DOCSLIB.ORG

Lectures 13 to 15 CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC GOODS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lectures 13 to 15 CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC GOODS Lectures 13 to 15 CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC GOODS 3.1: Public Goods Pure Private to Pure Public Good • Private good consumed only by one person: food, holidays, clothes • Family/household: all collective decisions and no market. ‘Micro- collective’. Share kitchens, TV, bathrooms. • Many families/household: roads and paths, communal halls, clubs etc. Tennis and golf clubs, plus Tidy Towns’ committees for example. ‘Mini- collective’. • Option public goods: fire brigade, hospitals, museums, etc. Provided by state but not used by all. ‘Partial full collective’ • Pure public goods benefit ALL. ‘Full collective’. National security, environment, lakes, sea and mountains. Used by all but to varying degrees. • Exclusion impossible. Raises free-rider problem: e.g. lighthouse, but now excludable. Firework display a good example (see later) • Public goods bring benefits just like private goods: Ui = F(A, B, C, D) • Same supply for ALL: G1=G2=G3= etc. Not same utility though. • Private good, A; same price and utility but different supply • Pure v impure PGs: security v bridge (Fig 3.1) • Fire brigade example (p. 144). Available to all, but only used when needed if ever. Private company would protect only those how had paid. • Public goods v natural monopolies (e.g. electricity or water) but private A fireworks display is a public good because it is non-excludable (impossible to prevent people from viewing it) and non-rivalrous (one individual's use does not reduce availability to others). Voluntary payment (Fig 3.3) • MC curve same as that for private goods (Fig 3.3): n people benefit though from every extra unit. • Each pays or shares cost according to benefit: implies different ‘prices’ • Impossible to implement: information and free-rider problems. Why give correct answer if tax will be higher? • Example: benefit to each = €60, total cost = €80 (€40 or net benefit of €20 each). What should P2 do? Public Good Net Benefit P1 P2 P1 truthful: P2 also 20 20 P2 free rides -20 60 P1 free rides: P2 pays 60 -20 P2 free rides 0 0 Volunteer provision: • Local public goods like street park, reporting a suspicious person, ‘finger in dyke’ example. Public lane or broken glass on beach examples. • Will happen if person received individual benefit greater than cost ( e.g. if benefit above for each person = €100). • All others benefits also and this may incur psychic costs on provider. • Happens very often in families. • Social norms (e.g. religion, soup kitchens, meals on wheels). Volunteer provision. National Defence as a Public Good • Classic public good with huge popular support for it. For example, once Europe safer for one person it is safer for all • Conscription accepted if professional army not large enough. Also overcomes free-riding problem. • Also volunteer forces and moral suasion. ‘Your country needs you’. • Arms Race issue: depends on your relative spend • Treaties to deal with this. • Use weapons outside treaties or don’t honour Treaty. • Military alliances: e.g. NATO. Pooling resources because of huge costs but also mutual support and defence. • Huge imbalance in military power (e.g. Israel and Lebanon. Good or bad? • Not if one side prepared to sustain greater human losses, or has nuclear or biological weapons, e.g. Isis, N Korea • Also post-war difficulties (e.g. Iraq, Libya). Winning ‘peace’ not war the real difficulty. Can also ‘impose’ democracy on country with no history of it. • Democracy a defence against wars? • Supply of defence equipment as a factor (e.g. France and US major weapons manufacturers. Defence Against Terror: new issues Attack at the Bologna railway station on 2 August 1980 • Military cost plus personal (e.g. fear of ‘unknown’ and security checks and delays). Paris latest example. Dublin bombings in 1970s. • Poverty and terrorism: nothing to lose • Objectives of terrorists and incentives to act (reward in after life) • Moral dilemmas: efficiency v discrimination in screening • Pre-emptive strike concept: ‘guilty’ then before crime even committed. Hiroshima? • Appeasement or not? IRA, N Korea, ISIS? • Co-lateral damage involves huge civilian casualties 3.2 Information Problems How do governments know how much of a public good to supply? (Numerical examples on board) • Lindahl ‘solution’, taxed according to benefit: prisoners’ dilemma again (skip) • Special cases: Cost Benefit Analysis and major infrastructural projects (done in 3.3) • Carefully designed surveys, for example RTE, or BBC • Majority voting (done in Module 2) 3.3 Cost Benefit Analysis: Applies to Impure Public Goods only (e.g. metro north, new ring road around Dublin) • Try to get rough aggregate B and C and pay out of general taxation the only practical solution • B > C project worthwhile • Easy for a private firm but not for a project with private and public Bs/Cs • Many of the major Bs and Cs cannot be estimated Transport example: Road Construction (Compensation Issue) • Costs that can be estimated: construction, maintenance, link roads, signposting • Costs that cannot be estimated: huge disruption during construction, noise and vibration, air pollution, scenic and visual, heritage and ecology, community severance. • Almost all benefits difficult to quantify. • Saving of lives (see p. 104). What is the value of a life? • Time savings (main reason for new roads), for both existing traffic and new (how to predict) • What actually will be the time savings? Will it be for business and/or leisure travel? How to put a value on each? • Were alternatives considered to give bigger net benefit: alternative route, trains, road charging? For example, electrical pylons put underground? Location of wind farms. • Can though list Bs and Cs at least Valuation over Time (3.3B and 3.3C) • Many benefits only arise into future (e.g. Port Tunnel or metro north). • (i)Unpredictable. (ii) How to value? • €1M in year X worth much more than in year X + 20 say • What is present value of €1M ten years hence? Depends on ‘discount rate’. • 5% implies worth only €0.38M today, much less 20 years on, and nothing after this. Climate change? • Must get PV of project, by discounting net benefits for all years. • Choice of discount rate critical Project X Y b c b c 2013 0 €100M 0 €100M 2014 €110M 0 0 0 2015 0 0 €115M 0 • Discount rate < 4.6% implies Y chosen, but > X chosen (see book) Distributional effects: B > C but main beneficiaries are well-off people: e.g. LUAS debate (see pp. 109-110) Carefully designed surveys (e.g. recent BBC CV survey) • Do people know what is being asked (information and accuracy bias)? • Do they know or understand cost? • Strategic or dishonest preference revelation Majority Voting (Chapter 6) • Cannot estimate benefits, then rely on straight vote of majority. • 51 people have B of say €9K and 49 have B of €20K: all 100 have cost of €10K. • B > C but majority reject (see 3.1.4) • Intensity of preferences ignored in democratic voting: have to be but.. • Other means used (street protests, persistence, etc) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lakes Port & Harbor: Infrastructure & Dredging Cost Estimate Matrix Tool
    Great Lakes Port & Harbor: Infrastructure & Dredging Cost Estimate Matrix Tool and Duluth, MN/Superior, WI and Toledo, OH Case Studies Gene Clark1 and Dale Bergeron2 1 WI Sea Grant [email protected] 2 MN Sea Grant dbergeron@ d.umn.edu Defining the parameters of the Matrix Great Lakes ports, harbors and marinas are vulnerable to several potential climate change impacts. The two major impacts most relevant and potentially most costly are water level and storm intensity. Both rising and falling water levels can impact infrastructure stability and overall strength, as well as requiring additional channel dredging. A climatic change resulting in an increase in severe storms (more precipitation, higher winds and greater number of storm events) is also viewed as having detrimental affects on infrastructure. More severe storms can create larger waves, more extreme Seiche events and greater storm-surges that can damage port and harbor infrastructure requiring costly rehabilitation or replacement. In addition to infrastructure issues, an increased storm frequency and intensity will increase channel silting and sedimentation, compounding dredging problems analogous to lower water level scenarios. Climate model predictions for specific weather outcomes vary greatly throughout the Great Lakes Basin, and include both higher and lower water levels scenarios. However, all predictions seem to include an increase in both the number and intensity of major storm events. This combination can result in unanticipated water level change, larger waves, more dramatic Seiches and greater storm surges than considered in original design parameters (all of this in addition to the antiquated and sometime dilapidated state of our Great Lakes infrastructure).
