Laserfiche WebLink
well not be rational for the community of individuals. The reverse is also true. What is rational <br />for society may not be in the rational self-interest of the individual. Rationality also turns out to <br />have different meanings and requirements depending upon the kind of property/resource we are <br />talking about. <br />To clarify the problem, it is helpful to distinguish three kinds of resources and reflect <br />briefly on how rationality is affected by each. (See Figure 1) Property types each produce streams <br />of benefits, but the nature of the benefit streams varies importantly on two conceptual <br />dimensions: rivalness and excludability: <br />Rivalness is determined by whether or not use of the benefit by one user denies <br />that benefit to other potential users. If one investor pays for production of the <br />benefit and consumes what s/he can, will that same benefit be available for others <br />who did not invest in providing it? If not, the property is said to be highly rival, <br />such is the case with investing in a slice of pizza. If one eats the piece, it is not <br />available to another. However, some kinds of property-e.g. high quality <br />whooping crane habitat-is non-rival. One person enjoying the knowledge that <br />whoopers have a good place on the central Platte for their spring and fall <br />stopovers, does not interfere with another's. Here, rivalness would be zero. <br />2. Excludability is determined by whether or not it is easy to exclude the non- <br />investor (free rider) from benefitting from the investment. If one invests in a <br />resourcelproperty, can non-investors easily be excluded from sharing in the <br />benefits produced? If so, excludability is said to be high as would be the case <br />with a piece of pizza. If, on the other hand, an investor invests in improved piping <br />plover habitat in central Nebraska, there can be no exclusion of whatever benefits <br />are produced. Non-investors reap as much of the benefit as those who have <br />sacrificed to provide the improved habitat. Excludability, in such an instance, is <br />zero. <br />Employing these two analytical dimensions, it is now possible to define three kinds of <br />property/resources and highlight their implications for rational action and willingness to sacrifice <br />for provision of high quality wildlife habitat on the central Platte or anywhere else: <br />1. Private property/resources (See Figure 1) are characterized by both high rivalness and <br />excludability. In matters involving private goods, investors can capture fully whatever benefit <br />stream the property produces and they can deny non-investors opportunity to take a"free-ride" <br />on their investment.. Farmers who buy improved seed varieties capture the benefit of higher <br />yields. Purchasers of private groundwater wells capture the benefits of irrigation water for their <br />cornfields and can exclude neighbors from diverting a fraction. A given quantity of water <br />actually put to consumptive use on a farmer's crop is a private good. Pizza buyers literally <br />internalize the benefit of their investments. Individual rationality, therefore, works well in free <br />markets to produce and distribute private goods. People simply employ their individual <br />rationality to trade away the things that they do not want in order to obtain things they do. There <br />is no need to get organized with a whole community to buy and use a pocket comb or a private <br />2