@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction