Markets or Governments
Choosing Between Imperfect Alternatives
ResearchPublished 1986
Choosing Between Imperfect Alternatives
ResearchPublished 1986
The choice between markets and governments in the conduct of economic affairs is one of the cardinal issues of our time, but both entail predictable and serious shortcomings. Nevertheless, modern economics treats these shortcomings asymmetrically. This Note attempts to rectify this imbalance by developing and applying a theory of "nonmarket" (i.e., government) failure, so that the comparison between markets and governments can be made more systematically. The author reaches the following conclusions: (1) The choice between market and nonmarket systems is not a pure one, since actual systems inevitably involve combinations of governments and markets; the relative involvement of each, however, greatly affects the performance and the fairness of the economic and social systems. (2) With respect to both static and dynamic efficiency criteria, markets do a much better job than governments. (3) Government can play an important role in improving and extending the functioning of markets. (4) Market forces themselves can play a significant role in improving the functioning of government.
This publication is part of the RAND note series. The note was a product of RAND from 1979 to 1993 that reported miscellaneous outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.