Search results

Extends Mäler′s notion of weak complementarity between a private good and a public good to non‐homothetic demand functions which can be exactly aggregated. Aggregate demand functions depending on private prices, public good quantities and income distribution statistics can then be used to recover the private individual demand functions which reveal an individual′s willingness to pay for public goods.

The paper offers a new view of the role of state based on recognition of the economic ability of the state as a separate factor of production. Recognizing the state’s economic ability is as a fifth factor of production and correspondingly gives indirect taxes the status of factor income as state profit. Direct taxes play two roles: they fund expenditure that is necessary for the production of public goods and at the same time they are in effect the latter’s price. If we were to apply the mechanism of producing and purchasing private goods to public goods, direct taxes would be replaced by the state loans that are non‐repayable, but yield interest, or by irretrievable loans with computed interest. In this case, which is illustrated by the budgetary equations in the model of an economy “without taxes”, indirect taxes become analogous to state profit and direct taxes are replaced by irretrievable loans with computed interest.

Public heritage facilities – national parks, art galleries, museums and so on – are now required by professional accounting standards in Australia to be valued and included in government general purpose financial statements as assets. This study challenges the appropriateness of such an accounting treatment in relation to the SAC4 definition of assets and the purported usefulness of the information. Instead it is argued that these facilities are public goods, and that commercial accounting principles should not be applied to them. The article explains the nature and significance of public goods and how they differ from private goods. It explains why commercial accounting principles are irrelevant for public heritage facilities because their objectives are social rather than financial and why commercial valuations are irrelevant and unreliable if applied to them. Finally, it is contended that the facilities are assets held in trust for the nation by government and hence should not be included in its general purpose financial reports.

John Kenneth Galbraith’s social balance theory is an important theme in many of his books, particularly The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State, and Economics and the Public Purpose. Galbraith’s social balance theory states that forces driving private consumption in an industrial society will outpace the development and provision of public goods and services with consequences on the well-being of society (Stanfield, 1996, p. 49). The theory leads to several questions: (1) What is the specific relationship between private and public goods and consumption? (2) What is optimized with social balancing? (3) Does the relationship between private and public goods change over time? and (4) How do we evaluate the types of public goods we need? This chapter explores these questions and examines the type of public goods we need today to serve our communities better. For example, police presence and activities in many minority communities are now viewed negatively, as evidenced by the “defund the police” movement. Conversely, some have advocated for greater public spending on community mental health programs and new initiatives to deal with racism in communities.

The beliefs that Government interferes with individual freedom and that private and public goods are competitive appear to be the two major reasons for man′s aversion to paying taxes. In reality, however, especially from a socio‐economic viewpoint, government also increases individual freedom, and the acceptance of necessity is as much an ingredient of good life as the attainment of freedom. Furthermore, private goods and public goods are as complementary as they are competitive. Thus, compared with the main‐ stream neoclassical economist, the social economist has a more complete understanding of the actual human condition and, in so doing, he can provide better solutions to the problem of man′s hostility to paying taxes.

Presented on behalf of the Evian Group @ IMD, this paper aims to expand upon points made in the keynote speech at the 9th Annual EABIS Colloquium on Corporate Responsibility and Emerging Markets held in St Petersburg, Russia on 20‐21 September 2010.

Three themes are explored within the context of the BRICs: geopolitics and global governance in the twenty‐first century; the balance between public good and private enterprise; and frameworks for equitable trade and inclusive growth.

The global situation is precarious, characterized by multi‐polarity, asymmetrical power threats, and a vacuum in global governance. The trade‐based economic development of the BRICs is a positive economic sign but raises implications for sustainability. There is a need for balance between the ability of the public sector to provide public goods, including global public goods, and the need for government to create incentives for the private sector and unleash its creativity and energy. With the proper incentives and legal structure, including respect for the rule of law, the energy and creativity of the private sector can be harnessed to develop a framework for equitable trade and inclusive growth, and to further the development of a sustainable global market economy.

