The case for excluding public goods

Frances Woolley has written a useful paper for anyone who teaches public goods, essentially arguing that the notion has become too woolly to be useful (sorry), and that we should instead focus on the underlying concepts.

I think it’ll change the way I present PGs when I’m teaching this semester.

Why Public Goods are a Pedagogical Bad
Frances Woolley
The concept of public goods is confusing because it confounds three analytically distinct concepts: excludability, rivalry, and public finance. Pure public goods are of limited relevance as an explanation of government spending. To make matters worse, the broader policy community uses the term in ways that invoke different means of both public and good than economists favor. For example, global public goods describe everything from the global environment, international financial stability and market efficiency, to health, knowledge, peace and security and humanitarian rights. In this essay, I argue for radically reducing the emphasis placed on public goods in the standard undergraduate public finance curriculum, and instead emphasizing the fundamental underlying issues of exclusion, rivalry, and public finance/provision. The ultimate aim of an undergraduate course in public expenditures should, I argue, be to explain government spending.

This entry was posted in Economics Generally. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The case for excluding public goods

  1. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Why are you ‘sorry’? Looks like a good paper.

  2. Andrew Leigh says:

    I was apologising for a bad pun. Clearly it was not only bad, but also well-hidden.

  3. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Okay. My bad. Keep that up and we’ll be calling you Homer.

Comments are closed.