IMO the nomenclature of (im)pure public goods is stupid. Here I go criticizing Havard-level eco academics...

1. non-excludable AND non-rivalrous is (pure) public good

2. non-excludable OR non-rivalrous is impure public good. But according to the public good definition, an impure public good then isn't (1) a PG. 1/x

Founder /kiwi-news, a decentralized Hacker News

I'd propose to NOT call this an impure public good, but use a new term. E.g. respective impure public goods could be better named e.g. 

- non-rivalrous good (if the impure public good is non-rivalrous but excludable)
- non-excludable good (if the impure public good is non-excludable but rivalrous)

3/3

reference to slides: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/lecture8.pdf

My criticism is that the notion of impurity where we tolerate 50% of properties to be non-present, is too loose. It means a good can be considered an "impure" public good, if it's either non-rivalrous or non-excludable. E.g. a crowded sidewalk is clearly rivalrous as it is subject to congestion. I'd propose... 2/x