本文发表于SSRG International Journal of Economicsand Management Studies (SSRG-IJEMS) – Volume 6 Issue 5–May 2019
Rights-Ethics Public Goods: Based on the Expanded-Definition of Public Goods
1 Jia Kang, the First President and Chief Economist of China Academy of New Supply-side Economics, Research Fellow in Chinese Academy of Fiscal Sciences, Beijing, the People’s Republic of China
2 Feng Qiaobin, Professor in Economics Department of Chinese Academy of Governance, Beijing, the People’s Republic of China 100089
Abstract: Based on related literature, the authors consider that basic education, basic medical services and low-rent house are a special kind of public goods and name them “rights-ethics public goods ”. On this basis, getting some reference from Buchanan and others, the authors revise and expand the classic definition of public goods and develop a new one: the expanded-definition of public goods, and give the related theoretical explanation. Further, the authors discuss the inherent requirements of rights-ethics public goods, namely redefining the democratic and legal mechanisms of the boundary periodically.Keywords: classic public goods; rights-ethics public goods; expanded-definition of public goods
V. THE “SPECTRUM” OF SOCIAL PRODUCTS AFTER ADDING RIGHTS-ETHICS PUBLIC GOODS
A. The Composition of Public Goods when Expanding the Definition of Public Goods
The expanded definition of public goods and its related interpretations allow us to sketch out a "spectrum" of the basic distribution of social products from public goods to private products. (Refer to Figure 4.)Between the pure public goods on the far left and the pure private products on the far right, there are a large number of quasi-public goods and rights-ethics public goods with drifting boundaries. The characteristics of social products in this field are not strictly consistent with the characteristics of "non-exclusive" and "non-competitive". It is inconsistent in micro-level and consistent in macro-level to a certain extent, which is different from the products that are "completely consistent with two characteristics" on the left side and the products that are "completely inconsistent with two characteristics" on the right side. No matter it is pure public goods or quasi-public goods and rights-ethics public goods, they have an inseparable "positive externality" effect, which is different from the "no obvious positive externalities" of private products, but the degree can be significantly different. In this perspective of understanding - taking education as an example, Jia Kang (1998) has analyzed: "Education and health care, for some individuals and micro units, can be classified as non-public products. But as maintaining a certain level of education and health care in the whole society is a necessary condition for macroeconomic stability and overall development, they are classified as public goods. In modern society, it is the necessary conditions for overall social development that the basic education of social members reaches and maintains a certain level. Therefore, the basic education, such as China’s nine-year compulsory education, has more characteristics of pure public goods, while higher education is more biased towards the characteristics of non-public goods because its correlation with diverse development investment decision and competitiveness has increased significantly in the social choice of individual members and life design" (Jia Kang, 2002). Today, it can be said that the rights-ethics public goods explicitly mentioned in this article stabilize the low-income group and the so-called "vulnerable group" in the social redistribution led by the government, thus stabilizing the whole society and promoting the maximization of public interests. However, its boundaries need to be re-determined through public selection procedures at regular intervals, and different definitions may occur in different historical development stages due to technical conditions, market conditions, institutional mechanisms, etc., for example, the length of compulsory education extending from the statutory 6 years to 9 years and then to 12 years. Even at the boundary of rights-ethics public goods and pure private products, there may be "wall riding" social products between them, such as higher education, compulsory personal pension accounts, andsome applicable scientific and technological achievements.In summary, we can form a basicunderstanding of the three parts of public goods under the expanded definitionof public goods.1. Identify undoubtedly the non-exclusiveand non-competitive pure public goods for consumption.2. Some quasi-public products thatpartially meet the above-mentioned characteristics.3. Rights - ethics public goodsinconsistent with two characteristics in micro and intuitive form, butconsistent with two characteristics in macro and comprehensive form to acertain extent.Further, it should be explicitly emphasizedthat the boundaries between the various classifications within public goods andtheir private products can drift with the relevant factors and conditions ofdevelopment stage, technology, market, system, etc., and the specific scope ofrights-ethics public goods needs to be redefined at regular intervals throughpublic selection procedures.B. A Specific Case: China’s Recent Medicaland Health System ReformOn April 6, 2009, China’s decision-makinglevel issued the “Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Medical and HealthSystem” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”). Compared withthe past, the most striking change of this new medical reform program, whichhas been published for three years and has been controversial, is that thegovernment has clearly stated that “the basic medical and health system isprovided as a public product to the whole people”, which has aroused theenthusiastic attention of the whole society.This “Opinion” and its above-mentionedterms about the public product attributes of the basic health care systemprovide a good example of this article’s basic understanding of rights-ethicspublic goods. Institutional arrangements in the economic society are also akind of public goods, and the basic medical security conditions provided by thebasic medical and health system covering the whole nation, which can beobtained by the lowest income class, support the harmonious and stablesituation shared by all social members. It is a public product that benefits allpeople and everyone. In China, the basic medical health system, as a publicproduct that has not been defined and newly defined, represents the dynamicevolution of rights-ethics public goods in real life. This is born in the landof China in the bottom-to-up interaction of the games of “longitudinaldemocracy, which is called by John Naisbitt. The reality of China’s economic andsocial transition shows that the expanded definition of public goods (includingrights-ethics public goods) is worthy of serious academic discussion, andshould be possible and necessary to constitute the theoretical basis for theinnovation of relevant concepts and public management practices. The real lifein China and the world economy and society is inspiring and stimulating theresearchers to pay more attention to such unavoidable research deepening andexpanding work.In this paper, weenumerate and sort out two definitions of public goods, namely Samuelson’sdefinition and Buchanan’s definition, and point out that the twocharacteristics of public goods contained in the definition of Samuelson are “non-competitiveand non-exclusive in consumption”, which is a paradox with the contemporarypolicy reality of China and the western countries that “the governmentsometimes provides private products” (Harvey Rosen) and also difficult toexplain. On this basis, we draw out and sort out Buchanan’s definition ofpublic goods, and illustrate our highly regard for the “collective choice”contained in this definition. Further, we believe that the two definitions ofSamuelson and Buchanan are not independent and antagonistic, but can be openedup into a relationship of inclusion and the included, the so-called “expandeddefinition of public goods”, thus the definition of Samuelson (emphasis on the “twocharacteristics” of public goods) and the definition of Buchanan (emphasis on “collectivechoice”) are unified within a more comprehensive and self-consistentinterpretation framework. Therefore, the main contribution of this paper is notto redefine the public goods, but to achieve “bridging” and “opening up”between the existing two representative definitions of public goods that seemincompatible with each other. The “expanded definition ofpublic goods”integrates the original split cognitive framework to develop and enhance theoverall inclusiveness and explanatory power of the theory of public goods.The concept to open up and bridge twodefinitions of public goods is rights-ethics public goods. Is it necessary togive a name to the “quasi-public goods” such as basic education, health care,and affordable housing, etc. that everyone is accustomed to? We think that thisis absolutely necessary. Our research shows that under the strict classicdefinition of public goods, the above products are not quasi-public goods atall. On the contrary, they are private products that are competitive inconsumption and exclusive in beneficiary. When the society develops to acertain stage, education, medical care and housing, etc. are regarded as thebasic rights of citizens and has become part of the basic values of the wholesociety and the political ethics that the ruling party must follow. Only atthis time, can these private products be turned to public goods through “athrilling leap” after going through necessary public selection procedures. Thename of the rights-ethics public goods accurately points out that “it isprivate product provided by the government”, which is different from theessential characteristics of ordinary public goods.Moreover, the introduction of rights-ethicspublic goods also helps to clarify the current government and marketresponsibilities in China’s education, health care, housing and other issuesand provide constructive ideas. Due to the special nature of