The Problem With Externalities

By defining "externalities" as impacts of private conduct, economists and lawyers bias public discussion in favor of government regulation.

3 minute read

October 16, 2017, 7:00 AM PDT

By Michael Lewyn @mlewyn


One Way

Marcin Wasilewski / Shutterstock

Some years ago, I was writing an article criticizing minimum parking requirements. I originally wanted to refer to these rules as "externalities": that is, the consequence of an activity that is experienced by persons other than the beneficiaries of that activity. My argument was going to be: just as private polluters create externalities that harm the general public, these regulations increase pollution and thus also create externalities.

But at least one of the people who gave me pre-publication feedback disagreed with my terminology: he suggested that the impact of government regulation was not an externality, because by definition an externality must involve a consensual market transaction. 

Leaving aside the question of whether my friend was technically correct, it seems to me that this distinction itself may have negative impacts upon public policy. The purpose of zoning (and many other forms of government regulation) is to limit the harm to the public from negative externalities. So if zoning prevents externalities but never creates externalities, then one might think that more government regulation is usually desirable. Thus, the common definition of externalities as "results of private conduct" biases decision makers in favor of government regulation. 

But this way of framing the issue leads to absurd results, because obviously government regulation can create harm to the public that outweigh the harms caused by the externalities that the regulation prevents. So to solve this problem, we should redefine externalities to include the results of regulation. 

It could be argued that the two types of harm are not comparable: private market transactions are usually designed to aid a limited set of parties (such as producers and consumers of the same product) while government regulation is designed to aid the public as a whole. 

But this claim is not always accurate: government regulation is often designed to benefit a small group. For example, politicians might enact restrictive zoning in response to neighborhood fears about the perceived externalities caused by new housing or new commerce. Thus, such regulations are like a market transaction in that they benefit politicians and the neighborhood, rather than the city as a whole. If such regulations harm the city as a whole by increasing housing prices or increasing the negative side effects of low density* they start to look a lot like an externality-creating market transaction: group A (politicians) makes a deal with group B (neighborhood). Both A and B benefit, just as in a market transaction. But group C (people who now cannot afford neighborhood B, or even afford other neighborhoods if citywide housing costs rise) suffer. Similarly, if the city widens residential and commercial streets to facilitate fast car traffic, group A (the city) has satisfied group B (speeders) at the expense of other groups, such as non-drivers who use those streets. 

*Such as car dependence when density is too low to support high transit ridership, and the pollution and ill health caused thereby. 


Michael Lewyn

Michael Lewyn is a professor at Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, in Long Island. His scholarship can be found at http://works.bepress.com/lewyn.

portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Get top-rated, practical training

Wastewater pouring out from a pipe.

Alabama: Trump Terminates Settlements for Black Communities Harmed By Raw Sewage

Trump deemed the landmark civil rights agreement “illegal DEI and environmental justice policy.”

April 13, 2025 - Inside Climate News

Logo for Planetizen Federal Action Tracker with black and white image of U.S. Capitol with water ripple overlay.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker

A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

April 16, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

Black and white photos of camp made up of small 'earthquake shacks' in Dolores Park in 1906 after the San Francisco earthquake.

The 120 Year Old Tiny Home Villages That Sheltered San Francisco’s Earthquake Refugees

More than a century ago, San Francisco mobilized to house thousands of residents displaced by the 1906 earthquake. Could their strategy offer a model for the present?

April 15, 2025 - Charles F. Bloszies

Entrance to subterranean Hollywood/Vine Metro station in Los Angeles, California surrounded by tall apartment buildings.

Opinion: California’s SB 79 Would Improve Housing Affordability and Transit Access

A proposed bill would legalize transit-oriented development statewide.

April 21 - San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Yellow roadside sign with extreme heat warning: "Danger - Extreme Conditions! - STOP - Do not hike Jun-Sep - HEAT KILLS"

Record Temperatures Prompt Push for Environmental Justice Bills

Nevada legislators are proposing laws that would mandate heat mitigation measures to protect residents from the impacts of extreme heat.

April 21 - Nevada Current

View of downtown Pittsburgh, PA with river and bridge in foreground at dusk.

Downtown Pittsburgh Set to Gain 1,300 New Housing Units

Pittsburgh’s office buildings, many of which date back to the early 20th century, are prime candidates for conversion to housing.

April 21 - Axios