This article points out that in a number of previous works on public investment criteria for underpriced facilities there is an implicit assumption that individuals demand either zero units or one unit of facility capacity. It is shown that if this assumption does not hold, previously identified investment criteria may at times be in error, because within-individual ordering of consumption units is not accounted for. Several different nonprice rationing schemes are discussed in which this assumption is not made, and solutions are presented that account for within-individual ordering of consumption units.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FREEMANA. M., and HAVEMANR. H. (1977) “Congestion, quality deterioration, and heterogeneous tastes.” J. of Public Economics8: 225-232.
2.
MUMYG. E., and HANKES. H. (1975) “Public investment criteria for underpriced public products.” Amer. Econ. Rev.65 (September): 712-720.
3.
PORTERR. (1977) “On the optimal size of underpriced facilities.” Amer. Econ. Rev.67 (September): 753-760.
4.
SENECAJ. J. (1970) “The welfare effects of zero pricing of public goods.” Public Choice8 (Spring): 101-110.
5.
SPENCEM. (1977) “Nonlinear prices and welfare.” J. of Public Economics8: 1-18.