rights-ethicspublic goods, namely “private products provided by the government”, differentprinciples need to be applied in the production and distribution of theseproducts, that is, production according to economic principles and distributionaccording to political principles.As far as “production according to economicprinciples” is concerned, from the perspective of strict academicargumentation, we have clarified the feasibility of fully private production ofthese products. The beneficiaries of education, health care and low-renthousing can be confirmed and its degree of benefit (exclusiveness) can bemeasured, therefore it is fully chargeable and can be handed over to the privatesector for production. As a result, not only can we gain the superiority of “introducingcompetition and improving efficiency”, which is widely recognized by all walksof life, but also solve the core problem in the public economics of “difficultiesin the pricing of public goods”. The practical significance lies in:fundamentally denying the views and practices of some governmentdepartmentsthat insist that only public schools and public hospitals can maintain publicwelfare (substantially protect the interests of the department).As far as “distribution according topolitical principles” is concerned, we argue that private products such aseducation, medical care and housing should be special public goods that enterthe list of government provision after “regulated public choices”. Therefore,the responsibility of the government mainly lies in ensuring that theirnationals have access to (ie, accessibility) these products. There is nonecessary connection between the above and whether the nationals havecorresponding ability to pay. Therefore, the main role of the government is toestablish a sustainable fund-raising and payment system, and to urge everycitizen to join and provide support for low-income people so as to compensatefor the huge gap between “must pay before product” and “cannot pay, but mustconsume”, thus promoting social equity and maintaining the legitimacy of theregime. With economic and social development, this is a dynamic andstandardized public choice mechanism that should be conducted once in a while(such as the legal compulsory education aforementioned are 9 years, but in someof the more developed regions it has been extended to 12 years through thelegislative process of the National People's Congress). In real life, it is amajor practical issue concerning the democratization and legalization system ofpublic affairs and public resources allocation in China.“Production according to economicprinciples and distribution according to political principles” is actually amajor division and specific expression in the scope and focuses of thegovernment and market functions in the production and distribution of the aboveproducts, as well as materialization of the leading “public-privatepartnerships” (PPP) in the field of public goods. The implied policyimplications are as follows. On one hand, relax the government regulation inthe production of these products, reduce the conditions that restrict the entryof the private sector, introduce competition, improve efficiency and savesocial resources. On the other hand, clarify and increase the government’sresponsibility in “delivering” the above public goods, realizing theredistribution of income and promoting social equity. Our research shows thatthe rationalization of the government’s function of “neither offside nor absent”should be a dynamic and endless process of historical evolution that requiresthe participation of democratization and rule of law to dynamically define thespecific boundaries of rights-ethics public goods. The significance of thisprogress must be global and fundamental for the modernization in China.
REFERENCES
[1] Guo Qingwang, Lu Xin, Zhao Zhiyun, etc.,The Dictionary of Public Economics, Beijing: Economic Science Press, 1999.
[2] Jia Kang, The Attributes of theEducational Products and Its Corresponding Theory, Research on the FinancialEducational Investment and Its Management, Beijing: China Financial andEconomic Publishing House, 2002.
[3] Jia Kang, Substance and Regulation ofPublic Finance, Beijing: Economic Science Press, 1998.
[4] Feng Qiaobin, Private Property andPublic Finance, Beijing: China Financial and Economic Publishing House, 2005.
[5] Lu Hengli, Discussion on the PrivateProvision of Public Goods, Journal of Tianjin Normal University (SocialScience), No.3, 2002.
[6] Liu Shibai, Market Economy and PublicProducts, Economist, No. 4, 2007.
[7] Li Lin, Liu Guo’en, The Participation ofProfitable Hospital in Market Competition Alleviating the Difficulty of GettingMedical Treatment, Review on Chinese Medical Reform, No. 4, 2009
[8] Long Xinmin, Yin Lijun, A Review on theConcept of Public Goods, Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and SocialSciences), No. 3, 2007.
[9] Ma Jun, The Value of the Concept ofPublic Good, Finance & Trade Economics, No.11 , 2005.
[10] Qin Hui, On Liberty: The Key toIntegrating Personal Value Into Social Values, China and World Affairs, No.4,2006.
