Why not in your Backyard? On the Location and Size of a Public Facility
AbstractIn this paper, we tackle the issue of locating a public facility which provides a public good in a closed and populated territory. This facility generates differentiated benefits to neighborhoods depending on their distance from it. In the case of a Nimby facility, the smaller is the distance, the lower is the individual benefit. The opposite is true in the case of an anti-Nimby facility. We first characterize the optimal location which would be chosen by a social planner. Then we introduce a common-agency lobbying game, where agents attempt to influence the location and provision decisions by the government. Some interesting results arise in the case where only a subset of neighborhoods lobby. First, the solution of the lobbying game can replicate the optimal solution. Second, under-provision and over-provision of the public good may be obtained both in the Nimby and the anti-Nimby cases. The provision outcome depends on the presence of either a congestion effect or an agglomeration effect. Third, some non-lobbying neighborhoods may be better off than in the case where all neighborhoods lobby, which raises the possibility of free-riding at the lobbying stage.
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 InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 2248.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Bellettini, Giorgio & Kempf, Hubert, 2013. "Why not in your backyard? On the location and size of a public facility," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 22-30.
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:ags:afjare:141665 is not listed on IDEAS
- Eli Feinerman & Israel Finkelshtain & Iddo Kan, 2004.
"On A Political Solution to the NIMBY Conflict,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 369-381, March.
- Ingberman Daniel E., 1995. "Siting Noxious Facilities: Are Markets Efficient?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages S20-S33, November.
- Wellisch Dietmar, 1995. "Locational Choices of Firms and Decentralized Environmental Policy with Various Instruments," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 290-310, May.
- Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M., 2009.
"The train has left the station: Do markets value intra-city access to inter-city rail connections?,"
13900, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt, 2011. "The Train has Left the Station: Do Markets Value Intracity Access to Intercity Rail Connections?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 12(3), pages 312-335, 08.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.