Ideology vs. Friedman: National Parks

3 years ago I went backpacking Yosemite and 2 years ago I went backpacking in Zion. Even though I probably won’t be back to either park for another few years, I still care deeply about their upkeep & preservation. I don’t solely derive utility from my economic interest & consumption, I also derive utility from the implementation of my ideology. Despite the tax costs of national parks (which hurt me economically), I still prefer that my ideology toward park preservation is upheld.

Friedman discusses National Parks on the basis of excludability. He asserts that national parks could be effectively provided through market channels instead of political channels. Parks could be provided by markets, but they would likely be vastly underproduced. Why? Friedman’s analysis of national parks does not factor in that people value parks beyond their ability to “consume” them. There are 421 national parks in America. I will never go to each park, but I still care that they are preserved. That is: people are willing to (and frequently want to) vote against their economic interest in favor of their ideology towards preservation. Thus, the number of visitors does not represent the total demand for national parks. Market channels would only account for the demand of people visiting.

In market channels, the only people who would substantially pay for parks would be the people who are able to visit them or who feel compelled to donate. I predict that few people would donate as most would be inclined to free-ride. Additionally, people would likely feel that their individual donations don’t make a substantial difference in park preservation. Thus, the parks would receive very little money from those who are unable to visit. The National Park Service (NPS) annual budget is about $3 billion, but a 2016 study estimates that Americans value the parks at $92 billion per year! (Note that, even though citizens value parks beyond what we pay for them, we don’t make enough voluntary donations to bring us to the $92 billion). Through market channels, we (the citizens of the U.S.A.) would find ourselves in a large scale Prisoner’s Dilemma where everyone’s Dominant Strategy would be to not contribute to the parks they don’t visit (due to free-riding and/or feeling that small, individual donations don’t make a substantial impact). A pareto-efficient move would occur if everyone is forced to contribute through taxation.

Although I haven’t been to Yosemite, Zion, and most of the other 400+ parks in many years, I am still happy to pay for their upkeep (though I probably would free-ride if I wasn’t forced to pay through taxes). Friedman’s assertion does not recognize the impact that ideology has on National Park demand.