    [Show full text]
  • All Aboard: the Aggregate Effects of Port Development
    All aboard: The aggregate effects of port development César Ducruet1, Réka Juhász2, Dávid Krisztián Nagy3, and Claudia Steinwender4 1CNRS 2Columbia University 3CREI, Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Barcelona GSE 4MIT Sloan ∗ July 3, 2019 Abstract This paper studies the distributional and aggregate economic effects of new port technologies developed in the second half of the 20th century. We show that new technologies have led to a significant reallocation of shipping activity from large to small cities. This was driven by a land price mechanism; as new port technologies are more land-intensive, ports moved from large, high land price cities to smaller, lower land price ones. We add endogenous port development to a standard quantitative model of cross- city trade to account for both the benefits and the costs of port development. According to the model, the adoption of new port technologies leads to benefits through increasing market access but is costly, requiring the extensive use of land, suggesting a reallocation of shipping activities towards cities with low land prices and thus net gains from new port technologies that are heterogeneous across cities. Counterfactual results suggest that new port technologies led to sizable aggregate gains for the world economy, with substantial heterogeneity in the effects across countries. More generally, accounting for the costs of port infrastructure development endogenously has the potential to alter the size and distribution of the gains from trade. ∗We thank David Atkin, Don Davis, Dave Donaldson, Joseph Doyle, Matt Grant, Gordon Hanson, Tom Holmes, Amit Khandelwal, Jim Rauch, Roberto Rigobon, Esteban Rossi-Hansberg and Tavneet Suri for helpful comments and discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Goods for Economic Development
    Printed in Austria Sales No. E.08.II.B36 V.08-57150—November 2008—1,000 ISBN 978-92-1-106444-5 Public goods for economic development PUBLIC GOODS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR ECONOMIC GOODS PUBLIC This publication addresses factors that promote or inhibit successful provision of the four key international public goods: fi nancial stability, international trade regime, international diffusion of technological knowledge and global environment. Each of these public goods presents global challenges and potential remedies to promote economic development. Without these goods, developing countries are unable to compete, prosper or attract capital from abroad. The undersupply of these goods may affect prospects for economic development, threatening global economic stability, peace and prosperity. The need for public goods provision is also recognized by the Millennium Development Goals, internationally agreed goals and targets for knowledge, health, governance and environmental public goods. Because of the characteristics of public goods, leaving their provision to market forces will result in their under provision with respect to socially desirable levels. Coordinated social actions are therefore necessary to mobilize collective response in line with socially desirable objectives and with areas of comparative advantage and value added. International public goods for development will grow in importance over the coming decades as globalization intensifi es. Corrective policies hinge on the goods’ properties. There is no single prescription; rather, different kinds of international public goods require different kinds of policies and institutional arrangements. The Report addresses the nature of these policies and institutions using the modern principles of collective action. UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Vienna International Centre, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Port Expansion and Negative Externalities: Estimating the Costs Borne by Local Residents
    Port expansion and negative externalities: estimating the costs borne by local residents Salvador del Saz-Salazar1, Leandro García-Menéndezb,1 a Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, Email: [email protected] b Department of Applied Economics II, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Port expansion has been seen as the origin of negative externalities affecting local residents’ wellbeing and contributing to the poor public image of ports. In this study the contingent valuation method is used to estimate the costs borne by local residents as a consequence of the negative externalities derived from the growth of the Port of Valencia (Spain) in the last thirty years. Although the current practice is to use the willingness to pay measure to value both gains and losses, in this case it was deemed more appropriate to use the willingness to accept (WTA) measure given the perceived property rights. The econometric analysis undertaken reveals that WTA is positively related to the bid offered and negatively related to family income, as expected. Among the different externalities derived from this growth, the only concern that affects individuals’ WTA is the reclamation of land from the sea. Finally, the results obtained show that the present value of the costs potentially borne by local residents ranges from a minimum value of €64.4 million to a maximum value of €107.4 million depending of the aggregation criterion chosen. Key Words: Contingent valuation, willingness to accept, port expansion, negative externalities, land reclamation. JEL code: Q51. 1. Introduction Throughout history seaports have played a vital role in promoting the economic development and prosperity of nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Central New York Inland Port Market Feasibility Study
