Whether excludability or not:
-
Whether it is possible to restrict users. Whether rivalry or not:
-
Whether it becomes problematic when the number of users increases too much.
-
The tragedy of the commons occurs in goods that have rivalry but not excludability.
-
Role of the government
-
When providing pure public goods such as national defense, even those who do not pay can use them (non-excludability). Therefore, if left to market mechanisms, the problem of free riders occurs and the supply becomes insufficient. Therefore, it is considered that the government should provide such public goods.
- I see (blu3mo)
- OSS is also like that, right?
- Is there an argument to “replace the government” in this context?
-
Many (quasi-)public goods, such as parks and pools, can be supplied by the private sector. However, if the private sector provides them, the supply will be insufficient, so the government sometimes intervenes by increasing excludability, such as with scrambled broadcasting in cable television, to make them more like private goods.
-
I see~ (blu3mo)
-
Basically, in the discussion of public goods, it is considered desirable for “demand and supply to match”.
- In 63dbfb2e79e11300006a1c70, “insufficient supply” is considered a problem.
- If the invisible hand of the market works perfectly, it would be good, but in the case of public goods, it doesn’t always work well, so the government fixes it, something like that.
-
In a different direction, is there an argument that “shared goods should increase”?
- Is that just a discussion between socialism and liberalism? (blu3mo)