TV Dinner
by Quinn
You’ve got to feel sorry for the BBC. Only a few weeks ago they were being criticised for providing TV programmes which mimicked the commercial sector, even though much of the make-over programmes which came in for criticism actually originated on the BBC and were then copied by ITV or are repeated on the UKTV channels. They even became front page news in the Daily Express when they provided 19 hours of repeats one Bank Holiday Monday; this despite the fact that for as long as I can remember the Bank Holiday schedule has been full of repeats, and there was no criticism or comparison with what other channels were doing on the same day.
Now they are being criticised for being different from the other channels. It seems they just can’t win. The Barwise report into Digital programming complains that BBC Three and Four are poor value for money. Fair enough, but perhaps that is the price you have to pay for being different; almost by definition, if you are providing something different to the commercial sector then you are providing something that the market does not feel it can make a profit on. I don’t watch much of BBC Four, but I am glad it is there. There is the occasional programme that crops up that is like gold dust, and which I think would be unlikely to be shown elsewhere – “The Divine Comedy” at the Cambridge Folk Festival for example. When there is Opera on which I don’t want to watch, I personally am happy that my license fee is helping to provide that service to those who love opera.
BBC Three is a bit of a mish-mash, and I am not sure of the worth of “Eastenders Revealed” for example. Funnily enough the News programme on BBC Three came in for particular criticism, yet it was included at the behest of Tessa Jowell and was not part of the BBC’s original plans.
But there are still some good programmes like “Little Britain” ,“Bodies” and “Spy” which I have watched and enjoyed, and which have provided an outlet for writers and programme makers which otherwise may not have been there.
Perhaps I am the wrong person to make a judgment on all this, however. Coming in for particular praise by the report is “CBeebies”, the BBC channel for toddlers. Now, I know more than I should about CBeebies and I think it is just fine, but it is essentially just a four hour loop of repeats of “Teletubbies”, “Tweenies” and “Fimbles”, with the occasional lamentable new programme like “Bobinogs”, “Boogie Beebies” and “Big Cook, Little Cook”. If that now constitutes a “triumph” then I clearly have no future in TV scheduling or criticism.
The Obscurer 
There’s no bigger test for a devout market economist than to have to endure the quality of television in America. If it was voluntary, I would have paid the license fee, and only refused on “freedom” grounds.Now, I’d kill for it!
The free market is indeed a wonderful thing and provides almost everthing we need in the most efficient manner. It just falls down occasionally when it can’t be bothered on a few thing that are quite handy (street lighting, a police force) but insists on some things we could do without (marmite, chocolate limes).
re streetlights: why wouldn’t a free-market provide them?re police: a free-market requires government protection of property rights therefore a free-market is entirely inkeeping with a police force. thats not to say that bouncers, bounty hunters and bodyguards aren’t far better…re marmite: agreed.
I must admit, I was making a flippant, not particularly thought through comment, and mentioned the first two things from the public sector I could think of.
Off hand, they do seem to me to fit the definition of a public good; something of universal welfare which benefits everyone regardless of whether they pay for it. Therefore no-one pays and decides on a “free ride” while expecting someone else to pay. As a result the government has to step in and levy taxes to provide the service.But this is all a distant memory from by degree course !^! years ago, and you know what they say about a little knowledge!
the more i’ve thought about the text-book concept of ‘public goods’ the less convinced i am. using the non-exludable/non-rivalrous rationale we need government to provide everything from theme parks to food halls, shopping malls, bridges, toilets and cinemas. i think a better means to test whether something needs to be provided by the government is to ask “would it be cheaper to provide via collective action”. most of the time, it’s simply cheaper to bear the cost of not having the good at all. http://thefilter.blogs.com/thefilter/2004/03/public_and_priv.htmlwhich led tohttp://www.geocities.com/aje8281/files/penguin.pdfPoliticians would have you believe that economic theory supports their desire to provide you with things. I think that all economic theory shows is that they say this because otherwise they wouldn’t have a job.
Thanks for your links which I have found very interesting.
You are of course right to question the text-book definition of just about everything, including that of public goods. Also, your mention of cultural bias is spot on; our ideas of what is a public good are very different from what they were in the 70’s.
My ideas of what the public sector should provide is probably based on what I would like provided but which I cannot imagine the private sector to be interested in; but this is obviously affected by cultural bias, and I suppose technology can find ways to charge people for things that were previously non-excludable.
But I am no economic theorist, and I already feel way out of my depth!