Public Choice

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 371–386 | Cite as

From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods

  • Jack Hirshleifer
Article

Abstract

It has traditionally been assumed that the socially available amount X of a public good is the simple sum of the separate amounts x i produced by the i = 1, ..., I members of the community. But there are many other possibilities of practical importance. Among them are: (i) Weakest-link rule, where the socially available amount is the minimum of the quantities individually provided, and (ii) Best-shot rule, where the socially available amount is the maximum of the individual quantities. The former tends to arise in linear situations, where each individual has a veto on the total to be provided (e.g., if each is responsible for one link of a chain); the latter tends to arise when there is a single prize of overwhelming importance for the community, with any individual's effort having a chance of securing the prize.

In comparison with the standard Summation formula of ordinary public-good theory, it is shown that underprovision of the public good tends to considerably moderated when the Weakest-link function is applicable, but aggravated when the Best-shot function is applicable. In time of disaster, where the survival of the community may depend upon each person's doing his duty, the conditions for applicability of the Weakest-link rule are approximated. This circumstance explains the historical observation that disaster conditions tend to elicit an extraordinary amount of unselfish behavior.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chamberlin, J. (1974). Provision of collective goods as a function of group size. American Political Science Review 68(June).Google Scholar
  2. Chamberlin, J. (1976). A diagrammatic exposition of the logic of collection action. Public Choice 26(Summer).Google Scholar
  3. Dacy, D.C., and Kunreuther, H.R. (1969). The economics of natural disasters: Implications for Federal policy. New York.Google Scholar
  4. De Alessi, L. (1975). Toward an analysis of postdisaster cooperation. American Economic Review 65(March).Google Scholar
  5. Douty, C.M. (1972). Disaster and charity: Some aspects of cooperative economic behavior. American Economic Review 62(Sept.).Google Scholar
  6. Fritz, C.E. (1961). Disaster. In R.K. Merton and R.A. Nisbet (Eds.), Contemporary social Problems. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
  7. Hirshleifer, J. (1978). Natural economy versus political economy. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 1(Oct.).Google Scholar
  8. Hirshleifer, J. (1963). Disaster and recovery: A historical survey. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. Memorandum RM-3079-PR. April.Google Scholar
  9. Hirshleifer, J. (1975 [1967]). Disaster behavior: Altruism or alliance? UCLA Economics Department Discussion Paper No. 59 (May 1975 [March 1967]).Google Scholar
  10. Iklé, F.C. (1958). The social impact of bomb destruction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  11. Luce, R.D., and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Prince, S.H. (1920). Catastrophe and social change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rosenthal, A.M., and Gelb, A. (1965). The night the lights went out. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
  15. Schelling, T.C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  16. Sorokin, P.A. (1942). Man and society in calamity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Hirshleifer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations