This paper reviews three arguments why government should not directly finance public goods provision in the countryside: (1) sorting and voting of residents leads to efficient local public goods provision, (2) community governance better copes with incomplete contracting in public goods, and (3) public provision drives out voluntary private provi-sion of public goods. Theory and empirical evidence partly support these arguments. The adequate level of rural governance appears to be often below the national or Euro-pean level, and policy should focus on the institutional premises of public goods provi-sion rather than on centralized payments to public good providers.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics in its series Staff Paper Series with number
497.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)