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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Homesteading City Streets:<br />

An Exercise in Managerial <strong>The</strong>ory 247<br />

government control, where the authorities in charge <strong>of</strong> city<br />

streets, bridges, tunnels, thruways, roads <strong>of</strong> contiguous states, etc.,<br />

must all deal with one another. It might appear that transactions<br />

costs could be avoided if there were only one state authority, or<br />

one private road owner wherever highways or streets connect.<br />

But this is a mirage. <strong>The</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> coordination under such a system<br />

might be labeled management instead <strong>of</strong> transactions costs,<br />

but they would remain costs nonetheless.<br />

It cannot be denied that such costs would still exist, even<br />

under a full, free enterprise road system. But if we have learned<br />

anything from the fall <strong>of</strong> the Berlin Wall <strong>and</strong> the economic debacle<br />

that was the economic system <strong>of</strong> the U.S.S.R., it is that one <strong>of</strong><br />

these systems is highly efficient, <strong>and</strong> not the other. <strong>The</strong> government<br />

system, after all, is the one that brings us the horse <strong>and</strong><br />

buggy U.S. Post Office. Need any more be said?<br />

But let us posit that management within one firm is cheaper,<br />

within the relevant range, than negotiation between different<br />

street companies. Taking this idea to its ultimate logical conclusion<br />

would imply a single firm, for example, in all <strong>of</strong> North <strong>and</strong><br />

South America, since all roads on these two continents are connected<br />

to each other. (We pass over the “problem” <strong>of</strong> the discontinuity<br />

in Panama, given that there are bridges that enable cars to<br />

travel north <strong>and</strong> south over it. If there were none, then, instead <strong>of</strong><br />

only one owner, there would be two firms, one for each <strong>of</strong> the<br />

American continents.) Does this present any particular problem<br />

Institutional Structure <strong>of</strong> Production,” American Economic Review 82, no. 4<br />

(September 1992): 713–19. Why is it that firms arise in markets, but no one<br />

firm takes over the entire economy? For Coase this has to do with the minimization<br />

<strong>of</strong> costs within <strong>and</strong> between firms. For example, it is very expensive<br />

for the waitress to bargain with the cook, <strong>of</strong>fering him a price for the<br />

meal he gives her; in order to economize on these sorts <strong>of</strong> transactions,<br />

firms are created within which markets do not occur, but rather comm<strong>and</strong>s;<br />

e.g., the owner <strong>of</strong> the restaurant “comm<strong>and</strong>s” the cook to give the waitress<br />

the meal without charging her for it. However, unless there is vertical integration<br />

between the restaurant <strong>and</strong> the supplier <strong>of</strong> vegetables, for example,<br />

the former purchases these factors <strong>of</strong> production from the latter.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!