British shipping. While advocates were not entirely clear, there was a sense that the American taxpayer, not the American consumer, was the more appropriate beast of burden for lighthouse services. Obviously, governmental provision from general revenues has the ad-vantage of avoiding by fiat the problems of lighthouse provision identified above. While such an approach poses added administrative problems, as Coase argued, these problems do not appear to have been serious. Al-though Alexander Hamilton and his successors appear to have been fine administrators concerned with conserving public funds, the real reason may be that, by the turn of the twentieth century, the role of the light-house began to decline. With the subsequent development of the radio and other navigational aids, the benefits of lighthouses have been ex-ceeded by their production costs even with government assistance. All signs indicate that the days of lighthouses are numbered." This article has pointed out that the stark dichotomy between "pri-vate" provision and ''government" provision of goods and services that stalks many general discussions of public policy is, at best, a useless abstraction and, at worst, a barrier to understanding how goods and ser-vices are provided in the real world. The dichotomy veils the great variety of institutional structures in which the provision of goods and services takes place. The case of the lighthouse is one in which the specific nature of the problems posed, the wider legal rules, and the available technology all helped determine the institutional form of the service. Historically, the institutions that provided lighthouse services relied more on govern-mental assistance than is the case with other services and goods. In many cases, however, the level of governmental involvement has fallen far short of full government provision out of general revenues. Particularly, as technology that provides cheaper solutions to the problem of exclusion is developed, one might expect to see changes in the institutional struc-tures used to provide other goods and services. In fact, recent changes in the purpose of lighthouses points this out. Today, many lighthouses are kept more as historical landmarks than as navigational guides. In this newer role, the problem of excludability may

DOI link for British shipping. While advocates were not entirely clear, there was a sense that the American taxpayer, not the American consumer, was the more appropriate beast of burden for lighthouse services. Obviously, governmental provision from general revenues has the ad-vantage of avoiding by fiat the problems of lighthouse provision identified above. While such an approach poses added administrative problems, as Coase argued, these problems do not appear to have been serious. Al-though Alexander Hamilton and his successors appear to have been fine administrators concerned with conserving public funds, the real reason may be that, by the turn of the twentieth century, the role of the light-house began to decline. With the subsequent development of the radio and other navigational aids, the benefits of lighthouses have been ex-ceeded by their production costs even with government assistance. All signs indicate that the days of lighthouses are numbered." This article has pointed out that the stark dichotomy between "pri-vate" provision and ''government" provision of goods and services that stalks many general discussions of public policy is, at best, a useless abstraction and, at worst, a barrier to understanding how goods and ser-vices are provided in the real world. The dichotomy veils the great variety of institutional structures in which the provision of goods and services takes place. The case of the lighthouse is one in which the specific nature of the problems posed, the wider legal rules, and the available technology all helped determine the institutional form of the service. Historically, the institutions that provided lighthouse services relied more on govern-mental assistance than is the case with other services and goods. In many cases, however, the level of governmental involvement has fallen far short of full government provision out of general revenues. Particularly, as technology that provides cheaper solutions to the problem of exclusion is developed, one might expect to see changes in the institutional struc-tures used to provide other goods and services. In fact, recent changes in the purpose of lighthouses points this out. Today, many lighthouses are kept more as historical landmarks than as navigational guides. In this newer role, the problem of excludability may

British shipping. While advocates were not entirely clear, there was a sense that the American taxpayer, not the American consumer, was the more appropriate beast of burden for lighthouse services. Obviously, governmental provision from general revenues has the ad-vantage of avoiding by fiat the problems of lighthouse provision identified above. While such an approach poses added administrative problems, as Coase argued, these problems do not appear to have been serious. Al-though Alexander Hamilton and his successors appear to have been fine administrators concerned with conserving public funds, the real reason may be that, by the turn of the twentieth century, the role of the light-house began to decline. With the subsequent development of the radio and other navigational aids, the benefits of lighthouses have been ex-ceeded by their production costs even with government assistance. All signs indicate that the days of lighthouses are numbered." This article has pointed out that the stark dichotomy between "pri-vate" provision and ''government" provision of goods and services that stalks many general discussions of public policy is, at best, a useless abstraction and, at worst, a barrier to understanding how goods and ser-vices are provided in the real world. The dichotomy veils the great variety of institutional structures in which the provision of goods and services takes place. The case of the lighthouse is one in which the specific nature of the problems posed, the wider legal rules, and the available technology all helped determine the institutional form of the service. Historically, the institutions that provided lighthouse services relied more on govern-mental assistance than is the case with other services and goods. In many cases, however, the level of governmental involvement has fallen far short of full government provision out of general revenues. Particularly, as technology that provides cheaper solutions to the problem of exclusion is developed, one might expect to see changes in the institutional struc-tures used to provide other goods and services. In fact, recent changes in the purpose of lighthouses points this out. Today, many lighthouses are kept more as historical landmarks than as navigational guides. In this newer role, the problem of excludability may