    FINAL REPORT CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY potenti PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBMITTED BY: RSG CENTRAL NEW YORK INLAND PORT MARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Principal Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 | Physical Requirements .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 | Central New York Inland Port Proposals: History ......................................................................... 7 3.0 INFORMATION SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 8 4.0 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS .................................................. 10 4.1 | Rail Service ................................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 | Highway ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port Infrastructure Development Grants and Port Planning And
    Port Infrastructure Development Grants and Port Planning and Investment Toolkit Norfolk, VA AAPA Oct 14, 2019 Travis Black Port Infrastructure Development Program Team Office of Ports & Waterways Planning Maritime Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE | Washington | DC 20590 w w w . d o t . g o v U.S. Transportation System Overview • The transportation system moved 17.7 billion tons of goods valued at over $18.1 trillion in 2016.(1) • Trucks carried 62.7 percent of the tonnage, 11.1 billion tons, and 61.9 percent of the value. • Rail moved 1.6 billion tons, 8.9 percent of goods, and water moved 0.8 billion tons, or 4.5 percent, in 2016. Remainder was carried by air, pipeline, or a combination of modes. • Goods valued at $527 billion moved on all waterways of the United States. • Transportation’s contribution to the U.S. GDP was $1,066.9 billion in 2016 according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).(2) • For-hire transportation contributed $562.4 billion or 2.97 percent to the U.S. GDP. • In-house transportation contributed another $504.5 billion or 2.66 percent. • Inland water transportation contributed $19.2 billion to U.S. GDP. • For-hire water transportation contributed $16.5 billion and in-house contributed $2.8 billion.(3) (1)Transportation Statistics Annual Report, 2018. U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2)In-house transportation is business-related transportation. Business-related transportation includes privately owned and operated vehicles of all body types, used primarily on public rights of way, and the supportive services to store, maintain, and operate those vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Rise Elevators Enabling Green Buildings Green Motion Technology
    High-rise elevators Enabling green buildings Green Motion Technology. Schindler high-rise products All over the world. contribute to achieve all global building certificates, Schindler Green Motion Technology. such as... The world’s population is growing rapidly. Urbaniza- One key issue is the burden that growth is placing Schindler inverter technology The optional ECO Mode (Energy Control Option) is LEED comprises a suite of rating systems for the tion – the demographic transition from rural to on urban infrastructures and environments. Urban When the elevator is in generator mode, Schindler’s the power management of the elevator system, design, construction and operation of high perfor- urban – is gathering speed. For the first time ever, residents all over the world want – and deserve – a own drive technology recuperates the clean energy which continually provides the adequate number of the majority of the world‘s population live in cities, good quality of life. and feeds it back in to the power grid of the eleva-tors based on the current and forecast traffic and this proportion continues to grow. The mega- Tomorrow’s green building is a key contributor to building. The technology reduces or eliminates the situa-tion. cities of 10 million-plus people persistantly expand avoiding foreseeable urban and environmental need for machine-room cooling. AQUA is a Brazilian certificate that guarantees the at breakneck speed. collapse. high environmental quality of construction projects. High-efficiency drives Optimized standby mode They are increasingly becoming the growth engines Especially in tall buildings, the power consumption Industry-leading technology (e.g. permanent-mag- The elevator system detects components such as BREEAM is the world’s longest established and most of their respective domestic economies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Port Infrastructure for Economic Development with an Application to Belgium and the Port of Antwerp
    The role of port infrastructure for economic development with an application to Belgium and the Port of Antwerp 1 Table of Contents 1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Setting and Outline of the Research .................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Background: Economic geographic shift / business relocation ......................................................... 8 1.3 Modern Industrial Dynamics (MID) ................................................................................................. 11 1.4 Global Container Transport System (GCTS) ..................................................................................... 12 1.5 Evolution of port to commercial location and commercial cluster formation ................................ 13 1.6 Rationale for study ................................................................................................................................ 15 1.7 Methodologies ....................................................................................................................................... 16 1.8 Structure of the Thesis .......................................................................................................................... 17 2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 20 2.1 Scope of the chapter .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Skyscraper Height
