The State and its role - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 149

from the revenue side of the equation. However, as we saw in section 2.9 rail use
is very much greater by higher income groups so that overall, from a distributional
perspective, this form of intervention may be considered highly regressive.
An example of transport expenditure designed to counteract the consequences
(i.e. outcomes) of income differences is the system of concessionary fares operated
on local public transport. This stops short of actually giving eligible groups money to
spend on transport (although the system of tokens used in some places gets very close
to this). Instead it enables them to 'purchase' more of the commodity in question
(bus services) than they would otherwise. Opponents of concessionary fares would
argue that this is a classic case of the State managing redistributive action wrongly by
effectively prescribing what people should spend their money on. If the recipients of
concessions are deserving of benefits on the grounds of insufficient income then, so the
argument goes, they should be given in a cash form so that the individuals can decide
for themselves whether they would benefit most from spending it on public transport
rather than anything else.
Standards
Consider, for example, a bypass proposal which improved the safety and environment
of many people living in a town but which resulted in the dramatic worsening of
conditions for a few people living near the new route. Such a proposal would be
economically justified provided that in theory the gainers would be willing to pay for
the cost of the road (including the amount needed to compensate the losers).
Clearly in this and similar examples, unless some further equity principle is applied,
the interests of minorities could be compromised to an unacceptable degree. One way
of addressing this is for the State to establish standards so that, irrespective of the
aggregate benefit of proposals, these are not obtained by pushing conditions below
acceptable thresholds for particular groups of people or at particular places. (The
maximum noise levels set under the 1973 Land Compensation Act for households to
incur as a result of a highway scheme is an example.) Under such a regime the remedial
action actually to achieve these minimum standards and its associated cost has to form
part of any scheme. It should be emphasised that these standards are applied on the
basis of ethical or political judgements, not economic ones.
Although standards are superficially attractive they are a hazardous concept for
policy-makers. This is because the cost of achieving a particular standard is likely to
vary widely according to circumstances whilst the number of people benefiting will
vary too. It is unrealistic to divorce the desirability of ensuring that individuals enjoy
certain minimum standards from the conflicting aim of using available resources to
greatest overall benefit. In practice State action often seeks to improve conditions in
worst-affected places (beyond what would be justified in economic efficiency terms)
but without necessarily accepting a commitment to a particular standard. The support
of rural public transport services is a case in point.
Rights
The notion of standards leads on to the more fundamental question of rights . Sometimes
politicians or others appeal to the notion of rights in order to argue the case for the
automatic provision of certain standards, almost irrespective of the costs and benefits
involved. (Thus people may speak of the 'right' to enjoy clean air, a safe environment,