When Do Governments Support Common Goods for Health? Four Cases on Surveillance, Traffic Congestion, Road Safety, and Air Pollution

Jesse B Bump,Sumithra Krishnamurthy Reddiar,Agnès Soucat

doi:10.1080/23288604.2019.1661212

Jesse B Bump, Sumithra Krishnamurthy Reddiar + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2019.1661212

Copy DOI

Abstract

Common goods such as air, water, climate, and other resources shared by all humanity are under increasing pressure from growing population and advancing globalization of the world economy. Safeguarding these resources is generally considered a government responsibility, as common goods are vulnerable to market failure. However, governments do not always fulfill this role, and face many challenges in doing so. This observation—that governments only sometimes address common goods problems—informs the central question of this paper: when do governments act in support of common goods? We structure our inquiry using a framework derived from three theories of agenda setting, emphasizing problem perception, the role of actors and collective action patterns, strategies and policies, and catalyzing circumstances. We used a poll of experts to identify important common goods for health: disease surveillance, environmental protection, and accountability. We then chose four historical cases for analysis: the establishment of the Epidemic Intelligence Service in the US, transport planning in London, road safety in Argentina, and air quality control in urban India. Our analysis of the collective evidence of these cases suggests that decisions to advance government action on common goods require a concisely articulated problem, a well-defined strategy for addressing the problem, and leadership backed by at least a few important groups willing to cooperate. Our cases reveal a variety of collective action patterns, suggesting that there are many routes to success. We consider that the timing of an intervention in support of common goods depends on favorable circumstances, which can include a catalyzing event but does not necessarily require one.

Highlights

Despite their importance, acting in support of common goods is difficult
The more direct—“short”—routes between people and providers could be considered as market transactions. These do not apply to common goods for heath (CGH), as they are defined by market failures
To assess a positive example of government decision-making in this area, we investigated the establishment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; at the time the Communicable Diseases Center) and its surveillance arm, the Epidemic Intelligence Service

Summary

Introduction

Despite their importance, acting in support of common goods is difficult. Individuals and private actors generally cannot coordinate to protect common goods. In economic and political thought, the idea of market failure became a major justification for government, which can rectify markets through regulation, taxation, and other interventions, and is better able to manage CGH.[9] governments are susceptible to many of the same failures as markets Both face allocation problems, which are challenging for governments because revenues and costs are disconnected.[10,11] “government failure” can mean that some or all of the government may act in self-interest, such as via corruption or rent seeking, and does not perform its public duties.[12]. In spite of many challenges, at times governments do act in support of CGH, as when they implement universal vaccination programs, communicable disease control programs, and many other public health efforts, for instance This observation motivated us to examine the conditions under which governments decide to intervene in CGH.

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion