Negative externalities can be found in any introductory econ. textbook. The problem is that many or most textbooks tend to minimize their role as a major source of market failure (calling them mere "neighborhood effects") and also exhibit a visceral reaction against the need for non-market institutions (especially government) to deal with them. More liberal (in the US) or social-democratic (elsewhere) books see externalities as "ubiquitous" (Baumol and Blinder's word), though these days the government's role is typically denigrated.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Remick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:34673] Re: RE: What is wrong with the mainstream
> economics?
>
>
> >From: "Devine, James"
> >
> >What a big order! If I were to be forced to talk about this
> subject, I'd
> >stick to the basic point that "the problem with mainstream
> economics is not
> >that it's wrong in its own terms as much as that it's
> incomplete." ...
>
> E.g., it doesn't account for "negative externalities," the
> social costs paid
> for private profit, as discussed in general terms here:
> http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/1992.html
>
> Carl
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
