.[WeD Working Paper 18. In Group, University of Bath.

Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2007). Public goods, global public goods and the common good. International Journal of Social Economics, 34(1/2), 19-36.

Hafer, C., & Landa, D. (2004). Public goods in federal systems.

Jackson, K. (2010). Public Good Provision, Diversity and Distribution. Mimeo.

Kaul, I., Conceição, P., Le Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. U. (Eds.). (2003). Providing global public goods: managing globalization. Oxford University Press.

Kaul, I., Grungberg, I., & Stern, M. A. (1999). Global public goods. Global public goods, 450.

Kevane, M. J., & Sundstrom, W. A. (2016). State promotion of local public goods: The case of public libraries, 1880-1929.

Khaykhadaeva, O. (2014). Role of the local government in provision of public goods: a case study of Bayandai district, Russian federation.

Kline, P., & Moretti, E. (2014). People, places, and public policy: Some simple welfare economics of local economic development programs.

Kotchen, M. J. (2005). Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of environmental economics and management, 49(2), 281-300.

Kotchen, M. J. (2009). Voluntary provision of public goods for bads: A theory of environmental offsets. The Economic Journal, 119(537), 883-899.

Kotchen, M. J., & Powers, S. M. (2006). Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52(1), 373-390.

Morrissey, O., Te Velde, D. W., & Hewitt, A. (2002). Defining international public goods. In International Public Goods (pp. 31-46). Springer, Boston, MA.

Mo?teanu, T., & CRE?AN, G. C. (2011). Education and the Characteristics of Public Goods. Overlaps and Differences. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 18(9).

O'neil, P. H. (2015). Essentials of Comparative Politics: Fifth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company.

Petrick, M. (2006, February). Should the government finance public goods in rural areas? A review of arguments. In Meeting of the German Association of Agricultural Economists (Gewisola) in Giessen (Vol. 4, p. 6).

Selway, J. S. (2011). Electoral reform and public policy outcomes in Thailand: The politics of the 30-baht health scheme. World Politics, 63(1), 165-202.

Selway, J. S. (2011). Electoral reform and public policy outcomes in Thailand: The politics of the 30-baht health scheme. World Politics, 63(1), 165-202.

Zhang, X., Fan, S., Zhang, L., & Huang, J. (2004). Local governance and public goods provision in rural China. Journal of public economics, 88(12), 2857-2871.