The merry-go-round in Ross Park, a public park in Binghamton, New York, was first installed in 1920 and has been periodically refurbished by the city in the years since. There is no entry fee to visit the park or to ride the merry- go-round. Is the merry-go-round a public good? Briefly explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Yes, the merry-go-round in Ross Park, Binghamton, New York can be considered a public good as it fits the definition - it is non-excludable (it has no entry or usage fee, so it's accessible to all) and it's non-rivalrous (one person's use doesn't prevent others from using it).

Step by step solution

01

Defining the Key Terms

Understanding the key term here which is a public good. A public good is a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of society. These goods are non-excludable (everyone has access) and non-rivalrous (consumption by one individual does not subtract from the consumption of others).
02

Evaluating the Merry-Go-Round based on the Definition of a Public Good

Analyzing the given conditions in the exercise, the merry-go-round in Ross park was installed in 1920 and gets periodically maintained, with no entry or usage fee. This implies everyone has access to use it which makes it non-excludable.
03

Consideration of the Non-Rivalrous Nature

The merry-go-round is non-rivalrous, meaning that one person riding the merry-go-round does not prevent another person from doing so.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

In the first years following the passage of the Clean Air Act in \(1970,\) air pollution declined sharply, and there were important health benefits, including a decline in infant mortality. According to an article in the Economist, however, recently some policymakers "worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health." a. Why might additional reductions in air pollution come at "ever higher cost"? What does the article mean by arguing that these reductions will result in "diminishing returns in terms of public health"? b. How should the federal government decide whether further reductions in air pollution are needed?

John Cassidy, a writer for the New Yorker, wrote a blog post arguing against New York City's having installed bike lanes. Cassidy complained that the bike lanes had eliminated traffic lanes on some streets as well as some on-street parking. A writer for the Economist disputed Cassidy's argument with the following comment: "I hate to belabour the point, but driving, as it turns out, is associated with a number of negative externalities." What externalities are associated with driving? How do these externalities affect the debate over whether big cities should install more bike lanes?

When does the private cost of producing a good differ from the social cost? Give an example. When does the private benefit from consuming a good differ from the social benefit? Give an example.

What is an externality? Give an example of a positive externality, and give an example of a negative externality.

Why do most economists prefer tradable emission allowances to the command-and- control approach to pollution?

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free