Transport Accessibility as Merit Good
AbstractThe individualâ€šÃ„Ã´s perception of transport cost usually does not include the full social cost of transport, as in for instance, its global environmental effects. Under this view, we observe a mismatch between individual perception and general social transport cost and welfare. In order to overcome this paradox, we need to induce a shift from the limited individualistic perspective to a more socio-economic view, whereby ethical judgments play a role in the economic decision-making process. Transport accessibility is here examined as a merit good and we therefore assume the necessity for government intervention in its provision. However, transport accessibility may be achieved through different levels of merit good values, as for instance, rail intervention versus road intervention. Some transport systems achieve greater fairness in accessibility, thus a higher merit good value; this implies that social planners need to discriminate various levels of subsidy and investment in relation to the fairness in transport accessibility.
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 European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa10p1124.
Date of creation: Sep 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Feehan, James P., 1990. "A simple model for merit good arguments : A comment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-129, October.
- Schroyen, Fred, 2005. "An alternative way to model merit good arguments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 957-966, June.
- Baigent, Nick, 1981. "Social choice and merit goods," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 301-305.
- Mann, Stefan, 2003. "Why organic food in Germany is a merit good," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 459-469.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.