IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jrapmc/132985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rural Telecommunications Subsidies Do Not Help

Author

Listed:
  • Ward, Michael R.

Abstract

The common justifications for government subsidies for rural telecommunications are to promote universal service and to promote economic development. While the case for subsidizing many rural telephone services is stronger than for more urban settings, it is still weak and subsidy implementation has likely been corrupted by rent seeking practices. Because of this and because many newer technologies tend to reduce rural disadvantages, a policy of limiting subsidies is likely efficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Ward, Michael R., 2007. "Rural Telecommunications Subsidies Do Not Help," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-3.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jrapmc:132985
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.132985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/132985/files/07-1-18.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.132985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W & Flynn, Joseph E, 1990. "Cross-Subsidization in Telecommunications: Beyond the Universal Service Fairy Tale," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 231-249, September.
    2. Eriksson, Ross C & Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W, 1998. "Targeted and Untargeted Subsidy Schemes: Evidence from Postdivestiture Efforts to Promote Universal Telephone Service," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 477-502, October.
    3. Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W & Pacey, Patricia L, 1993. "The Political Economy of Deregulation: The Case of Intrastate Long Distance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-63, March.
    4. Jerry Hausman, 1998. "Taxation by Telecommunications Regulation," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 12, pages 29-48, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Garbacz, Christopher & Thompson, Herbert G, Jr, 1997. "Assessing the Impact of FCC Lifeline and Link-Up Programs on Telephone Penetration," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 67-78, January.
    6. Larson, Alexander C. & Makarewicz, Thomas J. & Monson, Calvin S., 1989. "The effect of subscriber line charges on residential telephone bills," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 337-354, December.
    7. Hausman, Jerry & Tardiff, Timothy & Belinfante, Alexander, 1993. "The Effects of the Breakup of AT&T on Telephone Penetration in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 178-184, May.
    8. Wolak, Frank A., 1996. "Can universal service survive in a competitive telecommunications environment? Evidence from the United States consumer expenditure survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 163-203, September.
    9. Jerry Hausman, 1998. "Taxation by Telecommunications Regulation," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53052, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Whitacre, Brian E. & Mahasuweerachai, Phumsith, 2008. "“Small” Broadband Providers and Federal Assistance Programs: Solving the Digital Divide?," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-15.
    2. Casasbuenas, Jaime & de Oliveira, Fernando & Riobó, Alexander, 2014. "Effective subsidies to the demand for fixed broadbandwith an increase in penetration and an undistorted competition landscape: The Colombian case," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106900, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Biancini, Sara, 2011. "Behind the scenes of the telecommunications miracle: An empirical analysis of the Indian market," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 238-249, April.
    2. Garbacz, Christopher & Thompson, Herbert Jr., 2005. "Universal telecommunication service: A world perspective," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 495-512, October.
    3. Austan Goolsbee & Jonathan Guryan, 2006. "The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 336-347, May.
    4. Berg, Sanford V. & Jiang, Liangliang & Lin, Chen, 2011. "Incentives for cost shifting and misreporting: US rural universal service subsidies, 1991–2002," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 287-295.
    5. Jayakar, Krishna & Park, Eun-A, 2019. "Reforming the lifeline program: Regulatory federalism in action?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 67-75.
    6. Jerry Hausman & William Taylor, 2013. "Telecommunication in the US: From Regulation to Competition (Almost)," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(2), pages 203-230, March.
    7. Hauge, Janice A. & Jamison, Mark A. & Todd Jewell, R., 2008. "Discounting telephone service: An examination of participation in the Lifeline Assistance Program using panel data," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-149, June.
    8. Daniel Ackerberg & Michael Riordan & Gregory Rosston & Bradley Wimmer, 2008. "Low-Income Demand for Local Telephone Service: Effects of Lifeline and Linkup," Discussion Papers 07-032, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    9. Goolsbee Austan, 2006. "The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing New Technology," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-31, April.
    10. Austan Goolsbee, 2000. "Taxes, High-Income Executives, and the Perils of Revenue Estimation in the New Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 271-275, May.
    11. Ford, George S., 2021. "Subsidies and substitution: An empirical study of the lifeline program," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1).
    12. Rosston, Gregory L. & Wimmer, Bradley S., 2000. "The 'state' of universal service," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 261-283, September.
    13. Eugenio J. Miravete & Katja Seim & Jeff Thurk, 2020. "One Markup to Rule Them All: Taxation by Liquor Pricing Regulation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-41, February.
    14. Andrés Gomez-Lobo & Marcela Meléndez, 2006. "La política social de las telecomunicaciones en Colombia," Cuadernos de Fedesarrollo 12707, Fedesarrollo.
    15. Rota-Graziosi, Gregoire & Sawadogo, Fayçal, 2022. "The tax burden on mobile network operators in Africa," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5).
    16. Eric P. Chiang & Janice A. Hauge, 2007. "Funding Universal Service: The Effect of Telecommunications Subsidy Programs on Competition and Retail Prices," Working Papers 07-08, NET Institute, revised Aug 2007.
    17. Mark L. Burton & David L. Kaserman & John W. Mayo, 2009. "Common Costs And Cross‐Subsidies: Misestimation Versus Misallocation," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 193-199, April.
    18. Goolsbee, Austan & Klenow, Peter J, 2002. "Evidence on Learning and Network Externalities in the Diffusion of Home Computers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 317-343, October.
    19. Levin, Stanford Lee & Schmidt, Stephen & Scott, Graham, 2015. "Broadband for all: Policies for a connected society," 2015 Regional ITS Conference, Los Angeles 2015 146346, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Ward, Michael R. & Woroch, Glenn A., 2010. "The effect of prices on fixed and mobile telephone penetration: Using price subsidies as natural experiments," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 18-32, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jrapmc:132985. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mcrsaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.