Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 68 - Sayı: 04

Public Goods: Market Failure or the Failure of the Theories?

Kamu Malları: Piyasa Başarısızlığı mı Teorilerin Başarısızlığı mı?

Pages
147–184
Publication Date
2013-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, the basis common to all these theories are critically evaluated.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Public goods are generally perceived as market failure and consequently are thought to be subject to public intervention.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, when mainstream theories are closely examined, one can see that there is no consensus on the characteristics of public goods that would justify public provision, hence there are many objections to the public provision of such goods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, the basis common to all these theories are critically evaluated.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kamu malları kavramı · bedavacılık · gönüllü katkı

Abstract

Public goods are generally perceived as market failure and consequently are thought to be subject to public intervention. However, when mainstream theories are closely examined, one can see that there is no consensus on the characteristics of public goods that would justify public provision, hence there are many objections to the public provision of such goods. The main thesis of this study is that the concept of public goods is inadequate to describe the publicness of goods, and corresponding theories also fail to clearly explain even what they themselves theoretically devised. To investigate this thesis, it is examined whether public goods theory has a satisfactory explanation about publicness of goods as well as optimal provision, collective decision making processes and market failure. These are comparatively studied by the views of main economic schools of thought that contribute to the theory of public goods - traditional neoclassical economics, public choice school and new institutionalist economics. Finally, the basis common to all these theories are critically evaluated.

Özet

Kamu malları genellikle bir piyasa başarısızlığı olarak ortaya konulan ve bu nedenle devlet müdahalesini gerektiren bir konu olarak görülmektedir. Fakat anaakım kamu malları teorileri derinlemesine incelendiğinde kamu mallarının devlet sunumuna gerekçe oluşturacak özellikleri konusunda bir uzlaşma olmadığı ve genellikle kamusal sunumun onaylanmadığı görülmektedir. Çalışmanın temel tezi, kamu malı kavramının malların kamusallığını açıklamada yetersiz olduğu ve kamu malı teorilerinin açıklamayı amaçladığı konularda bile yeterli bir açıklama getiremediğidir. Bu tezi araştırmak üzere, malların kamusallığı, kamu mallarının optimum üretim düzeyi, piyasa dışı karar alma süreçleri ve piyasa başarısızlıkları konularında kamu malları teorisinin yeterli açıklama getirip getirmediği incelenmektedir. Kamu malları konusunda katkıda bulunmuş olan farklı iktisat okullarının -geleneksel neoklasik iktisat, kamu tercihi okulu ve yeni kurumsalcı iktisadın- bu konulardaki yaklaşımları karşılaştırmalı bir şekilde ele alınmakta, son olarak da teorilerin ortaklaştığı temeller üzerinden eleştirel bir değerlendirme yapılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYIRAN, M. (2013). Public Goods: Market Failure or the Failure of the Theories?. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 68 - Sayı: 04, 147–184. https://ajindex.com/articles/10284

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Barr, Nicholas (1987), The Economics of the Welfare State, (California: Stanford University Press). Bergstrom, Theodore, Lawrence Blume ve Hal R. Varian (1986), “On the Private Provision of Public Goods”, Journal of Public Economics, 29: 25-49.
  2. Block, Walter (1983), “Public Goods and Externalities: The Case of Roads”, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 11: 1-34.
  3. Buchanan, James M. (1965), “An EconomicTheory of Clubs”, Economica 32(1): 1–14.
  4. Buchanan, James M. (1999a),
  5. Public Finance in Democratic Process, The Collected Works of ]ames M. Buchanan Cilt 4, (USA: Liberty Fund), (Orijinal baskı: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967).
  6. Buchanan, James M. (1999b), The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, The Collected Works of ]ames M. Buchanan Cilt 5, (USA: Liberty Fund), (Orijinal baskı: Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968).
  7. Buchanan, James M. ve Gordon Tullock (1962),
  8. The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  9. Coase, Ronald (1960), “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 1-44.
  10. Colm, Gerhard (1956), “Comments on Samuelson's Theory of Public Finance”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 38(4): 408-412.
  11. Cornes, Richard ve Sandler, Todd (1994), “Are Public Goods Myths?”, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(3): 369-385.
  12. Demsetz, Harold (1970), “The Private Production of Public Goods”, Journal of Law and Economics, 13: 293-306. Desai,Meghnad (2003), “Public Goods: A Historical Perspective” I. Kaul, P.Conceiçao, K.Goulven ve R.Mendoza (der.) Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization içinde, (US: Oxford University Press): 63-77.
  13. Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, (New York: Harper and Row). Göker, Zeliha (2008), “Kamusal Mallar Tanımında Farklı Görüşler”, Maliye Dergisi, Sayı:155: 108- 118. Haque, M. S. (2001), “The Diminishing Publicness of Public Service under the Current Mode of Governance”, Public Administration Review, 61(1): 65-82.
  14. Head, John G. (1974), Public Goods and Public Welfare, (Durham: Duke University Press). Hirshleifer, Jack (1983), “From Weakest-Link to Best-Shot: The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods.” Public Choice 41, s.371-386.
  15. Holcombe, Randall G. (1997), “A Theory of the Theory of Public Goods”, Review of Austrian Economics, 10(1): 1-22.
  16. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (1989), “Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security”, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9 (1): 27-46.
  17. Kaul, Inge. ve Ronald U. Mendoza (2003), “Advancing the Concept of Publ