Need in done asap due at 11:00pm est

Assignment 4: Public Goods

ECON 22060

In the fourth assignment, you are asked to identify a good that you have used in the past month

that is either a public good, common resource or artificially scarce. You should explain why the

good is the type you believe it to be by explaining if it is rival or non-rival and excludable or non-

excludable in consumption. Briefly discuss who provides this good, especially distinguishing

between government provision and private, market provision. Also, you should mention if this

good is likely to face the problem of free riders and why. You should avoid using an example from

class.

For example, I could use going to the movie theater. Assuming the theater isn’t completely full,

then seeing a movie is likely non-rival; me watching the movie doesn’t prevent someone else from

doing so. Because I have to buy a ticket for the movies, and only those with tickets are allowed to

watch, the movie is excludable; the theater can prevent someone from seeing it if they don’t pay. A

non-rival, excludable good is an artificially scarce good. I would then mention that this good is

provided privately and that it is not likely to face a free rider problem, and why those things are the

case.

Key elements of the assignment:

1. Find a recent good that you have experience with.

2. Identify what kind of good it is.

3. Explain why the characteristics of the good make it that type.

4. Explain who provides this good.

5. Discuss if your good is likely to have a lot of free riders.

10 pt. Model Response:

I recently watched a video on YouTube, which I believe is a public good. Public goods are defined as

non-rival and non-excludable. A YouTube video is available to everyone once it’s published to the site, other

than certain videos which are blocked in some countries or restricted by age, so the video probably best fits

the category of a non-excludable good. The video millions of views, and many other people across the world

were probably watching it at the same time, so the video is best described as non-rival.

Currently, most videos are provided by the market, although anyone is free to make one. The video I

watched was provided by an individual in the market, not by any government or central agency. It was made

possible by Patreon supporters, who are people who donate money to support artists and creators. Videos

are interesting because although many people watch the video without paying for it themselves, which

would make them free riders, the revenue structure is such that whenever someone watches it, the creator

receives a small bit of money from advertisers. This way, even though there are many free riders in the

viewing audience, it actually isn’t a problem in this market because of the advertising revenue helping to pay

for the video.

Rubric for Peer Evaluation:

10 points: The submitter clearly chose a good that is recent and that they have reasonably interacted with.

They explain, correctly, what type of good it is by explaining if it is rival or non-rival and excludable and non-

excludable. The submitter describes who is currently providing the good and discusses free-riders in relation

to the good. The writing is clear and they use full sentences to answer the assignment.

9 points: Either the submitter chose a good that is not recent or that they have reasonably interacted with.

They explain, correctly, what type of good it is by explaining if it is rival or non-rival and excludable and non-

excludable. The submitter describes who is currently providing the good and discusses free-riders in relation

to the good. The writing is clear and they use full sentences to answer the assignment.

8 points: The submitter clearly identifies a good. They explain what type of good it is by explaining if it is rival

or non-rival and excludable and non-excludable, but may get some part of this analysis incorrect, such as

claiming it is rival when it is actually not rival or come to the wrong conclusion about that type of good it is.

The submitter describes who is currently providing the good and discusses free-riders in relation to the

good. The writing is understandable and they use full sentences to answer the assignment.

7 points: The submitter clearly identifies a good. They explain what type of good it is but get a large part of

this analysis incorrect, such as incorrectly identifying the good’s type or not mentioning if it is rival or non-

rival and excludable or non-excludable. The submitter forgets to either describe who is currently providing

the good or discuss free-riders in relation to the good. The writing is mostly understandable and they use full

sentences to answer the assignment.

6 points: The submitter identifies a good, or at least attempts to. They explain what type of good it is but

gets most of this analysis incorrect, such as incorrectly identifying the goods and not mentioning if it is rival

or non-rival and excludable or non-excludable. The submitter forgets to either describe who is currently

providing the good or discuss free-riders in relation to the good. The writing is mostly understandable and

they use full sentences to answer the assignment.

5 points: The submitter made an attempt to answer the assignment, but was entirely incorrect or forget to

answer major parts of the assignment.

0-4: The submitter did not make an honest attempt to answer the assignment. A 0 will represent no effort

while a 4 represents effort but completely off topic.