This paper utilizes benefit-cost duality to differentiate the problems associated with a pure public good from the problems associated with a commons. For the public good scenario, contributors’ benefits are public or available to all, while provision costs impact only the contributor. In a commons, crowding costs are public, while benefits affect only the user. Although both problems possess the same game form for their canonical representations, collective-action implications differ: for example, the relative positions of the Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimum, the form of the exploitation hypothesis, and the need for selective incentives or punishments. (JEL H41, D70)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandler et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: