Question

. Even the most stubborn libertarian might admit that there is a case for government provision or subsidization of a service if that service is a public good or if there are positive externalities associated with its consumption. A. Do primary and secondary education meet the conditions for being public goods? Explain why or why not. B. Are there externalities associated with primary and secondary school attendance? That is, do you benefit from the fact that other people in your community attended school? Tell me what some of these positive externalities are. C. It is rare in economics that one policy approach enhances both efficiency and equity. Explain how free public education might do this. If you like, you might also discuss the limitations on the equity part, because I think that these are pretty important, too.

Answer 1

I'm certain most economists would be given the existence of externalities, both terrible and confident. If there are terrible and optimistic externalities, there's a clear argument that this may result in market failure. For instance:

confident externalities and market failure
terrible externalities and market failure
i might argue that wellness care is a transparent case of a carrier which has a robust confident externality. For those who look at requisites of public wellness in the Ninenteenth Century, death premiums had been a lot higher. It is in everyones curiosity to furnish a minimum stage of public well being considering that each person advantages. You probably have a quandary where persons seize infectious sickness for the reason that the free market has failed to provide decent sewage or vaccination, each person is more susceptible to catching illness too.

Strategy to Externalities

The strategy to externalities could differ. I'm not too conscious of severe Libertarian suggestions given that I find it elaborate to take them too severely. I know the presidential candidate Ron Paul argued there used to be no want for public health care in view that within the absence of government, nearby communities would chip together to present nearby charitable provision.

A libertarian might also argue, that even supposing there is a theoretical case for presidency intervention to beat market failure, the federal government should nonetheless nothing. The argument is that the bills of government intervention (such as incentive lowering sales taxes), bad know-how, and the inevitable government corruption will consistently outweigh the improvement.

Personally, I don't accept this concept. Well being care staff, such as nurses and doctors don't grow to be inefficient due to the fact that they're working for the federal government NHS instead than a revenue making wellness corporation. In fact, perhaps the reverse.

Nor do I take delivery of that the free market will magically furnish these public goods. If you go away it to the free market, there'll consistently be a giant inequality in provision and fine of the product. Victorian society, indicates that the free market will provide some wellbeing care and some education, however, this used to be an awfully restricted. Some thing failings of presidency wellness care and public education, I'd take it over a libertarian society.

Nor do I be given that govt intervention has to be inefficient, corrupt and all of the other evil practises that libertarians task onto government. If in case you have executive of the individuals, there is no purpose why government public services can't be run in the public interest.

It's worth bearing in mind even proper wing ree market economists like Greg Mankiw, who worked for George Bush, is a powerful recommend of the Pigou membership taxing items to make men and women pay the whole social fee.