Goods

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Goods surround every moment of a person's day, from the moment they wake up in their home, commute to work, and arrive at the workplace. Yet what exactly qualifies as a "good" in the economic sense is a question with a surprisingly layered answer. Why does the same oxygen you breathe for free have no price, while a bottle of water does? Why can a cable television provider add thousands of new subscribers without diminishing the experience of existing ones? And why does a Nobel Prize winner argue that economists have been sorting goods into the wrong boxes for decades? Those questions sit at the heart of how economists understand almost everything humans produce, trade, and consume.

• 2. What Makes a Good a Good

  ›

  In economics, something qualifies as a good when it provides welfare or utility to someone. Goods stand in direct contrast to bads, also called discommodities, which carry negative utility and therefore a negative price. A household paying a waste collector to remove garbage is the clearest illustration: in that transaction, both the money and the garbage travel in the same direction, toward the collector, meaning the garbage implicitly has a negative price.

  Not all goods cost money, however. The Earth's atmosphere and seawater are useful, but their supply is effectively unlimited, so they are called free goods. Economic goods are defined precisely by scarcity: producing them requires expending effort or resources. That distinction between free goods and economic goods is the foundation of why economics focuses on one and mostly ignores the other.

  Goods themselves can be tangible, like an apple, or intangible, like news. An apple occupies physical space and can be held; news can only be perceived through an instrument such as a printer or a television. Intangible goods differ from services in a specific way: final intangible goods can be transferred and traded, while a service cannot be passed from one person to another in the same fashion.

• 3. Utility, Margins, and Types

  ›

  Each additional unit of a good a person consumes adds a certain amount of satisfaction, which economists call marginal utility. Goods are commonly understood to have diminishing marginal utility, meaning each successive unit adds less satisfaction than the one before it.

  Final goods are those ultimately consumed rather than used to make something else. A microwave oven or a bicycle sold to a consumer is a final good. The transistors that go into an electronic device, by contrast, are intermediate goods; consumers ordinarily have no use for them on their own. Durable items such as machinery, human skills, and ecosystems that are used to produce further goods fall into the category of capital goods.

  Price elasticity draws another line between types. An elastic good sees a relatively large change in the quantity demanded when its price shifts even slightly. Pencils, for instance, are substitutes for pens: as pen prices rise, consumers are likely to buy more pencils instead. An inelastic good has few or no substitutes. Prescription medicines such as insulin, tickets to major sporting events, and original works by famous artists all sit firmly in that category. Complementary goods behave differently from either: when the price of beef rises and demand for beef falls, the demand for hamburger buns drops too, even though the price of buns has not changed. Whether a good is a complement or a substitute is not an intrinsic characteristic. It depends on its relationship to other goods and can be measured as cross elasticity of demand using statistical techniques such as covariance and correlation.

• 4. The Fourfold Model

  ›

  Two properties determine which of four categories a good belongs to: whether it is rivalrous in consumption, and whether it is excludable. A rivalrous good is one whose use by one person limits its availability to another. An excludable good is one from which non-paying users can be kept out. Combining those two dimensions produces four categories: public goods, private goods, common-pool resources, and club goods.

  Public goods are both non-rival and non-excludable. National parks and firework displays are examples. Mainstream economists broadly agree that market forces will under-provide public goods, so government provision is typically required. Public goods are also vulnerable to the Free-Rider problem, where individuals benefit without contributing.

  Private goods are both rivalrous and excludable. Food, clothing, cars, and parking spaces fall into this category. One person eating an apple denies another person that same apple. Private goods are the most common type.

  Common-pool resources are rivalrous but non-excludable. Fisheries illustrate the challenge: fish caught by one group are no longer available to another, making the resource rivalrous. But in the absence of well-defined property rights, restricting access to fishermen who might overfish is difficult. Forests, water systems, and the global atmosphere share these characteristics and are described as resources of immense importance to human survival.

  Club goods are excludable but non-rivalrous. Cable television is the standard example. A large television provider already has infrastructure in place, so adding new customers does not diminish existing customers' experience, pushing marginal cost close to zero. Access, however, is available only to those willing to pay. Governments tend to oversee public and common-pool goods, while private enterprises generally produce private and club goods, though exceptions exist.

• 5. Elinor Ostrom's Revisions

  ›

  In 1977, Nobel winner Elinor Ostrom and her husband Vincent Ostrom proposed several modifications to the standard classification of goods. Their goal was to identify fundamental differences that affect the incentives facing individuals, not merely to tidy up taxonomies.

  Ostrom replaced the phrase "rivalry of consumption" with "subtractability of use," a term that better captures the idea that using a resource reduces what is left for others. She also argued that both subtractability and excludability should be understood as continuous scales running from low to high, rather than simple yes-or-no properties. A good rarely sits cleanly at either extreme.

  Her most consequential addition was explicitly naming common-pool resources as a fourth distinct category alongside the three that economists had long recognized. Forests, water systems, fisheries, and the global atmosphere are her examples of common-pool resources with immense stakes for human survival. She also proposed renaming "club" goods to "toll" goods, on the grounds that such goods are often provided by small-scale public associations as well as private ones.

  Later expansions of the model added anti-rivalrous goods, sometimes called network goods. Data on the internet improves or becomes more valuable as more people use it, the inverse of rivalry. Language is offered as a "symbiotic" good that is both anti-rivalrous and non-excludable. Semi-excludable goods form yet another extension: movies, books, and video games can be pirated and shared at no cost, placing them in a zone between full excludability and none.

• 6. Trading and Ownership

  ›

  Goods can be physically delivered to a consumer, which distinguishes them from services. Economic intangibles can only be stored, delivered, and consumed by means of media. Both tangible and intangible goods may involve the transfer of product ownership to the buyer.

  Electricity offers a precise illustration of where goods and services diverge. An electric utility company provides a service, namely the distribution of electrical energy, but the electricity itself is the economic good. The service remains entirely in the ownership of the provider throughout. The consumer, however, becomes an owner of electrical energy upon purchase and may use it for any lawful purpose. That distinction between the service process and the good it delivers runs through many industries, from storage companies selling containers and bubble wrap alongside their facilities to providers of intangible goods who transfer ownership of information but not the media that carries it. The degree to which a good is excludable, rivalrous, or transferable shapes each of those transactions and every one of the property rights attached to them.