National security is a public good: it is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. If they will be able to use the public good whether they pay their share of the costs, they might as well not pay. Since public goods are non-excludable, free-riders not only can’t be prevented from using the good, but actually have an incentive to continue to free-ride. The free-rider problem is that some people may benefit from a public good without paying their share of the cost. It is the second trait- the non-excludability- that leads to what is called the free-rider problem. Public goods, as you may recall, are both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Roads: Free riders are able to use roads without paying their taxes because roads are a non-excludable public good. In the case of roads and bridges, everyone pays taxes to the government, who then uses the taxes to pay for public goods. However, even public goods need to be paid for. In your everyday life, you benefit from public goods such as roads and bridges even though no transaction occurs when you use them. It is easy to think about public goods as free. The Food and Agriculture Association estimated 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. This would be like the government imposing limits on the amount of fish that can be caught.īluefin Tuna Caught in Net: Fish populations are at risk of becoming fully extinct due to overfishing. In the absence of enlightened self-interest, the government may step in and impose regulations or taxes to discourage the behavior that leads to the tragedy of the commons. This would be the same as the fishermen realizing that they should limit their fishing to preserve the stock of fish in the long-term. If individuals have enlightened self-interest, they will realize the negative long-term effects of their short-term decisions. Not all common goods, however, suffer from the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons describes such situations in which people withdraw resources to secure short-term gains without regard for the long-term consequences. When the stock of fish is depleted, none of the fishermen are able to continue fishing, even though, in the long run, each fisherman would have preferred that the fish not be depleted. However, when a lot of fishermen, all thinking this way, catch the fish, the total stock of fish may be depleted. This makes sense: there is a resource that the fisherman is able to use to generate a profit. Each individual fisherman, acting independently, will rationally choose to catch some of the fish to sell. Consider, the example of fish in international waters. The tragedy of the commons is the depletion of a common good by individuals who are acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest. Some readers may feel that the term ‘free-rider problem’ is so identified with the prisoner's dilemma that my extension of the term in this way “jars” if so, I invite them to coin another word for the larger phenomenon.\) I call all of these dilemmas free-rider problems because in all of them certain individuals find it rational to take advantage of others' willingness to contribute to the good in a way that threatens its production. My strategy is not to consult any intuitions about what the free-rider problem is rather I will be looking at the problematic game-theoretic structures of various situations associated with the production of different types of collective goods, thereby showing what sorts of difficulties a community concerned with their voluntary production would face. However, in this article I want to challenge that identification by presenting an analysis of what are in fact a variety of collective action problems in the production of collective goods. There has been a persistent tendency to identify what is called “the freerider problem” in the production of collective goods with the prisoner's dilemma.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |