The free rider problem revolves around the consumption of public goods, which are characterized by two key attributes:
Non-Excludability: Public goods are inherently non-excludable, meaning that once they are provided, it is practically impossible to exclude individuals from enjoying their benefits. This property arises from the nature of the goods themselves.
Non-Rivalrous Consumption: Public goods are also non-rivalrous, meaning that one person’s consumption of the good does not diminish its availability for others. Consuming the good does not reduce its quantity or quality.
Given these characteristics, public goods create a situation where individuals have an incentive to “free ride” on the contributions of others. In other words, they can benefit from the good without incurring any personal cost, leading to a collective action problem.
The free rider problem occurs when individuals or entities consume more than their fair share of a public resource or benefit from a service without contributing to its cost. This situation arises because these goods or services are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning people cannot be excluded from their use, and one person’s use does not reduce their availability to others.
Key Characteristics of the Free Rider Problem
Non-Excludability: Goods or services cannot be withheld from those who do not pay for them.
Non-Rivalrous Consumption: One person’s use does not significantly reduce the availability for others.
Under-Provision: The good or service is underprovided as a result of individuals not contributing to its cost.
Importance of Understanding the Free Rider Problem
Understanding and addressing the free rider problem is crucial for ensuring the efficient provision of public goods, maintaining sustainability, and promoting fairness.
Efficient Provision of Public Goods
Resource Allocation: Ensures that resources are allocated efficiently to provide public goods and services.
Sustainable Supply: Supports the sustainable supply and maintenance of essential public resources.
Promoting Fairness
Equitable Contribution: Ensures that all beneficiaries contribute fairly to the cost of public goods and services.
Social Responsibility: Encourages social responsibility and community involvement.
Maintaining Sustainability
Preventing Overuse: Helps prevent the overuse and depletion of public resources.
Long-Term Viability: Supports the long-term viability and availability of public goods.
Components of the Free Rider Problem
The free rider problem involves several key components that contribute to its occurrence and impact.
1. Public Goods
Characteristics: Goods or services that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Examples: Examples include national defense, clean air, and public parks.
2. Non-Excludability
Access: Individuals cannot be prevented from accessing the good or service.
Free Consumption: People can consume the good or service without paying for it.
3. Non-Rivalrous Consumption
Shared Use: Multiple individuals can use the good or service simultaneously without reducing its availability.
Unrestricted Access: Unrestricted access leads to potential overuse and depletion.
4. Under-Provision
Lack of Funding: Insufficient funding or resources due to individuals not contributing to the cost.
Reduced Supply: The good or service is underprovided, affecting its quality and availability.
Causes of the Free Rider Problem
Several factors contribute to the free rider problem, often stemming from the nature of public goods and human behavior.
1. Nature of Public Goods
Non-Excludability: The inability to exclude non-payers from using the good or service.
Non-Rivalry: The characteristic of non-rivalrous consumption that allows unrestricted use.
2. Rational Self-Interest
Individual Benefit: Individuals act in their self-interest to benefit from the good or service without paying.
Cost Avoidance: The desire to avoid contributing to the cost while still enjoying the benefits.
3. Collective Action Problems
Coordination Issues: Difficulty in coordinating contributions among a large number of beneficiaries.
Lack of Incentives: Lack of individual incentives to contribute to the provision of public goods.
4. Information Asymmetry
Unawareness: Lack of awareness about the importance of contributing to public goods.
Free Riding Benefits: Difficulty in recognizing the negative impact of free riding on public goods.
Effects of the Free Rider Problem
The free rider problem has significant and far-reaching effects on various aspects of society, the economy, and the environment.
Economic Impact
Underfunding: Insufficient funding for public goods and services, leading to reduced quality and availability.
Market Failure: Represents a form of market failure where the free market does not efficiently allocate resources.
Social Impact
Inequity: Creates inequity as some individuals benefit without contributing, while others bear the cost.
Social Tension: Can lead to social tension and reduced trust in communal efforts.
