I have a question:  “What would you do if you were a planner?”

“Have a pity on human being so who in the sky havae a mercy on you.!!”

                                                                                    ...GOOD WORK…

Many valued resources are not allocated by markets, however, giving rise to what has come to be termed “market failure”.  Principal among the market failures used to justify government intervention are externalities (third party costs not taken into account in a transaction); public goods (collectively consumed goods); and monopoly behaviour.  We treat the monopoly problem as a public good problem in the sense that the market tends not to deliver the public good of self-regulation against monopoly practices.

In Chapters 5-7 we critique the notion of market failure, preferring to view externalities and public goods as unpriced goods and resources - unpriced because of the high costs of assigning the property rights that would render them marketable.  The shift in perspective is profoundly significant when it comes to considering solutions to externality problems. 

Externalities and public goods cause distortions in the allocation of private resources because of the absence of accurate information about how they are valued.  They are endemic in cities, however, and at the heart of most urban management issues.

When people and firms crowd in close proximity, externalities are inevitably ubiquitous and dense.  It is a perverse feature of modern development that the greater the spatial concentration and differentiation of individuals, the greater the total shared benefits and the greater and more complicated are the hidden social costs of consuming and producing…

Do you have examples of the use of “market failure” as the basis of policy design in Iran, and a critique of how those policies worked, and what alternative policies might have worked?