The relationship between the Ministry of Commerce and the lighthouse organization is somewhat similar to that between the Ministry of Finance and British government departments. The budgets of these institutions must be approved by the Ministry of Commerce. The budget plans of the three institutions must be submitted to the Ministry of Commerce during Christmas and need to be reviewed at the lighthouse meeting held in London every year. Besides the three lighthouse agencies and the Ministry of Commerce, members of the lighthouse advisory committee and a shipping association (a business association) representing shipowners, water insurance companies and shippers also attended the meeting. Although the lighthouse advisory Committee has no statutory power, it plays an important role in the discussion process. When the lighthouse organization formulates the budget, the Ministry of Commerce should consider its opinions when deciding whether to pass the budget. The standard of lighthouse tax is decided by the Ministry of Commerce, so that the tax revenue in a certain period is enough to maintain the expenditure. However, when making the work plan and changing the original arrangement, the participants in the meeting, especially the members of the lighthouse advisory Committee, must consider the impact of the new work plan and changing the original arrangement on the lighthouse tax standard.
The second schedule of the Commercial Shipping (Commercial Shipping Fund) Law promulgated by 1898 stipulates the basis for collecting lighthouse tax. Although the lighthouse tax standard and some aspects were revised in the Council Regulation later, the current tax structure is basically determined in 1898. For all British ships arriving or departing from Hong Kong, the levy standard per voyage per ton varies greatly. After one year 10 voyage, "domestic airlines" ships will no longer pay lighthouse tax. "Foreign Airlines" ships will no longer pay taxes after six voyages. The tax standards of these two types of ships are different. If the ships are the same size, the tax paid by "domestic" ships on voyage 10 is approximately equal to the tax paid by "foreign" ships on six voyages. The tonnage tax rate of some ships is relatively low, such as sailboats and cruise ships with a tonnage of 100 or more. Tugboats and yachts are taxed annually, not by voyage. Moreover, some ships are exempt from lighthouse tax: ships belonging to the British or foreign governments (except those carrying cargo or passengers), fishing boats, bottom-dump ships and dredgers, sailing ships with a weight of less than 100 tons (except yachts), all ships with a weight of less than 20 tons (including yachts), ships with only bottom cargo, ships waiting for burning coal, loading materials and avoiding maritime risks (except tugboats and yachts). These regulations are limited, but they are enough to illustrate the nature of the regulations.
At present, the expenditure of British lighthouse service is allocated by the lighthouse general fund, and its income comes from lighthouse tax. In addition to the lighthouse expenses in Great Britain and Ireland, the fund was also used for lighthouse maintenance and construction in some colonies, as well as debris removal expenses, although this only accounted for a small part of the total expenditure. Lighthouse also has some expenses that are not shared by the fund. If the "local lighthouse" only benefits some ships using a specific port, its construction and maintenance costs will not be paid by the fund, and the fund is limited to the financial expenses that lighthouses usually use for "general navigation". The expenditure of "local lighthouse" is usually allocated by the port authority and made up by port tax.
Evolution history of British lighthouse system
Mill's works in 1848 and Sidvik's works in 1883 must have thought of the early situation in terms of the British lighthouse system in their minds. To understand Mill and Sidvik, we must first understand the British lighthouse system and its evolution in the19th century. However, studying the history of British lighthouse system not only helps us to understand Mill and Sidgwick, but also helps us to broaden our horizons and understand various available institutional arrangements for providing lighthouse services. When discussing the history of British lighthouse service, I will confine myself to England and Wales, because the lighthouse systems in these two places are most familiar to Mill and Sidgwick.
The main lighthouse in England and Wales is the Pilotage Association. It is also the most important pilotage institution in Britain. It runs nursing homes and manages charitable funds for seafarers and their wives, widows and orphans. It also has many responsibilities, such as repairing "local lighthouses" and providing maritime consultants and pilot captains for court hearings on maritime cases. It is a member of the Port Committee, including the Port Authority of London. Members of the Pilots Association serve on many committees dealing with maritime affairs, including government committees.
