View source for Common good

{{Short description|What is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community}}
{{Other uses|Common Good (disambiguation){{!}}Common Good}}
{{republicanism sidebar|Related}}
In [[philosophy]], [[Common good (economics)|economics]], and [[political science]], the '''common good''' (also '''commonwealth''', '''common weal''', '''general welfare''', or '''public benefit''') is either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given [[community]], or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service. The concept of the common good differs significantly among [[List of philosophies|philosophical doctrines]].<ref name="Britannica">{{cite web|last1=Lee|first1=Simon|title=Common good|url=http://www.britannica.com/topic/common-good|website=Encyclopædia Britannica|access-date=9 March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tarantino |first1=Piero |title=An Alternative View of the European Idea of the Common Good: Bentham's Mathematical Model of Utility |journal=Revue d'études benthamiennes |date=2020 |issue=18 |doi=10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.8227 |doi-access=|url=https://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/8227 }}</ref> Early conceptions of the common good were set out by [[Ancient Greece|Ancient Greek]] philosophers, including [[Aristotle]] and [[Plato]]. One understanding of the common good rooted in [[Aristotelianism|Aristotle's philosophy]] remains in common usage today, referring to what one contemporary scholar calls the "good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members."<ref name="Dupré">{{cite journal|last1=Dupré|first1=Louis|title=The Common Good and the Open Society|journal=The Review of Politics|date=5 August 2009|volume=55|issue=4|pages=687–712|doi=10.1017/S0034670500018052|s2cid=143454235 }}</ref>

The concept of common good developed through the work of political theorists, moral philosophers, and public economists, including [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Niccolò Machiavelli]], [[John Locke]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], [[James Madison]], [[Adam Smith]], [[Karl Marx]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[John Maynard Keynes]], [[John Rawls]], and many other thinkers. In contemporary economic theory, ''a'' common good is any good which is [[Rivalry (economics)|rivalrous]] yet [[Excludability|non-excludable]], while ''the'' common good, by contrast, arises in the subfield of [[welfare economics]] and refers to the outcome of a [[social welfare function]]. Such a social welfare function, in turn, would be rooted in a moral theory of the good (such as [[utilitarianism]]). [[Social choice theory]] aims to understand processes by which the common good may or may not be realized in societies through the study of [[Group decision-making|collective decision rules]]. [[Public choice theory]] applies [[Microeconomics|microeconomic]] [[methodology]] to the study of political science in order to explain how private interests affect political activities and outcomes.

==Definition==
The term ''common good'' has been used in many disparate ways and escapes a single definition. Most philosophical conceptions of the common good fall into one of two families: substantive and procedural. According to substantive conceptions, the common good is that which is shared by and beneficial to all or most members of a given community: particular substantive conceptions will specify precisely what factors or values are beneficial and shared. According to procedural formulations, by contrast, the common good consists of the outcome that is achieved through collective participation in the formation of a shared will. It is when one another [[respect]]s others' [[dignity]] and rights.

==In the history of moral and political thought==
=== Historical overview ===
Under one name or another, the common good has been a recurring theme throughout the history of political philosophy.<ref name="Diggs 283–293">{{Cite journal|last=Diggs|first=B. J.|date=1973-01-01|title=The Common Good as Reason for Political Action|jstor=2379966|journal=Ethics|volume=83|issue=4|pages=283–293|doi=10.1086/291887|s2cid=145088595}}</ref> As one contemporary scholar observes, [[Aristotle]] used the idea of "the common interest" ({{Lang|grc-latn|to koinei sympheron}}, in [[Greek language|Greek]]) as the basis for his distinction between "right" constitutions, which are in the common interest, and "wrong" constitutions, which are in the interest of rulers;<ref>{{Cite book|title=Politics|last=Aristotle|pages=3, 6–7, 12}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas|Saint Thomas Aquinas]] held "the common good" (''{{Lang|la|bonum commune}},'' in [[Latin]]) to be the goal of law and government;<ref>{{Cite book|title=Summa Theologiae|last=Aquinas|first=Thomas|pages=1, 2. 90. 2 & 4}}</ref> [[John Locke]] declared that "the peace, safety, and public good of the people" are the goals of political society, and further argued that "the well being of the people shall be the supreme law";<ref>{{Cite book|title=Second Treatise of Government|last=Locke|first=John|pages=131, 158}}</ref> [[David Hume]] contended that "social conventions" are adopted and given moral support in virtue of the fact that they serve the "public" or "common" interest;<ref>{{Cite book|title=Teatise 3, 2. 2.|last=Hume|first=David}}</ref> [[James Madison]] wrote of the "public", "common", or "general" good as closely tied with justice and declared that justice is the end of government and civil society;<ref>{{Cite book|title=Federalist|last=Publius|pages=10, 51}}</ref> and [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] understood "the common good" ({{Lang|fr|le bien commun}}, in [[French language|French]]) to be the object of a society's [[general will]] and the highest end pursued by government.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Social Contract|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|page=2.1}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Diggs|first=B. J.|date=1973-01-01|title=The Common Good as Reason for Political Action|jstor=2379966|journal=Ethics|volume=83|issue=4|pages=283–284|doi=10.1086/291887|s2cid=145088595}}</ref>

Though these thinkers differed significantly in their views of what the common good consists in, as well as over what the state should do to promote it, they nonetheless agreed that the common good is the end of government, that it is a good of all the citizens, and that no government should become the "perverted servant of special interests",<ref name=":0" /> whether these special interests be understood as Aristotle's "interest of the rulers", Locke's "private good", Hume's and Madison's "interested factions", or Rousseau's "particular wills".<ref name=":0"/>

===Ancient Greeks===
For the [[Ancient Greece|Ancient Greeks]], the Common Good was the flourishing of the hierarchical network of people, known as the [[Polis#The_polis_in_Ancient_Greek_philosophy|polis]] (one's city, or state). The phrase "common good" then, does not appear in texts of [[Plato]], but instead the phrase "the good of a city".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Plato |title=Republic |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book V. 462a |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Rep.+5.462a&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168 |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref>  In ''[[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]'', Plato's character [[Socrates]] contends repeatedly that a particular common goal exists in politics and society,<ref name="Simm">{{cite journal|last1=Simm|first1=Kadri|title=The Concepts of Common Good and Public Interest: From Plato to Biobanking|journal=Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics|date=16 August 2011|volume=20|issue=4|pages=554–62|doi=10.1017/S0963180111000296|pmid=21843386|s2cid=36435554 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1240338}}</ref> and that that goal is the same as the goal for a flourishing human being, namely, to be a [[philosopher king]],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Plato |title=Republic |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book V. 473d |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Rep.+5.473&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168 |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> ruled by the highest good, [[Reason]], rather than one of Plato's four lesser goods: honor-seeking, money-making, pleasure-seeking, or empassioned addiction.  For Plato, the best political order is one in which the entire society submits to the dictates of the leaders' faculty of Reason, even [[communism|communistically]] holding possessions, wives, and children in common,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Plato |title=Republic |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book V. 462b–465b |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Rep.+5.462&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168 |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> creating a "cohesion and unity" that "result[s] from the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you get when all members of a society are glad or sorry for the same successes and failures."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Plato|title=Republic|date=2003|publisher=Penguin Books|location=London|pages=462a–b}}</ref>

Plato's student [[Aristotle]], considered by many to be the father of the idea of a common good, uses the concept of "the common interest" ({{Lang|grc-latn|to koinei sympheron}} in [[Greek language|Greek]]) as the basis for his distinction between his three "right" constitutions, which are in the common interest, and "wrong" constitutions, which are in the interest of rulers.<ref name="3_good_constitutions_A">{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book IV.2. (1289a27–37) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D1289a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="3_good_constitutions_B">{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Nicomachean Ethics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book VIII.10. (1160a31–35) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1160a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="Diggs 283–293"/> To Aristotle, Plato is wrong about the desire to simply impose top-down unity;<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book II.1–2. (1261a4–23) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D1261a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> for Aristotle, a common good is synthesized upwardly/[[Teleology|teleologically]] from the lesser goods of individuals, and their various kinds of larger-and-larger partnerships: marital couple, or parent-over-child, or master-over-slave; household; then village; then state.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book I.2. (1252a24–1253a38) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0058 |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref>  In this teleological view, the good stems from objective facts about human life and purpose, which may vary, depending upon peoples' occupations, virtue-levels, etc.<ref name="Simm" />  However, noting that only citizens have the salvation (common good) of the city at heart,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.4. (1276b28–31) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1276b |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> Aristotle argues that, regardless of form of government,<ref name="3_good_constitutions_A"/><ref name="3_good_constitutions_B"/><ref name="Politics_III_13">{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.13. (1284b25–35) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1284b |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref>  those who have more of a rational understanding of the needs of the state's salvation, are entitled to a greater share in administering and determining justice, within the light of its common good,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.9. (1281a2–8) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1281a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book VII.8–9. (1328b33–1329a40) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1328b |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> than those who have less, or no such understanding or concern for it, such as selfish despots and political factions,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.6–7. (1279a16–20, 1279b4–10) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1279a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> as well as uneducated artisans and freedmen, women and children, slaves, etc.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.4–5. (1277a19–33, 1277b34–1278a14) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1278a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="Clayton">{{cite web|last1=Clayton|first1=Edward|title=Aristotle: Politics|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/|website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>  More than this, Aristotle argues that rational discourse itself is what the state's Common Good relies upon,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book I.2. (1253a7–17) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1253a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> identifying those who lack it as "slaves by nature",<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book I.5. (1254b20) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1254b |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book I.13. (1260a13) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1260a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref> while those who excel in it are nearly divine,<ref name="Politics_III_13"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Nicomachean Ethics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book X.7. (1177b15–35) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1177b |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref>Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics [Internet]. The Internet Classics Archive; available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html. I.2.1094b7–10 (accessed 30 Jan 2011).</ref> possessing in themselves the whole purpose for which states exist, namely, the perfectly complete good/blessed life.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Politics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book III.6,9. (1278b24, 1280a32, 1280b33) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1280a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="Nicomachean_VIII_9">{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Nicomachean Ethics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book VIII.9. (1160a8–30) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1160a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref>  In his [[Nicomachean Ethics]] then, Aristotle ties up the Common Good of the state, with that of friendship, implying by this, that friendly, rational discourse is the primary activity by which citizens and rulers bring about the Common Good, both amongst themselves, and so far as it involves their inferiors.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Aristotle |title=Nicomachean Ethics |publisher=Perseus Digital Library |pages=Book VIII.11–12. (1160a8–30) |url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1160a |access-date=19 April 2022}}</ref>  According to one common contemporary usage, rooted in Aristotle's philosophy, common good then refers to "a good proper to, and attainable, only by the community, yet individually shared in, by its members."<ref name="Dupré" />

===Renaissance Florence===
During the 15th and 16th centuries, the common good was one of several important themes of political thought in Renaissance Florence. The thought goes back to Thomas Aquinas theory of common good being widespread in whole premodern Europe.<ref>Konstantin Langmaier, Dem Land Ere und Nucz, Frid und Gemach: Das Land als Ehr-, Nutz- und Friedensgemeinschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Gemeinen Nutzen. In: . In: Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Band 103, 2016, S. 178–200.]</ref> In a later work, Niccolò Machiavelli speaks of the {{Lang|it|bene commune}} ({{Gloss|common good}}) or {{Lang|it|comune utilità}} ({{Gloss|common utility}}), which refers to the general well-being of a community as a whole; however, he mentions this term only 19 times throughout his works.<ref name="Waldemar"/> In key passages of the ''[[Discourses on Livy]]'', he indicates that "the common good (''{{Lang|it|comune utilità}}'') . . . is drawn from a free way of life ({{Lang|it|vivere libero}})" but is not identical with it.<ref name="Waldemar">{{cite journal | last1 = Waldemar | first1 = Hanasz | year = 2010 | title = The common good in Machiavelli | journal = History of Political Thought | volume = 31 | issue = 1| pages = 57–85 }}</ref><ref>''Discourses,'' I 16, p. 174.</ref> Elsewhere in the ''Discourses,'' freedom, safety and dignity are explicitly stated to be elements of the common good and some form of property and family life are also implied.<ref name="Waldemar"/> Furthermore, the common good brought by freedom includes wealth, economic prosperity, security, enjoyment and good life.<ref name="Waldemar"/> However, though Machiavelli speaks of an instrumental relationship between freedom and common good, the general well-being is not precisely identical with political freedom: elsewhere in the ''Discourses,'' Machiavelli argues that an impressive level of common good can be achieved by sufficiently autocratic rulers.<ref name="Waldemar"/> Nevertheless, Machiavelli's common good can be viewed as acting for the good of the majority, even if that means to oppress others through the endeavor.<ref name="Waldemar"/><ref>''Discourses,'' I 2, p. 132;''Discourses,'' I 9, p. 154.</ref> Machiavelli's common good is viewed by some scholars as not as "common", as he frequently states that the end of republics is to crush their neighbors.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yCsxDwAAQBAJ&q=hulliung+citizen+machiavelli|title=Citizen Machiavelli|last=Hulliung|first=Mark|year=2017|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781351528481|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ia_oOgHlR58C|title=Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the Discourses on Livy|last=Mansfield|first=Harvey C.|year=2001|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=9780226503707|pages=193–194|language=en}}</ref>

===Jean-Jacques Rousseau===
In [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Jean-Jacques Rousseau's]] ''[[The Social Contract]]'', composed in the mid-18th century, Rousseau argues that society can function only to the extent that individuals have interests in common, and that the end goal of any state is the realization of the common good. He further posits that the common good can be identified and implemented only by heeding the general will of a political community, specifically as expressed by that community's sovereign. Rousseau maintains that the [[general will]] always tends toward the common good, though he concedes that democratic deliberations of individuals will not always express the general will. Furthermore, Rousseau distinguished between the general will and the will of all, stressing that while the latter is simply the sum total of each individual's desires, the former is the "one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being."<ref>''Of the Social Contract'', Book IV, Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2</ref> Political authority, to Rousseau, should be understood as legitimate only if it exists according to the general will and toward the common good. The pursuit of the common good, then, enables the state to act as a moral community.<ref name="Britannica"/>

===John Rawls's Theory of Justice===
[[John Rawls]] defines the common good as "certain general conditions that are ... equally to everyone's advantage". In his [[A Theory of Justice|''Theory of Justice'']], Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality, applied to the basic structure of a well-ordered society, which will specify exactly such general conditions. Starting with an artificial device he calls the [[original position]], Rawls defends two particular principles of justice by arguing that these are the positions reasonable persons would choose were they to choose principles from behind a veil of ignorance. Such a "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage. According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the original position would all adopt a [[Minimax#Maximin in philosophy|"maximin"]] strategy which would maximize the prospects of the least well-off individual or group. In this sense, Rawls's understanding of the common good is intimately tied with the well-being of the least advantaged. 
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two governing principles, which would then regulate the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. The [[John Rawls|First Principle of Justice]] states that "First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others".<ref>Rawls, p. 53 revised edition; p. 60 old 1971 first edition</ref> The [[John Rawls|Second Principle of Justice]] provides that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that "(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle" (''the difference principle''); and "(b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of 'fair [[equality of opportunity]]{{'"}}.<ref>Rawls, 1971, p.&nbsp;302; revised edition, p.&nbsp;53</ref>

=== In non-Western moral and political thought ===
The idea of a common good plays a role in [[Confucianism|Confucian political philosophy]], which on most interpretations stresses the importance of the subordination of individual interests to group or collective interests,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Confucian Political Philosophy – Oxford Handbooks|series=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy|volume=1|url=http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238804.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199238804-e-48|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238804.001.0001|year=2011|isbn=9780199238804|last1=Wong|first1=David|editor1-first=George|editor1-last=Klosko}}</ref> or at the very least, the mutual dependence between the flourishing of the individual and the flourishing of the group.<ref>Bloom, Irene (2009) (trans.). ''Mencius''. New York: Columbia University Press.</ref> In [[Islamic political thought]], many modern thinkers have identified conceptions of the common good while endeavoring to ascertain the fundamental or universal principles underlying divine [[Sharia|shari‘a law]].<ref name=":1">Bulliet, R. & Bowering, G. & Cook, D. & Crone, P. & Kadi, W. & Euben, R.L., ''The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought.'' Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.</ref> These fundamentals or universal principles have been largely identified with the "objectives" of the shari‘a ({{Lang|ar-latn|maqāṣid al-sharī‘a}}), including concepts of the common good or public interest ({{Lang|ar-latn|maṣlaḥa ‘āmma}}, in modern terminology).<ref name=":1" /> A notion of the common good arises in contemporary Islamic discussions of the distinction between the fixed and the flexible ({{Lang|ar-latn|al-thābit wa-l-mutaghayyir}}), especially as it relates to modern Islamic conceptions of tolerance, equality, and citizenship: according to some, for instance, universal principles carry greater weight than specific injunctions of the [[Quran|Qur'an]], and in case of conflict, can even supersede or suspend explicit textual injunctions ({{Lang|ar-latn|naṣṣ}}) if this serves the common good.<ref name=":1" />

==In political economic theory==
In economics, the terms [[public good (economics)|''public good'']] and [[common good (economics)|''common good'']] have technical definitions. A public good is a good that is [[non-rivalrous]] and [[non-excludable]].{{Clarify|reason=These should be defined briefly|date=March 2024}} A common good is simply non-excludable. A simple typology illustrates the differences between various kinds of goods:

{{main|Goods#Goods classified by exclusivity and competitiveness}}
{{Good (economics)}}

The field of [[welfare economics]] studies social well-being. The approach begins with the specification of a social welfare function. The choice of a social welfare function is rooted in an ethical theory. A utilitarian social welfare function weights the well-being of each individual equally, while a Rawlsian social welfare function only considers the welfare of the least well-off individual.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Roemer|first1=John E.|title=Theories of Distributive Justice|date=1996|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref>

Neoclassical economic theory provides two conflicting lenses for thinking about the genesis of the common good, two distinct sets of microfoundations. On one view, the common good arises due to social gains from cooperation. Such a view might appeal to the [[Prisoner's dilemma]] to illustrate how cooperation can result in superior welfare outcomes. Moreover, a cooperative equilibrium is stable in an iterated Prisoner's dilemma that is played for an indefinite period of time. Under these conditions, an individual does best by pursuing the course of action that is also optimal for society.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Axelrod|first1=Robert|title=The Evolution of Cooperation|date=1984|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York}}</ref>

On the other hand, economic theory typically points to social gains from competition as a rationale for the use of markets. Thus, Smith described the "[[invisible hand]]," whereby the mechanism of the market converts individuals' self-interested activity into gains for society.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Smith|first1=Adam|title=The Wealth of Nations|date=1776}}</ref> This insight is formalized in the [[First theorem of welfare economics|First Theorem of Welfare Economics]]. However, economic theory also points to [[market failure]]s, including the underprovision of public goods by markets and the failure of self-interested individuals to internalize [[externalities]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pigou|first1=Arthur|title=Economics of Welfare|date=1920|publisher=Macmillan and Co|location=London}}</ref> Because of these factors, purely self-interested behaviour often detracts from the common good.

There is an important conceptual difference between the sense of "a" public good, or public "goods" in [[economics]], and the more generalized idea of "the public good" (in the sense of common good, public benefit, or [[public interest]]), "a shorthand signal for shared benefit at a societal level".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Morrell K |year=2009 |title=Governance and the public good |journal=[[Public Administration (journal)|Public Administration]] |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=538–56 (quote at p. 543) |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01756.x}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Public Administration and the Public Interest' in G.L. Wamsley and J.F.Wolf (eds), Refounding Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes. Postmodern Challenges |author=Goodsell, C.T. |date=1990 |publisher=Sage |edition=paperback |pages=96–113}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |year=2012 |title=What is governance in the public interest? The case of the 1995 property forum in post-conflict Nicaragua |journal=[[Public Administration (journal)|Public Administration]] |volume=90 |issue=2 |pages=412–28 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01977.x |vauthors=Morrell K, Harrington-Buhay N}}</ref>
In a non-economic sense, the term is often used to describe something that is useful for the public generally, such as education, although this is not a "public good" in the economic sense. However, services like education exhibit ''jointness of supply'', i.e. the situation in which the cost of supplying a good to many users is the same, or nearly the same, as supplying it to one user. Public goods also exhibit jointness of supply, albeit with no diminishment of the benefits with increased consumption.

===Social choice theory===
[[Social choice theory]] studies collective decision rules. [[Arrow's impossibility theorem|Arrow's Impossibility Theorem]], an important result in social choice theory, states that no aggregative mechanism of collective choice (restricted to ordinal inputs) can consistently transform individual preferences into a collective preference-ordering, across the universal domain of possible preference profiles, while also satisfying a set of minimal normative criteria of rationality and fairness.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Arrow|first1=Kenneth|title=Social Choice and Individual Values|date=1951|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|location=New York}}</ref> The [[Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem]] further demonstrates that non-dictatorial voting systems are inevitably subject to strategic manipulation of outcomes.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gibbard|first1=Allan|title=Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result|journal=Econometrica|date=1973|volume=41|issue=4|pages=587–601|doi=10.2307/1914083|jstor=1914083}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Satterthwaite|first1=Mark Allen|title=Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions|journal=Journal of Economic Theory|date=1975|volume=10|issue=2|pages=187–217|doi=10.1016/0022-0531(75)90050-2|citeseerx=10.1.1.471.9842}}</ref>

[[William H. Riker]] articulates the standard public choice interpretation of social choice theory, arguing that Arrow's Impossibility Theorem "forces us to doubt that the content of 'social welfare' or the 'public interest' can ever be discovered by amalgamating individual value judgments. It even leads us to suspect that no such thing as the 'public interest' exists, aside from the subjective (and hence dubious) claims of self-proclaimed saviors."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Riker|first1=William|title=Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice |date=1982|publisher=Waveland Press|location=Long Grove, IL|page=137}}</ref> Thus, Riker defends a "liberal" conception of democracy, which centers on the role of constitutional checks on government. Public choice theorists have tended to share this approach. Buchanan and Tullock pursued this program in developing the field of "constitutional political economy" in their book ''[[The Calculus of Consent]]''.

More recent work in social choice theory, however, has demonstrated that Arrow's impossibility result can be obviated at little or no normative cost. [[Amartya Sen]], for instance, argues that a range of social choice mechanisms emerge unscathed given certain reasonable restrictions on the domain of admissible preference profiles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sen|first1=Amartya|s2cid=16238050|title=A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions|journal=Econometrica|date=1966|volume=34|issue=2|pages=491–499|doi=10.2307/1909947|jstor=1909947}}</ref> In particular, requiring that preferences are single-peaked on a single dimension ensures a [[Condorcet winner]]. Moreover, many of Riker's empirical claims have been refuted.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mackie|first1=Gerry|title=Democracy Defended|date=2004|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref>

===Public choice theory===
[[Public choice theory]] (sometimes called "positive political theory") applies microeconomic methodology to the study of political science in order to explain how private interests inform political activities. Whereas welfare economics, in line with classical political economy, typically assumes a public-interest perspective on policymaking, public choice analysis adopts a private-interest perspective in order to identify how the objectives of policymakers affect policy outcomes. Public choice analysis thus diagnoses deviations from the common good resulting from activities such as [[rent-seeking]]. In ''The Logic of Collective Action'', [[Mancur Olson]] argues that public goods will tend to be underprovided due to individuals' incentives to [[free-rider problem|free-ride]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Olson|first1=Mancur|title=The Logic of Collective Action|date=1965|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref> [[Anthony Downs]] provided an application of this logic to the theory of voting, identifying the [[paradox of voting]] whereby rational individuals prefer to abstain from voting, because the marginal cost exceeds the private marginal benefit.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Downs|first1=Anthony|title=An Economic Theory of Democracy|date=1957|publisher=Harper and Row|location=New York}}</ref> Downs argues further that voters generally prefer to remain uninformed due to "[[rational ignorance]]".

Public choice scholarship can have more constructive applications. For instance, [[Elinor Ostrom]]'s study of schemes for the regulation of common property resources resulted in the discovery of mechanisms for overcoming the [[tragedy of the commons]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ostrom|first1=Elinor|title=Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action|date=1990|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge}}</ref>

In many countries of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]], [[charitable organizations]] must demonstrate that they provide a [[public benefit]].<ref>Jonathan Garton (2013), ''Public Benefit in Charity Law'', OUP Oxford.</ref>

==In democratic theory==
[[File:Salus publica suprema lex esto (cropped).jpg|thumb|''[[Salus populi suprema lex esto|Salus publica suprema lex esto]]'', "The common good should be the supreme law", in the [[Federal Palace of Switzerland|Swiss Parliament]]]]
{{See also|Public opinion}}
In [[deliberative democracy]], the common good is taken to be a regulative ideal.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Elster|first1=Jon|chapter=The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory|title=Philosophy and Democracy|date=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford}}</ref> In other words, participants in democratic deliberation aim at the realization of the common good. This feature distinguishes deliberative democracy from aggregative conceptions of democracy, which focus solely on the aggregation of preferences. In contrast to aggregative conceptions, deliberative democracy emphasizes the processes by which agents justify political claims on the basis of judgments about the common good. [[Epistemic democracy]], a leading contemporary approach to deliberative democracy, advances a [[cognitivism (ethics)|cognitivist]] account of the common good.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Landemore|first1=Hélène|title=Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many|date=2012|publisher=Princeton University Press|location=Princeton}}</ref>

== In Catholic social teaching ==
{{Christian democracy sidebar|principles}}
{{Main|Catholic social teaching}}
One of the earliest references in Christian literature to the concept of the common good is found in the ''[[Epistle of Barnabas]]'': "Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already [fully] justified, but gather instead to seek together the common good."<ref>''[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas.html Epistle of Barnabas]{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}'', 4, 10.</ref>

The concept is strongly present in [[Augustine of Hippo]]'s ''magnum opus'' ''[[City of God (book)|City of God]]''. Book XIX of this, the main locus of Augustine's normative political thought, is focused on the question, 'Is the good life social?' In other words, 'Is human wellbeing found in the good of the whole society, the common good?' Chapters 5–17 of Book XIX address this question. Augustine's emphatic answer is yes (see start of chap. 5).

Augustine's understanding was taken up and, under the influence of [[Aristotle]], developed by [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas's conception of the common good became standard in Roman Catholic moral theology.

Against that background, the common good became a central concept in the modern tradition of [[Catholic social teaching]], beginning with the foundational document, ''[[Rerum novarum]]'', a [[papal encyclical]] by [[Pope Leo XIII]], issued in 1891. This addressed the crisis of the conditions of industrial workers in Europe and argued for a position different from both [[laissez-faire capitalism]] and [[socialism]]. In this letter, Pope Leo guarantees the right to [[private property]] while insisting on the role of collective bargaining to establish a [[living wage]].

Contemporary Catholic social teaching on the common good is summarised in the 2004 ''Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church'', chapter 4, part II.<ref>Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, [https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160801220128/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html |date=August 1, 2016 }} (2004). Chapter 4, part II.</ref> Quoting the [[Second Vatican Council]] document, ''[[Gaudium et spes]]'' (1965), this says, "According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, ''the common good'' indicates 'the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily{{'"}} (#164, quoting ''Gaudium et spes'', #26; italics original).

The ''Compendium'' later gives statements that communicate what can be seen as a partly different, more classical, sense of the concept – as not only "social conditions" that enable persons to reach fulfilment, but as the [[Telos|''end'' ''goal'']] of human life. "''[T]he common good [is] the good of all people and of the whole person... The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists "with" others and "for" others''" (#165; italics original). "The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good" (#168).

The Roman Catholic [[International Theological Commission]] drew attention to these two partly different understandings of the common good in its 2009 publication, ''In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law''. It referred to them as "two levels" of the common good.<ref>International Theological Commission, ''[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090520_legge-naturale_en.html ''In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law'']. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130311183453/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090520_legge-naturale_en.html |date=March 11, 2013 }}''. (2009), #85.</ref>

Other relevant documents are ''[[Veritatis Splendor]]'', a papal encyclical by [[Pope John Paul II]], issued in 1993 to combat the relaxation of moral norms and the [[political corruption]] (see paragraph 98) that affects millions of persons, and [[Pope Francis]]' 2015 encyclical, ''[[Laudato si']]''. In ''Veritatis Splendor'', Pope John Paul describes the characteristics and virtues that political [[leadership]] should require, which are [[honesty|truthfulness]], honesty, fairness, [[temperance (virtue)|temperance]] and [[solidarity]] (as described in paragraph 98 to 100), given that truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. In ''Laudato si''', Pope Francis links the "common good" to the "integral ecology" which is a core element of his appeal for greater care for "our common home".<ref>Pope Francis (2015), [https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf Laudato si'], paragraph 156, accessed 20 February 2024</ref>

==In contemporary politics==
=== United States ===
In contemporary [[Politics of the United States|American politics]], language of the common good (or public wealth) is sometimes adopted by political actors on the [[progressivism|progressive]] left to describe their values. Jonathan Dolhenty argues that one should distinguish in American politics between the common good, which may "be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member", and the collective good, which, "though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.radicalacademy.com/commongood.htm|title=Radical Academy|publisher=Radicalacademy.com|access-date=2013-10-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717015332/http://www.radicalacademy.com/commongood.htm|archive-date=2011-07-17|url-status=usurped}}</ref> First described by [[Michael Tomasky]] in ''[[The American Prospect]]'' magazine<ref>[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11424]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060615161620/http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11424|date=June 15, 2006}}.</ref> and John Halpin at the [[Center for American Progress]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/06/b1728259.html |title=Reclaiming the Common Good &#124; Center for American Progress |publisher=Americanprogress.org |date=2006-06-05 |access-date=2013-10-03}}</ref> the American political understanding of the common good has grown in recent times. The liberal magazine ''[[The Nation]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/kvh |title=July 17, 2006 |publisher=The Nation |access-date=2013-10-03}}</ref> and the [[Rockridge Institute]],<ref>[http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070611211308/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints|date=June 11, 2007}}.</ref> among others, have identified the common good as a salient political message for progressive candidates.<ref>[http://straighttalk.ourfuture.org/Straight-Talk-2006.pdf]{{dead link|date=November 2012}}</ref> In addition, non-partisan advocacy groups like Common Good are championing political reform efforts to support the common good.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.commongood-forum.org |title=Common Good Forum |publisher=Commongood-forum.org |access-date=2013-10-03 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213556/http://www.commongood-forum.org/ |archive-date=2013-10-04 }}</ref>
<!-- == Recognizing education and knowledge as global common goods ==
[[Knowledge]] is the [[Common heritage of mankind|common heritage of humanity]]. Knowledge, like [[education]], must therefore be considered a global common good. If knowledge is considered only a global [[Public good (economics)|public good]], access to it is often restricted.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century|last=Kaul|first=I.|last2=le Goulven|first2=K.|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1999}}</ref> The current trend towards the privatization of knowledge production, reproduction and dissemination is a cause for serious concern. The knowledge commons is gradually being privatized through [[law]] and, more specifically, through the [[Intellectual property|Intellectual Property Rights]] regime, which dominates knowledge production. The progressive privatization of the production and reproduction of knowledge is evident in the work of universities, [[think tank]]s, consultancy firms and publishing. As a result, much of the knowledge considered to be a public good, and which belongs to the knowledge commons, is actually being privatized. This is disturbing, especially when it comes to the [[Ecology|ecological]] and [[Medicine|medicinal]] knowledge of [[Indigenous peoples|indigenous communities]] that is being appropriated by global [[corporation]]s. Some resistance to this trend is emerging among indigenous peoples. It is also producing counter movements of sharing in the digital world.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|url=http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf|title=Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?|last=UNESCO|publisher=UNESCO|year=2015|isbn=978-92-3-100088-1|pages=80–81}}</ref> -->

Given the central concern for [[sustainable development]] in an increasingly interdependent world, education and knowledge should thus be considered global common goods. This means that the creation of knowledge, its control, acquisition, validation, and use, are common to all people as a collective social endeavour.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|url=http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf|title=Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?|last=UNESCO|publisher=UNESCO|year=2015|isbn=978-92-3-100088-1|pages=80–81}}</ref>

== Common goods for health ==
Common goods for health (CGH) can be defined as population-related interventions or activities that require cumulative finances from either donors or government on the basis of two conditions. The first condition is contribution in economic progress and health. The second condition includes emphasis on public or common goods and large social externalities with clear economic foundation for health interventions based on market failures. The common goods for health must produce enormous health benefits to communities and not financed through market forces. Examples of common goods for health are risk surveillance, disease control policies and strategies, [[vector control]] and public health emergency operation response services.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Common goods for health|url=https://www.who.int/health-topics/common-goods-for-health|website=World Health Organization}}</ref>

=== History ===
In the mid-20th century, the elites displayed a motivation for the common goods that was intended for health, and decisions were based on the elite rather than the public, since there was no public interest in the issue. 

After the 1950s, the government increasingly began to see the concept of addressing mutual issues for the benefit of the citizens, but it has yet to be completely adopted and will be much more compatible with appropriate expenditure.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Savedoff|first=William|date=September 30, 2019|title=Common Goods for Health: a brief history|url=https://www.cgdev.org/blog/common-goods-health-we-need-them-so-how-do-we-get-them}}</ref>

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Altruism]]
* [[Commonwealth]]
* ''[[Economy for the Common Good]]''
* [[Hero]]
* [[Higher good]]
* [[Mutualism (economic theory)]]
* [[Mutualism (movement)]]
* [[Open-source model]]
* [[Prosocial behavior]]
* [[Public benefit organization]]
* [[Public good (economics)|Public good]]
* [[Public interest]]
* [[Roerichism]]
* [[Social contract]]
* [[Social safety net]]
* [[Commons|The commons]]
* [[Utilitarianism]]
* [[Welfare spending|Welfare]]
* [[Welfare state]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Sources ==
* {{Free-content attribution
| title = Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?
| author = 
| publisher = UNESCO
| page numbers = 80–81
| documentURL = http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/232555e.pdf
| license statement URL = http://www.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=232555&set=00581C72C5_2_460&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1
| license = CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0
}}

==External links==
* [https://virtualplater.org.uk/module-b/unit-1-contents/1-3-the-political-authority-strand-in-scripture/1-3-2-where-does-political-authority-come-from/ The common good in Catholic Social Teaching: exposition at VPlater project]

{{Political philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Social concepts]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Public commons|.]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Concepts in political philosophy]]