Ethical-political conflicts in public goods: recognising neoclassical theory’s blind spots to elucidate policy debates

Purpose Public goods play an important role in policy discussions. However, the term carries several meanings that are often conflated, an issue attributed to ambiguous terminology and rhetorical use of neoclassical vocabulary. This paper argues that the root of the problem is acceptance of neoclassical theory as the benchmark for public provision. Design/methodology/approach The paper clarifies terminology with a taxonomy of public goods notions to, in turn, analyse the relation between these different concepts and the core limitations of neoclassical public goods theory for informing policy-making. Findings Neoclassical public goods theory can only be applied by dismissing some of its core presuppositions and embracing hybridisation with alternative notions of public goods, which allows to formulate the ethical-political questions that neoclassical theory unsatisfactorily seeks to circumvent. Originality/value The paper puts forward a taxonomy that helps distinguish four notions of public goods and provides a new explanation for their conflation, which can help elucidate the public policy debate. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-07-2024-0560