lp 1 28 WHY PR. BLOCK IS NOT ENTIRELY RIGHT AND PR. TULLOCK IS COMPLETELY WRONG THE CASE FOR ROAD PRIVATIZATION英文文献.pdfVIP

LIBERTARIAN PAPERS VOL. 1, ART. NO. 28 (2009) WHY PR. BLOCK IS NOT ENTIRELY RIGHT AND PR. TULLOCK IS COMPLETELY WRONG: THE CASE FOR ROAD PRIVATIZATION * LAURENT A.H. CARNIS THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR in the production of road services has been extensively studied and has generated substantial theoretical and empirical work (Block 2006; Carnis 2006; Roth 2006). There is debate as to the modalities of privatisation (Block 2006; Carnis 2003; Hoppe 1991) and the functioning of a market system for the providing of road services (Carnis 2001; Roth 1996; Block 1979). Further issues include dealing with such obstacles to the functioning of a free market as opportunistic behaviour, the possible emergence of a natural monopoly, and negative external effects (Roth 1996; Klein 1990; Block 1983a). Can roads be the subject of market production and management? Block’s reply to this question would most certainly be yes (Block 2006), but Tullock’s position is more ambivalent in that he advocates private production for road networks in cases of competition between many managers, as this avoids income going to a private monopoly (Tullock 1996). Thus he does not seem convinced of the value of a private alternative for local and urban networks for which competition possibilities are more limited. The functioning of a private road system was the subject of an exchange between Block and Tullock some years ago (Block Block 1996; Block 1996; Tullock 1996). The debate focused more particularly on the hypothetical consequences of a monopolised road infrastructure cutting a coun