Abstract: Although mainstreams regard non-competitive and non-exclusive as two standards when defining the concept of public goods, the subject and policy implication of them exist many ambiguities. This article attempts to reconsider from perspectives of literature and policy practice. Theoretically, the mainstreams of “Samuelson-Musgrave tradition” mainly focus on the pattern of goods consumed and behavioral characteristics of consumers and prefer government intervention; while the “voluntary exchange tradition” of Public Choice pays more attention to the pattern of goods being supplied, emphasizes the diversity of subjects and forms of organization when public goods are supplied, and strongly advocates to restrain government power. From the perspective of practices, the connotation of publicity of government service can be summarized as the following two points extending from two standard definitions of public goods:(1) non-exclusiveness of institutional rules and full coverage of ranges of benefits,(2) non-competitiveness of supplying level and equalization of government service. And these are also the starting point and destiny of constructing and improving the institution of public finance.
Keywords: Public Goods, Government Service, Publicity, Policy Implication
source:Finance & Trade Economics ,No.1,2013