|
"Your last sentence, however, implies that you presume that there would be competition between different road owners. However, as most economists will tell you, while competition in most markets is efficient, it is unlikely to be so in the case of the provision of roads, were the problem of a "wasteful duplication of infrastructure" - ie multiple roads going between the same places - would arise." It already exists. I don't think it is inefficient in a three dimensional world. From an allocative sense it may be viewed as inefficient, but this is a very narrow view and ignorant of the realities of State owned raods. Tell me, if a Govenrment builds a road, what incentive does it have to build it in position x? A private firm ahs to ensure a high flo of traffic, i.e, it will get used efficiently. Having such a series of roads between two points in open land is merely an opportunity for some (farmers or roadside garages) or roads that will be used if the land is subdivided. What stops a property developer or neighbourhood association from building the roads now? "Private ownership per se would not overcome the problem, as privately-owned monopolies are also prone to inefficiency. This may take the form of higher prices or lower quality, including poor signage." Not if you are free to compete against them - barriers to entry are more important than the number of suppliers - with no barriers to entry, a larger number of undustries emerge, consisting mainly of companies with market power, but who price efficiently. So thus productive and allocative considerations are dealth with by removing regulation.
| 
