AbstractThis essay examines the published views of vital economists regarding postal reform. I define a vital economist as one who has produced scholarly research on this issue, and who has expressed an opinion about the direction reform should take. The ten vital economists surveyed here express surprisingly similar opinions on the proper direction for postal reform. The vast majority advocate some combination of privatization and elimination or relaxation of the delivery monopoly. Those opinions are in stark contrast to the published views of economists who have not carefully examined this issue.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Econ Journal Watch in its journal Econ Journal Watch.
Volume (Year): 1 (2004)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
postal reform; monopoly; privatization; universal service; liberalization; property rights;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L87 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Postal and Delivery Services
- L88 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Government Policy
- H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jason Briggeman) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Jason Briggeman to update the entry or send us the correct address.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.