[11] Tang Jun, The Basic Concept andTheoretical Framework of Social Policies, China Value,http://www.chinavalue.net/Article/Archive/2007/4/8/61689_14.html, April 12,2009.
[12] Tang Xianglai, The Fourth Way to PublicProduct Supply — A Research of the PPP Mode, Economic Survey, No.1, 2006.
[13] Wu Wei, The Latest Development ofPublic Goods Theory in the West, Finance & Trade Economics, No.4, 2004.
[14] Zhou Yicheng and Yan Juan, What isPublic Goods, a Literature Review, Academia Bimestris, No.1, 2008.
[15] Zhu Mingxi, Query on the Definition ofPublic Goods of Western Mainstream Schools, Public Finance Research, No.12,2005.
[16] The Central Committee of the CommunistParty of China and the State Council, Opinions on Deepening the Reform of theMedical and Health System, promulgated on April 6, 2009.
[17] SEN Amartya. Poverty and Famines [M].Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2004.
[18] (USA) James M. Buchanan, translated byTang Shouning, Public Finance In Democracy Process, Shanghai: Shanghai JointPublishing Company, 1992.
[19] (USA) Douglass C. North, Structure andChange in Economic History, Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing Company, 1991.
[20] (USA) Harvey S. Rosen, Public Finance(The Fourth Edition), Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2000.
[21] Michael Hill, Understanding SocialPolicy, Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003.
[22] (Australia) Huge Stretton and LionelOrchard, Public Goods, Public Enterprise, Public Choice, Beijing: EconomicScience Press, 2000.
[23] Inge Kaul, etc., Providing GlobalPublic Goods: Managing Globalization, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2006.
[24] Buchanan, James M., The demand andSupply of Public Goods, Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1968.
[25] R. H. Coase, The Lighthouse inEconomics, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.17, No.2 (Oct., 1974), p.357-376.
[26] Dennis Epple & Richard E. Romano, Public Provision of PrivateGoods, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.104, No.1.(Feb., 1996).
[27] Goldin, Kenneth D., Equal Access VS Selective Access: A Critigqueof Public Goods Theory, Public Choice, 29 (spring), 1979.
[28] Harold Demsetz, The Private Provision of Public Goods, Journal ofLaw & Economics, 13 (1970) University of Chicago Press.
[29] Musgrave, R.A., The Theory of Public Finance, New York,McGraw-Hill, 1959.
[30] Musgrave, R.A., Provision for Social Goods, Public Economics,London: MCMillen, 1969.
[31] Pickhardt M., Fifty Years After Samueson’s The Pure Theory ofPublic Expenditure: What’ Are We left with? Paper presented at the 58thcongress of International Institute of Public Finance, Helsinki, August 26-29,2002, httP:/www.pickhardt.com.
[32] Samuelson, P.A., The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, The Reviewof Economics and Statistics, Yol.36(4)1954.
[33] Samuelson, P. A. (1955, Nov.). Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theoryof Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 350–356.
[34] Samuelson, P. A. (1958, Nov.). Aspects of Public ExpenditureTheories. Review of Economics and Statistics, pp.332–338.
[35] Samuelson, P. A. (1969). Pure Theory of Public Expenditure andTaxation. In J. Margolis and H. Guitton (Eds.),Public Economics (pp. 98–123).London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
[36] Schmidtz, D. (1991). The Limits of Government. An Essay on the PublicGoods Argument. Boulder: Westview
[37] W. VerEecke, Public Goods: An Ideal Concept, Journal ofSocial-Economics, 1999( 28).
