Explanation:

To understand the need for governmental provision of public goods, we must consider what distinguishes them from private goods. There are two major differences.

• One, the benefits of public goods are not limited to one particular consumer, as in the case of private goods, but become available to all. For instance, if a person consumes a chocolate or wears a shirt, these will not be available to other individuals. This person‘s consumption stands in a rival relationship to the consumption of others. However, if we consider a public park or measures to reduce air pollution, the benefits will be available to all. The consumption of such products by several individuals is not =rivalrous‘ in the sense that a person can enjoy the benefits without reducing their availability to others.
• Two, in case of private goods anyone who does not pay for the good can be excluded from enjoying its benefits. If you do not buy a ticket, you are excluded from watching a film at a local theatre. However, in case of public goods, there is no feasible way of excluding anyone from enjoying the benefits of the good (they are non-excludable). Since non-paying users usually cannot be excluded, it becomes difficult or impossible to collect fees for the public good. This is what is called the =freerider‘ problem.
• Consumers will not voluntarily pay for what they can get for free and for which there is no exclusive title to the property being enjoyed. The link between the producer and the consumer is broken and the government must step in to provide for such goods. Public provision, however, is not the same as public production. Public provision means that they are financed through the budget and made available free of any direct payment. Hence the train journey will not be counted as a public provision, however the public park will be considered so. These goods may be produced directly under government management or by the private sector.