Delivering Letters: Should it be Decriminalized?
Throughout the world it is illegal to compete with the state Post Office in the collection and delivery of letters.1 Is this an instance of the madness of crowds (of bureaucrats) or is there a good economic or other justification for outlawing competition? As background to discussing the substantive issues, we first provide a brief historical account of the evolution of the monopoly in Britain.
KeywordsConsumer Surplus Average Cost Uniform Price Postal Service Public Ownership
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Coase, R.H. 1961. “The British Post Office and the Messenger Companies.”Journal of Law and Economics 4:12–65.Google Scholar
- Daunton, M.J. 1985. Royal Mail. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
- Estrin, S., and D. de Meza. 1988. “Should the Post Office’s Statutory Monopoly be Lifted?” London School of Economics mimeo.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. 1962. Capital and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Hunt, L.C., and E.L. Lynk. 1990. “An Empirical Examination of the Case for Post Office Divestiture in the UK.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
- Mankiw, N.G., and M. Whinston 1986. “Free Entry and Social Efficiency.” Rand Journal 17 (Spring): 48–58.Google Scholar
- Panzar, J.C., and R.D. Willig. “Free Entry and the Sustainability of Natural Monopoly.”Bell Journal 8 (Spring): 1–22.Google Scholar
- Pryke, R. 1981. The Nationalised Industries. Oxford: Mart in Robertson.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, M. 1986. `The Nature and Scope of Contestability Theory.“ Oxford Economic Papers 38 (supplement): 37–57.Google Scholar
- Tabor, R. 1987a. “Can Competition Pass `Go’ with a Natural Monopoly?” Public Finance and Accountancy (May 8 ).Google Scholar
- Tabor, R. 1987b. “Who Benefits from `One Price for Everyone’?” Public Finance and Accountancy (June 12 ).Google Scholar