Economics identifies something called a “public good.” This is not something that's good for the public, rather, it's a technical description of something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable.
A bit of a mouthful but non-rivalrous means that it doesn't run out. If it exists in the first place, then its use by one person doesn't limit the amount available for others.
Say, free speech -- if we've got that, then my using it doesn't limit the amount that you have. Non-excludable means that -- again, if it exists -- we can't stop someone having it.
All too many politicians do try to limit free speech to only those things those politicians think should be said, obviously, but if free speech exists, then we cannot allow me to have it and you to not.
The point that economists make is that these public goods, well, they're difficult to make a profit from. Who makes a profit from free speech? Which capitalist can make money from it?
Sure, there's money to be made by exercising free speech -- a newspaper is an excellent example -- but the existence of it in the first place? Well, it's difficult.
Economists are cynical about motivations and incentives. So, if no one can make money out of it, then those looking to make money won't invest in that thing. We will all have too little of that thing as a result.
The solution is that for these public goods, the government must do something. It doesn't have to make them, it doesn't have to directly provide them, but something must be done.
Another way to put this is that we require collective action to produce public goods. There's even a theory of why we have governments -- just so we have a way to gain public goods.
We need collective action to have them, government is collective action, thus we have governments in order to provide the collective action that provides public goods. We have government to defend us from foreigners, to provide a legal system to defend us from criminals and so on -- collective goods that we cannot produce on our own.
But note, again, that this doesn't mean that the government must do the thing itself, just have the rules to make sure it happens. For example, it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to invent something. If you do all that work and then the moment it really works, everyone can copy it, then you'll not be able to make a profit. If you can't profit from all that effort and money you spent, then you'll not do the work and society will be poorer as a result.
Innovation is a public good. This does not mean that the government should do all the inventing. The Soviets tried that and it didn't work out well. But it does mean that the government should set up a system that encourages innovation.
So, we have patents, copyrights, etc so that someone cannot just copy all that work. The effort gets made and we get new inventions. Government action is needed, not government production, in order to gain public goods.
It is vital to understand what is the public good though. In most economics textbooks, a vaccine will be given as an example of a public good. This is wrong.
After all, the vaccine that goes into your arm -- or more importantly, of your child -- cannot then be used on me. We can indeed exclude people from getting vaccines as well. We just don't allow them to have a vaccine.
The public good here is not the vaccine, it's the effect of the vaccine. That “herd immunity” you see being talked about at present. If 95% (about, and approximately) of everyone has been vaccinated against measles, then there's nowhere in the population for measles to hide.
That means that the other 5% -- say, new babies, others with damaged immune systems for whom vaccines do not work -- are also protected. Just because there's no measles around to infect them. It's the herd immunity that is the public good, not the vaccine.
The government needs to do something about public goods provision. It doesn't have to be making the vaccine, nor even paying for it. In my native Britain, the government does pay through the National Health Service. This works. In the United States the government doesn't -- but a child cannot go to school unless they've had their vaccinations. This also works.
The government has to set up a system to make sure every child gets their shots, that's the way we get the herd immunity.
Currently in Bangladesh, that herd immunity is somewhere between breaking down and not existing. That's why there is the measles outbreak. Therefore the government has failed in the provision of this public good, the herd immunity.
No, we'd obviously like everyone to get their vaccines and for all to enjoy this herd immunity. Because this is a public good, this means that the government has to do something to make sure the system works. But that does not mean the government must be making vaccines, nor even paying for them.
That second, paying, might be a good idea even but it's not necessary. What the government needs to do, however they do it, is make sure that 95% of the population are vaccinated.
Public goods -- this herd immunity against measles -- are one of the reasons we have governments in the first place. But how the government makes sure public goods exist can vary.
So when we consider the various policies that are no doubt going to be suggested, we need to measure them against this test: How good is each policy going to be at getting to 95% vaccination and so herd immunity? Any policy that does this is a good one, any policy that doesn't get there is not a good one.
Tim Worstall is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London.