Who is better to install unit security doors in residential buildings? -About the provision of security services by the government. Case description A friend has been complaining about the safety of the building where he lives. It turns out that the building where he lives is the community managed by his former unit. Due to various reasons, the property management and community service are not perfect, and the living environment of the community is not very good. One of the reasons why some families have been robbed repeatedly is that all units in residential buildings have not installed security doors. After every theft, everyone hopes that a unit security door can be installed in the building, and every family has a key to get in and out. When friends come, they will call downstairs to increase the security of the whole building. But the security door has never been installed. Reflect to the housing management department of the unit that the people living in the building are not entirely from the unit, and the expenses are difficult to coordinate; Moreover, these houses have been sold to private individuals, and the installation of security doors requires residents to pay for themselves. As a result, residential buildings are in an "anarchic state", and no institution is willing to come forward to solve public affairs such as "installing security doors". Second, the case analysis first analyzes whether the security door problem can be solved by private resort. In the absence of installing unit security doors, some people who are most worried about being stolen or robbed at home first invest in installing security doors at home. For individuals, this will cost more money, but it is more cost-effective than the time-consuming and laborious "institutional innovation". In the long run, because the rich have installed security doors, it is more difficult for thieves to steal, the probability of success is low, the net income of theft is small, and the marginal income is reduced. So thieves either try to improve their theft skills or patronize families that don't have security doors. In this way, those families who think they don't have much money, thieves won't come, and there is no need to install security doors will suffer. The final outcome is: no matter whether you have money or not, no matter how much money you have, every family will install security doors. For every family, the expenditure on security doors is related to the expected loss of family property stolen. In other words, the greater the expected loss of theft, the greater the desire and actual investment to invest in security doors; The smaller the expected loss of theft, the smaller the desire and actual investment to invest in security doors. As far as the whole building is concerned, the expenditure of each family on the security door is far greater than the cost of installing a unit security door. The difference between the two represents an institutional cost, which does not bring social welfare, but causes a waste of social resources. How to provide security services through public means to make it possible to install security doors? Who should be in charge of this kind of thing? How to manage? In fact, it should be the government's business to install the unit security door, because "security" is a typical public goods. First, if there is no law and order, crime will be rampant, the cost of individual crime prevention and control will increase greatly, and the total expenditure of the whole society for crime prevention and control will also increase. It is better to establish a public safety system, and installing security doors is an integral part of the public safety system. That is to say, from a social point of view, it is more efficient to install unit security doors than to invest alone. Second, the government is the only institution in society that can legally use violence to protect property rights, and it is also the only institution that can use power to collect taxes, and it has convenient conditions for providing public goods. So the installation of security doors should be managed by the government. Of course, the government's function is to be responsible for the supply of public goods, and there is no need for the government to produce its own security doors. One of the basic characteristics of public goods is the non-exclusiveness of consumption. Non-exclusiveness is relative, aiming at specific consumer groups. Therefore, the understanding of public goods is relative. Generally speaking, public safety is the public goods of the whole country, and the consumption of every citizen is non-exclusive, and citizens enjoy this consumption by paying taxes. From a small point of view, security doors are non-exclusive to consumers in the same residential building. They should be responsible for consuming public goods, that is, they should pay the cost of public goods. Generally speaking, whoever benefits pays, and residents have to pay for installing security doors. Although residents are the beneficiaries of unit security doors, their actual marginal income is different for each resident. Some people are willing and some people are unwilling. Take an extreme example: for the destitute who have little property at home, there is no possibility of property being stolen. He doesn't want to pay for the security door of the unit, but a millionaire is willing to pay. Because installing unit security doors will bring different benefits to different consumers, they are willing to pay different costs for installing security doors, that is, residents with high marginal income are willing to pay higher prices and residents with low marginal income are willing to pay lower prices. The upper limit of price people are willing to pay is psychological price. People's psychological price is not fixed, it is influenced by many factors, for example, the recent theft will increase the psychological price that residents are willing to pay. Due to the existence of group pressure, people will make concessions in order to reach an agreement in the process of negotiating with groups. How to share the cost of installing the unit security door? Suppose the cost of a security door is C, and there are n houses in this building. The private benefits brought by the unit security door to each household are V 1, V2, …, Vn respectively. As long as ∑ v1>; C. Security doors should be installed. In order to prevent the "hitchhiking" of every household from finally preventing the installation of security doors, a mechanism similar to bidding can be designed. By the government (household registration police, neighborhood committees, housing management departments, etc. Organize a residents' meeting so that every household can make an oath. Suppose the pledge amount of each household is P 1, P2, …, Pn. If Σ π c, you can install a security door, and the extra money will be returned according to the donation ratio. If you fail at the first time, let everyone pledge again until a certain ∑ pi >; C, until the security door can be installed. In fact, because ∑ V 1 >: C, installing a unit security door will make the private income Vi of each household exceed the pledge amount Pi. This means that each family will gradually increase the donation amount in the process of pledging again and again, until the unit security door can be installed at last. Source: Zhu Boming: Public Economics, Hangzhou, Zhejiang University Press, 2002.