Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Chamberlin, J. (1974). Provision of collective goods as a function of group size. American Political Science Review 68(June).

  • Chamberlin, J. (1976). A diagrammatic exposition of the logic of collection action. Public Choice 26(Summer).

  • Dacy, D.C., and Kunreuther, H.R. (1969). The economics of natural disasters: Implications for Federal policy. New York.

  • De Alessi, L. (1975). Toward an analysis of postdisaster cooperation. American Economic Review 65(March).

  • Douty, C.M. (1972). Disaster and charity: Some aspects of cooperative economic behavior. American Economic Review 62(Sept.).

  • 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 

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1978). Natural economy versus political economy. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 1(Oct.).

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1963). Disaster and recovery: A historical survey. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. Memorandum RM-3079-PR. April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1975 [1967]). Disaster behavior: Altruism or alliance? UCLA Economics Department Discussion Paper No. 59 (May 1975 [March 1967]).

  • Iklé, F.C. (1958). The social impact of bomb destruction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D., and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, S.H. (1920). Catastrophe and social change. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, A.M., and Gelb, A. (1965). The night the lights went out. New York: Signet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T.C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorokin, P.A. (1942). Man and society in calamity. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hirshleifer, J. From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice 41, 371–386 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141070

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141070

Keywords

Navigation