The paper provides a catalyst for discussion that bridges the gap between business school education, legal education, political science and economics.

Policing in much of the developing world has always been, in many respects, both dominated by the nonstate and pluralised. Yet, plurality and the nonstate are predominantly conceptualised, by scholars and practitioners alike, as problematic, noninclusive and/or undemocratic. Yet the reality is far more complex than this. In this chapter, we turn the tables on conventional wisdom by looking to the positive features of plural or polycentric forms of security governance by asking how these features might be utilised to provide for more inclusive forms of security governance in the Global South. Drawing on empirical research in South Africa on plural policing arrangements, this chapter considers how Sustainable Development Goal 16 which seeks to ‘promote peaceful and inclusive societies’ might be realised within plural governance systems. This chapter seeks to demonstrate that certain conditions need to be in place for plural or polycentric systems of security governance to coprovide effective and inclusive security for the collective good and, furthermore, that the positive features of the nonstate can be harnessed to give effect to the SDGs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the commonly used policy approach to subsidize the private provision of public goods by granting agents deductions with respect to their income or corporate tax burden.

In the framework of a microeconomic representative agent model the commonly used policy approach to subsidize donations by granting agents deductions with respect to their income tax burden is examined. The paper especially considers that most income tax schemes are progressive and deductibility is limited. After pointing to the problems arising from these specific properties of tax‐refund schemes the paper turns towards the effects that such a tax‐refund scheme has with respect to donations on the one hand and welfare on the other hand.

Findings shows that the effects of the commonly practiced methods of supporting donations depend crucially on the specific properties of the tax scheme and preferences of agents. While Pareto‐improvements and even Pareto‐efficiency can result from the implementation of such a scheme, it is also conceivable that some agents perceive a utility reduction.

The analysis builds on a static approach although taxation also exerts important dynamic effects. These effects have been neglected in the current paper as the interaction of taxation and preferences is already quite complex. However, they should be considered in future research.

Owing to the dependency of welfare effects on the tariff structure, income tax reforms as they are planned in many countries might not only induce a reduction in donations, but might as a result also alter the induced welfare effects.

The paper shows that the generally applied tax‐refund schemes constitute no effective means to induce optimal donation levels. Implications depend crucially on, e.g. deductibility ceilings and progressiveness of tax rates.

Emil Sax was an Austrian economist both in origin and theoretical background. He is often cited as one of the founders of modern theoretical public economics. An extensive account of his main ideas is given, along with some of the problems left unresolved in his theory.

This chapter examines public versus private sector roles in addressing CSR/Sustainability issues in the United States. It provides an historical perspective on the primacy of market-driven corporate practice in the United States and recent moves by the state to “balance” private and public interests through both regulatory and non-regulatory means. A typology of government and business roles, based on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” illustrates shared governance of CSR/Sustainability in a variety of multisector and public–private partnerships.

Case studies examine how the U.S. government interacts with business and NGOs and its varied roles in the shared governance of sustainability. Examples from field interviews with business leaders in global operator General Electric (Global Business Initiative on Human Rights), apparel maker-and-seller Patagonia (Aquatic “Hitchhikers”), electronics retailer Best Buy (product recycling), IBM (global corporate volunteering), and others illustrate varieties of shared governance between business and the state in operation today.

Depending on “who leads” and “who makes the rules,” there are variations in whether responsible actions by the private sector are regulatory versus voluntary and whether government’s role involves mandating, partnering, facilitating, or endorsing private sector efforts. Successful shared governance depends on business’s “license to cooperate” and the multiple parties’s sharing responsibility for their goals, operations, and results.

There is a substantial literature on multi-business CSR-related networks and on business–NGO partnerships. Less attention has been given to the role of governments in this space, particularly in the United States where, partly for historical reasons, a company’s relationship with and obligations to society have been regarded as discretionary more so than regulatory activity and where government intervention in markets and in the affairs of companies has been sharply resisted, particularly by business interests, and is suspect among the citizenry.