|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public good (economics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Articles for improvement|
Is the free rider stuff relevant? PG are non-riv and non-excl, so what do free riders matter? I notice that the FR page itself says "In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods (such as public roads or hospitals)" but hospitals are not PG, nor really are public roads William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- "In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
- For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them."
- There are very few public goods that no one pays for, either through direct individual expenditure or taxation.
- The article indicates as such:
- "Pure public: when a good exhibits the two traits, non-rivalry and non-excludability, it is referred to as the pure public good. Pure public goods are rare."
- The "pure public" good is the theoretical abstract that other goods are measured against.
- For the "impure public" good, the free rider stuff becomes relevant. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Geostationary orbits as public goods
@William M. Connolley I'm interested to hear a deeper explanation for why you think that the allocation of geostationary orbits aren't considered public goods. While the number of geostationary satellites does have an effective limit before effectiveness reduces, prior to reaching this limit the good is non-rivalrous as an extra satellite does not diminish the effectiveness of other satellites, which at minimum suggests it is an impure public good as described elsewhere on this wiki. From what I have read, we have not reached this limit either as many countries have vacant reserved satellite spots. 
Not all geostationary satellites serve the same purpose either. For example, the decision to allocate an orbital slot to a satellite that monitors cyclones is a public good. Countries (or individuals) that benefit from the allocation of a satellite slot to cyclone monitoring are not excluded from the benefits of the extra information if they do not contribute to its maintenance or orbital slot licence, nor is it rivalrous as the use of this information does not diminish other countries use.
Both of these reasons I think are sufficient to include it as a global public good, and why it was included in the cited global public goods review. I think a suggestion as to how to clarify this in the article would be more constructive in the future than simply removing the entire contribution, including sections unrelated to Geostationary orbits. I have reverted the section on global public goods you removed including the reference to geostationary orbit allocation and am happy to revise it on further feedback. Zazzzar (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- No need to include as WP:NOT, also it is simple, rivalrous. This is not a journal, advocacy or discussion site. Nubia86 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
No payment required for public goods?
"In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous."
There are very few (any?) pure public goods. Many are exclusive because of payment. Many are rivalrous because they are subject to private ownership.
So what is a good that is divisible down to the smallest currency measure ($.01 in US dollars) and can be sold in any quantity demanded by the public?
My example would be a lottery ticket that is sold for $0.01.
A lottery ticket is both: 1. Non-excludable - Sold to anyone 2. Non-rivalrous - My ownership of a ticket does not preclude you from purchasing or owning one
In this context, this statement doesn't make sense - "For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them."
It seems the article focuses on goods subject to collective ownership, without recognizing that public goods can also be subject to individual ownership under certain circumstances.