    Skyscraper Height Jason Barr∗ Rutgers University, Newark [email protected] Rutgers University Newark Working Paper #2008-002 Abstract This paper investigates the determinants of skyscraper height. First a simple model is provided where potential developers desire not only profits but also status, as measured by their rank in the height hi- erarchy. The optimal height in equilibrium is a function of the cost and benefits of building as well as the height of surrounding buildings. Using data from New York City, I empirically estimate skyscraper height over the 20th century. The results show that the quest for status has increased building height by about 15 floors above the non- status profit maximizing height. In addition, I provide estimates of which buildings are “too tall” and by how many floors. JEL Classification: D24, D44, N62, R33 Key words: Skyscrapers, building height, status, New York City ∗I would like to thank Alexander Peterhansl, Howard Bodenhorn, Sara Markowitz and seminar participants at Lafayette College for their helpful comments. I would like to acknowledge the New York City Hall Library, the New York City Department of City Planning and the Real Estate Board of New York for the provision of data. This work was partially funded from a Rutgers University, Newark Research Council Grant. Any errors are mine. 1 1 Introduction Skyscrapers are not simply tall buildings. They are symbols and works of art. Collectively they generate a separate entity—the skyline—which has its own symbolic and aesthetic importance. Despite the initial fears that the attacks of September 11, 2001 would cur- tail construction, skyscrapers continue to be built in large numbers around the globe (Economist, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Global Public Goods: Critique of a UN Discourse Author(S): David Long and Frances Woolley Source: Global Governance, Vol
    Global Public Goods: Critique of a UN Discourse Author(s): David Long and Frances Woolley Source: Global Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January–March 2009), pp. 107-122 Published by: Brill Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800741 Accessed: 19-09-2019 14:45 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Global Governance This content downloaded from 143.107.26.62 on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:45:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Global Governance 15 (2009), 107-122 Global Public Goods: Critique of a UN Discourse David Long and Frances Wool ley The concept of global public goods has been advanced as a way of under standing certain transborder and global problems and the need for a coor dinated international response. It has been used to describe everything from global environment, international financial stability, and market effi ciency, to health, knowledge, peace and security, and humanitarian rights. Using an internal critique, this article finds that the concept is poorly de fined, avoids analytical problems by resorting to abstraction, and masks the incoherence of its two central characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impacts of Port Infrastructure and Logistics Performance on Economic Growth the Mediating Role of Seaborne Trade Munim, Ziaul Haque; Schramm, Hans-Joachim
    The Impacts of Port Infrastructure and Logistics Performance on Economic Growth The Mediating Role of Seaborne Trade Munim, Ziaul Haque; Schramm, Hans-Joachim Document Version Final published version Published in: Journal of Shipping and Trade DOI: 10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 Publication date: 2018 License CC BY Citation for published version (APA): Munim, Z. H., & Schramm, H-J. (2018). The Impacts of Port Infrastructure and Logistics Performance on Economic Growth: The Mediating Role of Seaborne Trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 Link to publication in CBS Research Portal General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us ([email protected]) providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 27. Sep. 2021 Munim and Schramm Journal of Shipping and Trade (2018) 3:1 Journal of Shipping DOI 10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 and Trade ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: the mediating role of seaborne trade Ziaul Haque Munim1* and Hans-Joachim Schramm2,3 * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract 1School of Business and Law, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Considering 91 countries with seaports, this study conducted an empirical inquiry Norway into the broader economic contribution of seaborne trade, from a port infrastructure Full list of author information is quality and logistics performance perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Production Analysis in Port Economics: a Critical Review of Modeling Strategies and Data Management
    TØI report 1390/2015 Kenneth Løvold Rødseth Paal Brevik Wangsness Production analysis in port economics: A critical review of modeling strategies and data management TØI Report 1390/2015 Application of production analysis in port economics: A critical review of modeling strategies and data management Kenneth Løvold Rødseth Paal Brevik Wangsness Front page photo: Shutterstock This report is covered by the terms and conditions specified by the Norwegian Copyright Act. Contents of the report may be used for referencing or as a source of information. Quotations or references must be attributed to the Institute of Transport Economics (TØI) as the source with specific mention made to the author and report number. For other use, advance permission must be provided by TØI. ISSN 0808-1190 ISBN 978-82-480-1151-4 Electronic version Oslo, January 2015 Title: Application of production analysis in port economics: Tittel: Anvendelse av produksjonsanalyse innen A critical review of modeling strategies and data havneøkonomi: En vurdering av modelleringsstrategier management og databruk Author(s): Kenneth Løvold Rødseth Forfattere: Kenneth Løvold Rødseth Paal Brevik Wangsness Paal Brevik Wangsness Date: 01.2015 Dato: 01.2015 TØI report: 1390/2015 TØI rapport: 1390/2015 Pages 63 Sider 63 ISBN Electronic: 978-82-480-1151-4 ISBN Elektronisk: 978-82-480-1151-4 ISSN 0808-1190 ISSN 0808-1190 Financed by: KS Bedrift Finansieringskilde: KS Bedrift The Norwegian Coastal Administration Kystverket The Research Council of Norway Norges forskningsråd Project: 4077
    [Show full text]