How can public choice theory explain the inefficiencies and failures of public sector provision?

You need to be able to define the differences between rival and non-rival or excludable and non-excludable before discussing their nuances. A rival nature suggests the use or consumption of a good by one lowers the amount of the resource; excludability refers to who may access the good or resource. There are actually very few, true public goods that share a non-rival or non-excludable nature, the largest of which is defense. Once provided, the amount of defense is not lessened by its use and is not excludable to a few once provided. "Goods required for civilian survival" operate within other markets and are subject to competition, no matter how much we dislike it. Economics is the study of how scarce resources are allocated.

Many goods are defined as rival and excludable when essential for the livelihoods of citizens. Some examples are childcare provisions, healthcare (where markets contribute to massive deadweight loss in for-profit systems), and simple resources like food. Public choice theory's suggestion that public provision creates new problems is supported somewhat by research; however, the extent to which a "free-rider" problem exists is suspect. Rather, the myth of a "free-rider" implies that some people are by merit entitled to a non-rival good, while others who do not achieve some societal criteria are excluded from access to the good.

Market failure and public goods are complex issues that require collaboration among governments, businesses, and individuals. By recognizing and addressing market failures, we can create a more sustainable and equitable society. Let us work together to ensure that the collective good is prioritized and that market failures are addressed for the benefit of all. 🌍

Rent seeking is a negative and is directly related to corruption. Lobbying is often done by those with friends in public office and occurs officially and unofficially. As long as corporations and private interest group are allowed to donate unlimited amounts to candidate election campaigns, lobbying and fundraising will always be linked in a negative way.

Rent seeking and interest groups are complex and often controversial aspects of the business world. By understanding their dynamics, we can recognize their impact on industries and policy decisions. Ethical leadership is key to navigating these challenges and promoting a fair and equitable business environment. Let's engage in conversations and work towards creating a more inclusive and accountable world.

Using rent-seeking with a negative connotation implies a negation of the facts of power relations: laws guide the pursuits of private gains through the use of public power. Corruption is illegal. Lobbying is not. One circumvents governance; the other alters it to remove some legal obstacle. Further, the alignment of the pursuit of private interest with the public good makes it possible to see rent-seeking as logical and even beneficial, as systems become more responsive to the preferences of their agents.

Corpora of research calls the above into question. Public organizations, unlike profit-seeking entities that are beholden to revenue and shareholder animal spirits, consistently demonstrate lower overhead costs compared to privatization of the same services. Reasons include the fact that public organizations do not lobby or rent-seek in the political realm with the resources of private organizations; rather, they tend to orient toward long-term value creation. Unlike public organizations, private corporations often pay exorbitant salaries to executives, increasing inequality and deadweight loss.

While bureaucracy and public choice are often discussed in the context of government, these concepts also apply to other organizations and systems. Private companies, nonprofits, and even educational institutions can face similar challenges when it comes to balancing self-interest with the public interest. By understanding the influence of public choice, we can develop effective solutions and foster more accountable and adaptive organizations.

Political cycles are an inherent part of the political process. They shape the political landscape, influencing voter choices, policies, and the course of history. By recognizing and comprehending these cycles, we can navigate the complexities of political life and make more informed choices as citizens instead of complaining.

Economics has always been a political issue--it is, for example the government that insures the continuity of our rights, contracts, and even fiduciary assets. The above paragraph can be seen as an attempt to "Manufacture Consent" for a deregulated market by attempting to position voters and politicians as self-centered, and by excluding the possibility that collective action and individual pursuit can be united.

Limitations: As stated, public choice theory (PCT) is rooted in rational choice theory (RCT): actors use cost-benefit analysis and make decisions in their own (or collective) best interest. Since RCT does not address behaviors based on altruism, reciprocity, or trust (Scott, J. 2000), neither can PCT. Trust Example Polling for the popularity of the Affordable Care Act vs. Obamacare: more people were opposed to Obamacare than the ACA, even though the only difference in the polls is the name (official and unofficial, respectively). While PCT can observe correlated behaviors, the causality is not guaranteed, which then point to rational solutions that do not change underlying behaviors, resulting in a policy response failure.