<p>One common definition of a non-rival good (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)" rel="nofollow">here</a> and (A)) is a good for which the consumption of additional units involves zero marginal social costs of production. On this definition the service provided by a fire service would <em>always</em> be rival, because (even with plenty of capacity in terms of fire engines and staff) each visit to attend a fire involves some extra cost (eg vehicle fuel).</p>

<p>More loosely, a good may be said to be rival if consumption by one person prevents simultaneous consumption by others (this can also be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)" rel="nofollow">here</a>), implying that a good is non-rival where that is not the case.  In this looser sense, infrastructure such as highways and services such as the fire service might be held to be non-rival in circumstances where capacity is large enough that consumption by some rarely prevents or interferes with consumption by others.</p>

<p>For those who adopt this looser definition, the difference between a highway network and a fire service, which may lead to the former but not the latter being characterised as a rival good, relates I think to the likely level of supply or capacity.  Given high levels of vehicle use with peaks at certain times (rush hours), and given the costs of road-building and other demands on land use, it isn't likely to be practicable to provide enough highways in the right places to make traffic jams a rarity.  On the other hand, given that a fire at any one location is a rare event, and given normally a high degree of independence between fires at different locations, it should be possible to provide sufficient capacity in a fire service that the scenario of fewer fire engines than fires will rarely occur.</p>

<p>Reference</p>

<p>(A) Nicholson W (9th edn 2005)  Microeconomic Theory: Basic principles &amp; Extensions p 596.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-27T13:01:11.183Z
So you are saying that at some level of supply this stop being rival goods, but why that level may be reached for fire stations (given enough money) it is unlikely to be reached for highways?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-27T13:51:06.423Z
@denesp Let me reply in two parts. 1) There is in any case an argument that the service provided by a fire service is rival, because (however many fire engines are available) the marginal cost of responding to a fire is not zero (eg cost of vehicle fuel). 2) But the OP has evidently encountered the view that the fire service is non-rival.  To try to explain why some might hold that view for the fire service but not for highways I'm offering the distinction you refer to in terms of level of supply, and consequent rarity of failure to meet demand..
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-27T12:07:05.343Z
2016-06-27T17:53:35.227Z
2016-06-27T17:53:35.227Z
Adam Bailey
<p>We consider highways to be an example of an impure private good because while it is non-excludable, it is a rival good. That is, another person's consumption (usage) of the highway affects my usage of it. </p>

<p>In that same sense, wouldn't a fire station also be rival, at least in theory?</p>

<p>For example, if a fire stations has five trucks for a locality, and 6 fires break out at separate places, why can't we consider this service as a rival service?</p>

<public-goods>
Why is a fire service considered to be a non-rival service, while a highway is considered to be a rival good?
WorldGov
# Why is a fire service considered to be a non-rival service, while a highway is considered to be a rival good?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-27)

We consider highways to be an example of an impure private good because while it is non-excludable, it is a rival good. That is, another person's consumption (usage) of the highway affects my usage of it.

In that same sense, wouldn't a fire station also be rival, at least in theory?

For example, if a fire stations has five trucks for a locality, and 6 fires break out at separate places, why can't we consider this service as a rival service?

**Tags:** public-goods


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-06-27. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

One common definition of a non-rival good (see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)) and (A)) is a good for which the consumption of additional units involves zero marginal social costs of production. On this definition the service provided by a fire service would *always* be rival, because (even with plenty of capacity in terms of fire engines and staff) each visit to attend a fire involves some extra cost (eg vehicle fuel).

More loosely, a good may be said to be rival if consumption by one person prevents simultaneous consumption by others (this can also be found [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics))), implying that a good is non-rival where that is not the case. In this looser sense, infrastructure such as highways and services such as the fire service might be held to be non-rival in circumstances where capacity is large enough that consumption by some rarely prevents or interferes with consumption by others.

For those who adopt this looser definition, the difference between a highway network and a fire service, which may lead to the former but not the latter being characterised as a rival good, relates I think to the likely level of supply or capacity. Given high levels of vehicle use with peaks at certain times (rush hours), and given the costs of road-building and other demands on land use, it isn't likely to be practicable to provide enough highways in the right places to make traffic jams a rarity. On the other hand, given that a fire at any one location is a rare event, and given normally a high degree of independence between fires at different locations, it should be possible to provide sufficient capacity in a fire service that the scenario of fewer fire engines than fires will rarely occur.

Reference

(A) Nicholson W (9th edn 2005) Microeconomic Theory: Basic principles & Extensions p 596.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: So you are saying that at some level of supply this stop being rival goods, but why that level may be reached for fire stations (given enough money) it is unlikely to be reached for highways?  
> **username_1**: @denesp Let me reply in two parts. 1) There is in any case an argument that the service provided by a fire service is rival, because (however many fire engines are available) the marginal cost of responding to a fire is not zero (eg cost of vehicle fuel). 2) But the OP has evidently encountered the view that the fire service is non-rival.  To try to explain why some might hold that view for the fire service but not for highways I'm offering the distinction you refer to in terms of level of supply, and consequent rarity of failure to meet demand..  

---