Environmental Impact
Resource Depletion: Overuse and depletion of common resources, such as fisheries and forests.
Sustainability Challenges: Challenges in maintaining sustainable environmental practices.
Historical Examples of the Free Rider Problem
Several historical examples illustrate the free rider problem and its impact on public goods and resources.
National Defense
Security Provision: National defense is a classic example of a public good where individuals cannot be excluded from its benefits.
Free Riding: Citizens benefit from national security without directly contributing to its cost, relying on taxation to fund defense.
Public Broadcasting
Media Access: Public broadcasting provides non-excludable and non-rivalrous access to information and entertainment.
Funding Issues: Reliance on voluntary contributions and government funding to sustain operations.
Environmental Conservation
Common Resources: Conservation efforts for common resources like clean air and water.
Pollution: Pollution control suffers from the free rider problem, as individuals and businesses may avoid the cost of reducing emissions.
Methods to Address the Free Rider Problem
Several methods can be used to address the free rider problem effectively, each offering different strategies and tools.
1. Government Intervention
Taxation: Use of taxation to fund public goods and services, ensuring everyone contributes.
Regulation: Implementing regulations to enforce contributions and prevent overuse of resources.
2. Private Provision
Subscription Models: Offering public goods through subscription models where users pay for access.
Voluntary Contributions: Encouraging voluntary contributions and donations to support public goods.
3. Community Initiatives
Collective Action: Promoting collective action and community-based initiatives to manage public goods.
Local Governance: Empowering local governance to manage and fund public resources.
4. Incentive Structures
Incentive Programs: Creating incentive programs to encourage contributions and participation.
Recognition: Providing recognition and rewards for contributors to public goods.
5. Public Awareness Campaigns
Education: Educating the public about the importance of contributing to public goods.
Awareness: Raising awareness about the negative impacts of free riding.
Benefits of Addressing the Free Rider Problem
Addressing the free rider problem offers numerous benefits, enhancing the provision of public goods, promoting fairness, and ensuring sustainability.
Enhanced Provision of Public Goods
Quality Services: Ensures the availability and quality of public goods and services.
Adequate Funding: Provides adequate funding to support public resources.
Promoted Fairness
Equitable Contribution: Ensures all beneficiaries contribute fairly to the cost of public goods.
Social Responsibility: Encourages social responsibility and community involvement.
Ensured Sustainability
Resource Conservation: Promotes the sustainable use and conservation of common resources.
Long-Term Viability: Supports the long-term viability and availability of public goods.
Challenges of Addressing the Free Rider Problem
Despite its benefits, addressing the free rider problem presents several challenges that need to be managed for successful implementation.
Enforcement Issues
Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring compliance with regulations and enforcement measures.
Monitoring: Monitoring contributions and usage of public goods.
Coordination Difficulties
Collective Action: Coordinating efforts among a large number of beneficiaries.
Incentive Alignment: Aligning incentives to ensure participation and contribution.
Resource Allocation
Funding Mechanisms: Developing effective funding mechanisms to support public goods.
Fair Distribution: Ensuring fair distribution of resources and benefits.
Public Resistance
Resistance to Taxation: Overcoming public resistance to increased taxation or mandatory contributions.
Behavioral Change: Encouraging behavioral change and social responsibility.
Best Practices for Addressing the Free Rider Problem
Implementing best practices can help effectively manage and overcome challenges, maximizing the benefits of addressing the free rider problem.
Foster Collaboration
Stakeholder Engagement: Engage stakeholders in the decision-making process to build support and cooperation.
Community Involvement: Promote community involvement and collective action to manage public goods.
Implement Effective Regulation
Regulatory Frameworks: Develop robust regulatory frameworks to enforce contributions and prevent overuse.
Compliance Monitoring: Implement systems to monitor compliance and address violations.
Use Incentives
Incentive Programs: Create incentive programs to encourage contributions and participation.
Recognition and Rewards: Provide recognition and rewards for contributors to public goods.
Educate and Raise Awareness
Public Campaigns: Conduct public awareness campaigns to educate about the importance of contributing to public goods.
Transparency: Ensure transparency in the use and management of public funds and resources.
Leverage Technology
Digital Platforms: Use digital platforms to facilitate contributions and manage public goods.
Data Analytics: Employ data analytics to monitor usage and optimize resource allocation.
Future Trends in Managing the Free Rider Problem
Several trends are likely to shape the future of managing the free rider problem and ensuring the efficient provision of public goods.
Digital Solutions
Blockchain Technology: Leveraging blockchain for transparent and secure management of contributions.
Online Platforms: Using online platforms to facilitate crowdfunding and voluntary contributions.
Sustainable Practices
Green Taxes: Implementing green taxes to fund environmental conservation efforts.
Circular Economy: Promoting circular economy practices to reduce waste and sustain resources.
Global Collaboration
International Cooperation: Enhancing international cooperation to manage global public goods.
Cross-Border Initiatives: Developing cross-border initiatives to address shared challenges.
Behavioral Economics
Nudge Theory: Applying nudge theory to encourage contributions and sustainable behaviors.
Behavioral Insights: Using behavioral insights to design effective incentive programs.
Policy Innovation
Adaptive Policies: Developing adaptive policies that can respond to changing conditions and emerging challenges.
Inclusive Governance: Promoting inclusive governance to ensure all voices are heard and considered.
Conclusion
The free rider problem is a significant challenge in the provision of public goods, leading to under-provision and overuse. By understanding the key components, causes, effects, and historical examples of the free rider problem, policymakers, organizations, and communities can develop effective strategies to address and mitigate its impact. Implementing best practices such as fostering collaboration, implementing effective regulation, using incentives, educating and raising awareness, and leveraging technology can help maximize the benefits of addressing the free rider problem.
In a functional organizational structure, groups and teams are organized based on function. Therefore, this organization follows a top-down structure, where most decision flows from top management to bottom. Thus, the bottom of the organization mostly follows the strategy detailed by the top of the organization.
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a systematic approach to selecting and managing a collection of projects aligned with organizational objectives. That is a business process of managing multiple projects which can be identified, prioritized, and managed within the organization. PPM helps organizations optimize their investments by allocating resources efficiently across all initiatives.
Harvard Business School professor Dr. John Kotter has been a thought-leader on organizational change, and he developed Kotter’s 8-step change model, which helps business managers deal with organizational change. Kotter created the 8-step model to drive organizational transformation.
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model was created by David Nadler and Michael Tushman at Columbia University. The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model is a diagnostic tool that identifies problem areas within a company. In the context of business, congruence occurs when the goals of different people or interest groups coincide.
McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth is a strategy tool. Developed by partners at McKinsey and Company, the tool helps businesses understand which opportunities will contribute to expansion, and therefore it helps to prioritize those initiatives.
Mintzberg’s 5Ps of Strategy is a strategy development model that examines five different perspectives (plan, ploy, pattern, position, perspective) to develop a successful business strategy. A sixth perspective has been developed over the years, called Practice, which was created to help businesses execute their strategies.
The COSO framework is a means of designing, implementing, and evaluating control within an organization. The COSO framework’s five components are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. As a fraud risk management tool, businesses can design, implement, and evaluate internal control procedures.
The TOWS Matrix is an acronym for Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths. The matrix is a variation on the SWOT Analysis, and it seeks to address criticisms of the SWOT Analysis regarding its inability to show relationships between the various categories.
Lewin’s change management model helps businesses manage the uncertainty and resistance associated with change. Kurt Lewin, one of the first academics to focus his research on group dynamics, developed a three-stage model. He proposed that the behavior of individuals happened as a function of group behavior.
OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.
Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.
The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.
The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.
Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure.
Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue.
Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.
Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.
eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.
Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).
Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.
Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.
IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.
McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.
McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.
Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.
Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.
Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).
Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).
Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.
Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.
Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.
Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).
Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
