The Student Room Group

Question about the provision and maintenance of flood defences?

So there's an essay 25 marker I'm practising about flooding and flood defences. The question is, "Evaluate the view that the provision and maintenance of flood defences should be paid for solely by the government"
I know that flooding is a negative externality but I can't think of any other points apart from the fact that its unfair that taxpayers should pay? What else can I say both for and against the argument?
Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

I can't think of any other points apart from the fact that its unfair that taxpayers should pay?


You have never come across the phrase in the public interest, then? You cannot think of any benefits that might accrue to the taxpayer from stopping London from being flooded, for instance?
Reply 2
I agree with point 3, as, like you suggested, private firms are generally more efficient - partly due to the profit motive. Therefore, if the flood defences are provided by a private firm, it is likely that they will be of better quality for the aforementioned reasons.

A point to argue for private funding could be that it will mean that the government will not have to spend on flood defences, meaning that there is no opportunity cost for the government and thus it can spend on other things, such as defence, or alternatively it can not spend the money and therefore reduce the budget deficit.

Quick Reply

Latest