31.01.2013 Views

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Public Goods <strong>and</strong> Externalities: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roads</strong> 99<br />

purchase <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong> supposedly private goods. Take, for example,<br />

the paradigm case <strong>of</strong> a private good, socks. First, there is a<br />

health question. People who do not wear socks are liable to colds,<br />

sore feet, blisters, <strong>and</strong> possibly pneumonia. And sickness means<br />

lost days <strong>of</strong> work <strong>and</strong> lost production; it means possible contagion<br />

(as in the diphtheria case); it may result in rising doctor bills<br />

<strong>and</strong> increased health insurance premiums for other policyholders.<br />

Increased dem<strong>and</strong> for doctors’ time <strong>and</strong> energy will result in<br />

reduced medical attention for others. <strong>The</strong>re is, in addition, an<br />

aesthetic problem: many people take umbrage at socklessness.<br />

Restaurants <strong>of</strong>ten forbid bare feet, presumably in the interests <strong>of</strong><br />

retaining their more sensitive customers. Not wearing socks is<br />

also interpreted by some as a disturbing political statement, like<br />

flag or draft-card burning. Many mothers—a third party, if ever<br />

there was one—rejoice when their “hip” sons finally don<br />

footwear. That benefits <strong>of</strong> sock-wearing “spill over” to these<br />

mothers cannot be denied.<br />

<strong>The</strong> problem is by no means limited to the socks example, for<br />

all so-called private goods affect second or third parties in some<br />

way. <strong>The</strong> reader is challenged to think <strong>of</strong> any item the use <strong>and</strong><br />

purchase <strong>of</strong> which is not affected with a public interest, i.e.,<br />

which does not similarly have spill-over effects on other people.<br />

Misguided though the definition may be, the externalities<br />

argument still has strong influence. Many economists continue to<br />

claim that to the extent that externalities are present, “market<br />

imperfections” are created <strong>and</strong> government action is justified to<br />

remedy the situation.<br />

EXTERNAL ECONOMIES<br />

Leaving aside these objections for the time being, let us consider<br />

the externalities argument as it applies to roadways. <strong>The</strong><br />

argument assumes that roadways are an instance <strong>of</strong> positive<br />

externalities. Any entrepreneur who constructs a road will have<br />

to bear all the costs (<strong>of</strong> labor, materials, etc.), just as in any business,<br />

but since highways are an external economy, he will be<br />

unable to reap rewards proportional to the benefits provided. For

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!