“权益—伦理型公共产品（公共物品）”
消费上的非竞争性和非排他性是经典公共产品理论的基石，有关政府与市场职能划分的依据、公共产品提供方式的合理化等认识，皆由此而来。但是，萨缪尔森等人的经典定义，却不能令人信服地解释基础教育、医疗服务、廉租房等这类具有竞争性和排他性的产品为何被认定为公共产品。对此，贾康与冯俏彬合作提出了“扩展的公共产品定义”，并进行了相应的理论阐释，研究成果《权益—伦理型公共产品：关于扩展的公共产品定义及其阐释》发表在2010年《经济学动态》杂志第7期，旨在从理论上对经典公共产品定义进行改进和补充。
1.权益—伦理型公共产品和扩展的公共产品理论框架：
在扩展的公共产品定义下，政府既可以提供公共产品，也可以提供直观形式上的私人产品，前提是只要公共选择程序决定这么做。教育、医疗、住房，固然可以排他也有竞争性，是可以由市场提供的私人产品，但是，当社会发展到一定程度以后，每一个公民能得到基本的教育、生病的时候能得到救治、有基本的住房保障、有一份工作、年老的时候能得到基本生活品等被视为人之所以为人的“基本权利”，被视为一个文明社会理应具备的仁慈与人道关怀。这种价值观在得到广泛的共识后，经过公共选择的程序，转化为现实的社会政策。于是，这些以前的私人产品，顺理成章地进入了政府提供的公共产品的清单。不可否认，由政府提供基础教育、医疗服务、住房等在满足当代社会对于公民权利的诉求，在贯彻“公平”、“平等”等基本价值观的同时，的确还对全社会带来了实实在在的利益，即大多数文献中所声称的效用不可分割的“正外部性”或公益性带来的社会和谐。由此，我们将这类新的公共产品称为“权益—伦理型公共产品”。在扩展的公共产品定义基础上，公共产品的范围如图1所示：
图1 扩展的公共产品结构示意图
2.概念：
权益—伦理型公共产品的基本特点是“有私人产品特征的公共产品”。相对于经典公共产品，权益—伦理型公共产品具有双重性，即“有私人产品特征的公共产品”。也就是说，基于政治伦理，它应当由全体社会成员平等消费，因此只能按照政治原则分配。但是，基于产品属性，则既能排他也有竞争性，且某种这类产品在一定时间的消费总量X等于i（i=1,2,3 ……n）个消费者消费量之和，用公式表示为
，
因此消费它们的效用可分割、受益主体可识别且受益程度可计量，具备了收费的全部条件。由此，在其生产中可以引入经济原则，并打开通向公共部门与私人部门合作（Public Private Partnership,简称PPP）的大门(见图2)。
3.供给机制与功能表现：
（1）按政治原则进行分配，但特别重视那些缺乏权利的人群。大凡公共产品，都应是可由全体国民平等享受的。权益-伦理型公共产品基于“每个人都应平等地享有某种权利”的价值观念而产生，因此理论上讲政府更应当向全体国民平等地提供。权利的普及对象应该是那些还权利不足的“弱势”群体。注意到这样一个事实，有助于精准锁定权益—伦理型公共产品在某一特定时期的重点供给对象，即那些由于自身不能控制的原因，无力支付学费、医药费、生活费等的低收入者。
图2 权益—伦理型公共产品的基本特点
（2）具备由私人部门生产的条件，因此生产中可全面引入“经济”、“效率”原则和“使用者付费”、“公私伙伴关系”模式。权益—伦理型公共产品的提供，主要体现政府收入再分配的功能。突出强调权益—伦理型公共产品私人生产的种种优点，并不意味着否认和降低政府在其提供中的重大作用。如前，在公共产品的生产和消费之间，横亘着政府这一中介体。除了在消费环节要按政治原则进行分配这一点必须要由政府执行和保证以外，政府还必须在如何筹资、如何付费、如何管理等“中间环节”上发挥不可替代的作用。
4.边界确定和相关决策制度问题：
在当代，权益型公共产品的主要内容是教育、医疗、住房、就业、个人服务以及对低收入人群的救济等。在经典理论中，公共产品的边界漂移与动态调整已是可观察的普遍事实，对此最一般性的解释是排他性技术的进步与成本的下降导致了某些产品从“公域”到“私域”的移动；另外，市场经济体制的发展和经济社会发展阶段的不同等因素，也造成其边界的漂移。就权益—伦理型公共产品而言，确定边界的标准则不仅是纯粹的技术条件与冰冷的经济因素，而且要包含有复杂政治互动因素的社会政策，其中决定性的影响因素是大多数人持有的某种“政治伦理”或“价值观”。进一步地认知，最重要的不是政府应当提供什么样的权益—伦理型公共产品，而是要在制度层面建立其动态调整、定期重划的公共选择机制。
5.加入权益—伦理型公共产品后的社会产品“光谱”：
扩展公共产品定义后的公共产品构成扩展的公共产品定义及其相关阐释，使我们可以粗线条地勾画一张社会产品从公共产品到私人产品基本分布状态的“光谱”示意图。（见图3）在最左侧的纯粹公共产品和最右侧的纯粹私人产品之间，分布着边界可漂移的、为数众多的准公共产品和权益—伦理型公共产品，这个领域的社会产品特征，是不严格满足“非排他性”和“非竞争性”两个性质，以及微观上不满足、宏观上却有一定程度的满足，这既有别于左侧的“完全满足两性”，也区别于右侧的“完全不满足两性”。但无论是纯公共产品，还是准公共产品和权益—伦理型公共产品，都具有不可分割的“正外部性”效应，区别于私人产品的“无明显正外部性”，但程度可以明显不同。
综上所述，可形成关于扩展的公共产品定义下，公共产品三个组成部分的基本认识：（1）确定无疑具备消费的非排他性与非竞争性的纯粹公共产品；（2）部分满足上述“两性”的准公共产品；（3）微观、直观形态上不具“两性”而宏观、综合形态上则具有一定“两性”的权益—伦理型公共产品。进一步地，应明确地加以强调：公共产品内部各分类之间及其与私人产品之间的分界是可以随发展阶段、技术、市场、体制等相关因素和条件的不同而漂移的；权益—伦理型公共品的具体范围，尤需每隔一段时间经公共选择程序重新进行界定。
贾 康 介 绍
第十一届、十二届全国政协委员和政协经济委员会委员，华夏新供给经济学研究院首席经济学家，中国财政科学研究院研究员、博导，中国财政学会顾问，国家发改委PPP专家库专家委员会成员，中国一带一路PPP项目开发委员会委员，中关村公共资源竞争性配置促进中心首席经济学家，北京市、上海市等多地人民政府咨询委员，北京大学、中国人民大学等多家高校特聘教授。1995年享受政府特殊津贴。1997年被评为国家百千万人才工程高层次学术带头人。多次受朱镕基、温家宝、胡锦涛和李克强等中央领导同志之邀座谈经济工作（被媒体称之为“中南海问策”）。担任2010年1月8日中央政治局第十八次集体学习“财税体制改革”专题讲解人之一。孙冶方经济学奖、黄达—蒙代尔经济学奖和中国软科学大奖获得者。国家“十一五”、“十二五”和“十三五”规划专家委员会委员。曾长期担任财政部财政科学研究所所长。1988年曾入选亨氏基金项目，到美国匹兹堡大学做访问学者一年。2013年，主编《新供给：经济学理论的中国创新》，发起成立“华夏新供给经济学研究院”和“新供给经济学50人论坛”（任首任院长、首任秘书长），2015年-2016年与苏京春合著出版《新供给经济学》专著、《供给侧改革：新供给简明读本》、以及《中国的坎：如何跨越“中等收入陷阱”（获评中国图书评论学会和央视的“2016年度中国好书”）》，2016年出版的《供给侧改革十讲》被中组部、新闻出版广电总局和国家图书馆评为全国精品教材。根据《中国社会科学评估》公布的2006～2015年我国哲学社会科学6268种学术期刊700余万篇文献的大数据统计分析，贾康先生的发文量（398篇），总被引频次（4231次）和总下载频次（204115次）均列第一位，综合指数3429，遥居第一，是经济学核心作者中的代表性学者。