Pilotage Association is an ancient system. It may have evolved from the Middle Ages through the Seamen's Guild. 15 13 submitted a petition to Henry VIII to establish a guild, and 15 14 issued a license. The certificate gives the pilotage association the right to manage pilotage. This kind of power and charity has been the main work of the pilots association for many years. It was not until much later that it considered the lighthouse itself.
Before17th century, there were almost no lighthouses in Britain, and even in18th century, lighthouses were rare. However, there are all kinds of navigation marks. Most of the signs are located on the shore and are not specially used for navigation. These signs include churches and minarets, houses and trees. Buoy and beacon are also used for navigation. Harris explained that the lighthouse is not a lighthouse, but "a pillar standing on the shore or beach, perhaps with an old-fashioned cage at the top." /kloc-At the beginning of the 6th century, the Minister of the Navy was responsible for the management of navigation marks and the provision of beacons. In order to provide buoys and beacons, he appointed representatives to charge ships that benefited from these beacons. In 1566, the pilots' association is given the power to provide and manage navigation AIDS. They are also responsible for supervising the management of private navigation AIDS. For example, a person who cuts down trees as a navigation aid without permission will be charged with "jobbery" and "will be fined 100 (the fine income will be divided equally between the king and the pilots' association). The law of 1566 seems to have doubts about whether to give the pilot association the power to set up navigation marks on the water. This doubt was eliminated in 1594, when the secretary of the navy handed over the management of buoys and beacons to the Hong Kong Pilotage Association. It is not clear how these works are actually carried out, because the Secretary of the Navy continued to manage buoys and beacons after 1594, but it seems that the authority of the Pilots Association in these fields was recognized later.
/kloc-At the beginning of the 7th century, the Pilots' Association set up lighthouses in castel and Lovistott. But it was not until the end of the century that it built another lighthouse. At the same time, private people are also building lighthouses. Harris wrote: "A basic feature of Elizabethan society is that those who advocate public works are ostensibly for public welfare, but in fact they are for self-interest. The lighthouse did not escape their attention. " Later, he wrote: "After the lighthouse in Lowestoft was completed, the members of the Pilotage Association were very satisfied and stopped working ...1665438+In February 2004, 300 captains, ship owners and fishermen asked them to build a lighthouse in Winterto, but they seemed to have done nothing. Turning a deaf ear to this demand not only shakes the confidence of the guild, but also invites private speculators to intervene because of the prospect of profit. Soon they did it. " During the period of16 10-1675, the pilots association did not build lighthouses, but at least10 was built privately. Of course, it is embarrassing for the pilots' association to ask private people to build lighthouses. On the one hand, the Pilots Association hopes to be the only authoritative organization to build lighthouses; On the other hand, they are unwilling to use their own money to build lighthouses. Therefore, it opposes private construction of lighthouses. But we can see that it didn't succeed. Harris commented: "Lighthouse builders are typical representatives of speculators in this period. They are not mainly motivated by public service. Sir Edward Coke's speech in the National Assembly in 162 1 provided a strong basis for this:' On the surface, engineering builders such as boatmen are different: they claim to be for public welfare, but in fact they are for individuals.' "The difficulty is that people who are motivated by public services have not built a lighthouse. As Harris later wrote: "It should be admitted that the initial motivation of lighthouse builders is personal interests, but at least they can complete the task of building lighthouses."
The private way to avoid infringing on the legal rights of the Pilotage Association is to obtain the patent right from the king. The king allowed them to build lighthouses and collected royalties from ships that benefited from lighthouses. The specific method is that shipowners and freight forwarders submit petitions, claiming that they will gain huge benefits from the lighthouse and are willing to pay royalties. In my opinion, signatures are collected through normal channels and undoubtedly represent people's hearts. The king sometimes authorizes them to use patent rights in return for their services to him. Later, the right to operate lighthouses and collect royalties was granted to individuals by congressional decrees.
Lighthouse usage fee is charged by the agent at the port where it is located (it may represent several lighthouses). This agent may be an individual, but it is usually a customs official. The usage fee of each lighthouse is different. Every time a ship passes a lighthouse, it pays the use fee according to the size of the ship. There is a general standard for the charge rate per ton per voyage (such as 1/4 or1/2p). Later, a list was published, which included the corresponding charging standards adopted by the lighthouse on different voyages.
At the same time, the Pilots' Association has implemented a policy (even the Bo Yan League) that can keep power and money. The Pilots' Association applied for the patent right to operate the lighthouse, and then rented it out to private individuals who were willing to build the lighthouse at their own expense, and charged the rent. The prerequisite of private leasing is to ensure cooperation and not to confront the pilot association.
An example of this is the construction and reconstruction of perhaps Britain's most famous Edie Si Tong Lighthouse, which is located on a reef 65,438+04 miles off the coast of Puulaid. D Allen Stevenson commented: "1759 wrote the most dramatic chapter in the history of the lighthouse: in order to resist the impact of waves, the builders showed a high degree of professionalism, talent and courage." 1665, the British secretary of the navy received a petition to build a lighthouse on Edie Si Tong Reef. Pilot Association evaluation: Although it is worthwhile, it is "almost impossible". Cecil smiles, a chronicler of private enterprises, wrote: "... before, no daring private adventurer built a lighthouse on Edie Si Tong Reef, where there was not even a stone shadow on the sea, not even a small piece of place to stand." 1692, Walter whitefield made a suggestion and the Pilotage Association reached an agreement with him. According to the agreement, he will build a lighthouse, and the pilot association will share half of the profits. However, whitefield did not embark on this project. He transferred the right to Henry winstanley, who reached an agreement after negotiation with the Pilots Association in 1696. According to the agreement, he will get the profits in the first five years, and the Pilots Association will share half of the profits in the next 50 years. Winstanley built a lighthouse, and later built another one to replace it. The lighthouse was completed at 1699. However, a big storm at 1703 washed away the lighthouse. Winstanley, the lighthouse keeper, and some of his staff are dead. At that time, the total cost of the lighthouse was 8,000 pounds (all borne by winstanley) and the income was 4,000 pounds. The government gave winstanley's widow a pension of 200 pounds, with an annual pension of 100 pounds. If the lighthouse must be built by people with public interests, there will be no lighthouse on Edie Si Tong Reef for a long time. However, private interests once again prevailed. Two men, lovett and Rudyard, decided to build another one. Citing the power of reconstruction and charging given by the Act of Congress, the Pilots' Association agreed to lease this power to a new builder, and the terms were more favorable than those in winstanley-the lease period was 99 years, the annual rent was 65,438+000, and all the profits went to the builder. The lighthouse was built in 1709 and was not destroyed by a fire until 1755. The lease doesn't expire for another 50 years. The right to the lighthouse was transferred to someone else. The new owners decided to rebuild, and they invited John Smeaton, the greatest engineer at that time. He decided to build it all with stones, while the previous lighthouse was made of wood. The lighthouse was built in 1759. It was not until 1882 that it was replaced by the lighthouse newly built by the Pilots Association.
If we look at the situation at the beginning of 19 century, we can understand the important role played by private individuals and private organizations in the construction of British lighthouses. 1843, the lighthouse Committee claimed in its report that 42 lighthouses (including floating lighthouses) in England and Wales belong to the Pilots Association; The three lighthouses are rented to individuals by the Pilotage Association; Seven lighthouses were rented by the king to individuals; The four lighthouses were originally privately owned, according to patent rights, and later according to congressional decrees. In other words, out of a total of 56 lighthouses, 14 are operated by private individuals or private organizations. During the period of 1820- 1834, the Pilots' Association built 9 lighthouses, purchased 5 lighthouses rented to individuals (in addition to the 9 lighthouses, 2 lighthouses were built in burnham to replace the 1 lighthouse), and purchased 3 lighthouses owned by Greenwich Hospital (/kloc-0 In 1820, 24 lighthouses are operated by pilots' associations and 22 are operated by private individuals or private organizations. However, many lighthouses of the Pilots Association were not originally built by them, but were acquired through purchase or lease (Edie Si Tong Lighthouse is an example, and the lease expires on 1840). Of the 24 lighthouses operated by the Pilots Association in 1820, 12 lighthouses are the result of the expiration of the lease, and 1 lighthouse was transferred by Chester Council in 18 16. Therefore, of the 46 lighthouses in 1820, only 1 1 was built by the Pilots' Association, while 34 were privately built.
Since the main tower-building activities of the Pilots Association began at the end of 18, the status of early private lighthouses is even more important. Regarding the situation of 1786, D.A. Stevenson wrote: "It is difficult to evaluate the attitude of the Pilots Association towards the British coastal lighthouse at that time. From the point of action rather than concept, the guild's determination to build a lighthouse has never been very firm: before 1806, the right to build a lighthouse was leased to the lessee whenever possible. 1786 controlled lighthouses in four places: Castel and Los tofte (managed by local buoy use tax), Winterson and Sicily (the guild erected towers in these two places to prevent individuals from taking advantage of the king's patent rights to collect royalties for profit).
However, by 1834, as we have seen, the Pilotage Association has operated 42 lighthouses out of a total of 56. At that time, the parliament strongly supported the proposal of the Pilots Association to buy private lighthouses. This proposal was put forward by a small select committee of the House of Commons in 1822. Soon, the Pilots Association began to buy some private lighthouses. 1836, Parliament issued a decree to award all lighthouses in Britain to the Pilotage Association, which has the right to buy lighthouses left in private hands. This work was completed in 1842. Since then, there have been no privately owned lighthouses in Britain except the "local lighthouses".
During the period of 1823- 1832, the Pilots' Association spent 74,000 pounds to buy lighthouses leased to Flathorm, Firth, Burnham, North Frelands and South Frelands. After the promulgation of the 1836 bill, the remaining private lighthouses cost nearly 1 200,000, of which a large sum of money was spent on the Smas Lighthouse (the lease expires in April1year) and three other lighthouses: Timmamouth, Spas and Scroules (according to the Act of Parliament, the lease has not yet expired). The cost of purchasing these four lighthouses is: Smars,170,000; Timmamouth， 125000； Spencer, 330,000; Scrios, 445 thousand pounds. The amount of these expenses is huge: 445,000 pounds for Scripps is equivalent to (according to authoritative estimates) 7-65,438+million dollars today, and the income it may generate is much higher than today (because of the low tax level). So, we found that these people not only-in Samuelson's words-"made a fortune by running lighthouses", but also were really successful.
From the report of the Small Select Committee of the House of Commons 1834, we can understand the reasons for supporting the centralized management of all lighthouses by the Pilots Association:
The Committee was surprised to learn that lighthouse construction belongs to a completely different system in Britain. Different management institutions, different lighthouse tax rates and taxes, and different collection principles. The Committee found that the lighthouse construction, which is very important to the British navy and commerce, was not carried out under the direct supervision of the government, led by a unified department, and managed by responsible and far-sighted public servants in the most effective way and the most economical plan, but left it to its own devices. After the shipwreck, the lighthouse was slowly built at the request of the local government. All these may be regarded as a disgrace to our great country. In the past and even now, the construction of lighthouses has been largely used as a means of taxing national trade. For the benefit of a few people, they are enjoying the privilege entrusted to them by the state.
The Committee believes that it is unreasonable to impose unnecessary taxes on any industrial sector in China at any time. It is particularly unreasonable to tax the shipping industry, because it puts it at a disadvantage in unfair competition with the shipping industry of other countries. The meeting of the Committee held that the shipping industry should be exempted from all kinds of unnecessary local taxes and unfair taxes levied on it openly.
Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that in any case, the lighthouse tax should be reduced to the lowest level suitable for managing existing lighthouses and floating lighthouses, or building and managing new lighthouses necessary for national commerce and shipping.
Management ignores the fact that independent institutions continue to extract a lot of income (contrary to the above principle); Nominally, they charge a lighthouse tax to pay for the management of the lighthouse. They actually seek personal gain for a few people in order to achieve those purposes that were not considered when building the lighthouse. In this regard, the Committee cannot but express regret. In particular, the Committee opposes the practice of renewing some lighthouse leases. Since 12, a small select committee of the House of Commons has been calling on the House of Commons to pay attention to this issue. ...
Although this report particularly emphasizes the irrationality of the existing management and thinks that some private lighthouses are poorly managed, it is certain that the main reason for insisting on the unified management of lighthouses by the pilots' association is that it will reduce the lighthouse tax. Of course, this proposal thinks that the cost of the lighthouse should be paid by the state treasury, which leads to the cancellation of the lighthouse tax. But this can't be done. Here, we won't discuss this.
It is puzzling why the lighthouse tax can be reduced through the unified management of the lighthouse by the pilot association. This view can be found in the complementary monopoly theory. But Cournot didn't publish his analytical works until 1838, so it won't affect the opinions of those who care about the British lighthouse, although they realize the importance of Cournot's analytical works faster than economists. There is no reason to think that unified management can reduce lighthouse tax in any way. Because it needs as much money as before to compensate the former owner of the lighthouse. As the Pilots Association pointed out, since "the lighthouse tax is mortgaged as a guarantee to repay the loan, …… the lighthouse tax cannot be abolished until the debt is paid off". In fact, after 1848 paid off the loan, the lighthouse tax did not decrease.
Another way to reduce the lighthouse tax is to let the pilot association give up the net income from operating all its lighthouses. Of course, the money is used for charity, mainly to support retired seafarers and their widows and orphans. This use of lighthouse tax was opposed by two parliamentary committees, 1822 and 1834. In 1834, the Committee specifically mentioned that the workhouse provided for 142 people. There are 84,365,438+0 men, women and children receiving annuities ranging from 36 shillings to 30 pounds. It suggested that people who are receiving pensions continue to receive them until they die, but did not increase the number of new places. However, in fact, it has not done so.
1853, the government proposed that the lighthouse tax should not be used for charity. In the report submitted to the king, the Pilots Association claimed that this income was its property, which was the same as the lighthouse of the private owner (the private owner was compensated for it):
Kings and legislatures used to entrust the management of lighthouses to the Pilots' Association by charter. The charter does not change the legal status of corporate bodies as private guilds in any way, but it is necessary to manage lighthouses as a condition for obtaining this privilege. The legal status of guilds, in the eyes of kings and people, is no different from the status granted to individuals by lighthouse tax and other privileges (such as markets, ports and fairs). It is totally unfounded and illegal to think that the guild has a permanent legal responsibility to reduce the lighthouse tax to management expenses, including or excluding construction expenses, and not to use it for other purposes. If the lighthouse tax is reasonable at the time of chartering, it will continue to be effective, although it will generate profits due to the increase of shipping. The charter is still valid. Here, the king is for the benefit of the public. If it was reasonable at that time, it could not be withdrawn in the future. ..... guilds are as effective as private owners in the ownership of lighthouses they build ... In addition, part of the proceeds will be used for charity, so the rights of guilds are at least as worthy of consideration as those of private owners. ..... Strictly speaking, for these purposes, the lighthouse and lighthouse tax belonging to the pilots' association are their property. ..... The government's proposal seems to advocate that this large amount of property be handed over to the shipowner, and nothing will be collected except the cost of managing the lighthouse. What seems to be a charity act of the guild is actually a transfer of property, for the benefit of the dead captain and sailors, for their families, and for the legacy of the owner's property.
The report was submitted to the Trade Commission, which severely criticized the opinions of the Pilots Association:
Members of the House of Lords have no doubt about the property rights advocated by the Pilots Association. However, the situation of guilds and individuals is different: at least as far as lighthouse tax is concerned, the property owned by guilds must be beneficial to the public. Therefore, we must take into account the actual situation of public policy. Lawmakers don't think that tax cuts for public purposes violate the property principle, and no vested interests share the tax. It levies taxes on a certain class of subjects of His Majesty the King, but this class has not received any legitimate benefits in return (any lighthouse tax that exceeds the necessary expenses for managing lighthouses belongs to this tax). This kind of tax reduction not only does not violate the property principle, but also is the fairest and most favorable. Parliamentarians don't think there is any vested interest motive to support poor seafarers and their families with the surplus income of the lighthouse, because the nature of vested interests in which personal privileges are preserved is well known and stipulated by law. Members of parliament sincerely do not interfere in paid pensions or other welfare work. They believe that it is unfair to deny new individuals rights that no one has the right to enjoy now for reasons of public policy ... members believe that lighthouse management fees should be paid by lighthouse use fees. The lighthouse built with the income paid by the previous generation to protect the ship from hitting the rocks should be a natural and just legacy of people sailing on the British coast today. They should be free to enjoy the lowest possible fees allowed by the environment, and any other considerations should not be a problem.
The practice of using lighthouse tax for charity stopped at 1853. In this way, the lighthouse tax may be reduced, the price will be closer to the marginal cost, and the treatment of countless unknown seafarers and their families will be worse. However, we found that the pilot association's unified management of all lighthouses does not necessarily bring such consequences.
This change is part of the adjustment in 1853, and it is the establishment of the commercial marine fund. Lighthouse tax (and a certain amount of other funds) is provided to the fund for the cost of operating lighthouses and other expenses related to shipping. 1898, this system changed again, that is, the commercial ocean fund was cancelled and the ordinary lighthouse fund was established. This fund is entirely provided by the lighthouse tax and is only used for the management of lighthouse services. At the same time, the system of calculating lighthouse tax has also been simplified. The tax on each voyage is no longer based on the number of lighthouses that ships can benefit from as before. 1898 is basically the financing and management system described in section 2. Of course, the details have changed slightly, but the basic features of the system have been preserved since 1898.
conclusion
The investigation and evolution of British lighthouse system shows that the conclusions drawn from Mill, Sidvik and Pigou have great limitations. Mill seems to think that if something like the financing and management system of the British lighthouse is not established, then the private management of the lighthouse is impossible (most modern readers may not understand him like this). Sidgwick and Pigou believe that if a ship benefits from a lighthouse but can't charge it, then the government must intervene. The ships that benefit from the British lighthouse but don't pay tolls are mainly those that are not docked in British ports, but are managed by foreign ship owners. In this case, it is not clear what kind of government action is needed or how the government should act. For example, although ships of Russian, Norwegian, German and French governments don't call in Britain, do these governments have to pay royalties? Still have to pay a tax to the British General Lighthouse Fund? Or should the British government pay part of the tax to the lighthouse fund to make up for the difference that foreign governments failed to pay?
The discussion of British lighthouse system in this paper only reveals some possibilities. Early history shows that contrary to the belief of many economists, lighthouse services can be provided by private individuals. At that time, shipowners and freight forwarders can apply to the king for permission to build lighthouses privately, and collect (prescribed) use fees from the beneficiary ships. Lighthouses are privately built, managed, funded and owned. They can make a will to sell and dispose of the lighthouse. The role of the government is limited to determining and exercising the property rights of lighthouses. The use fee is charged by the agent of the lighthouse. For them, the problem of property rights enforcement is no different from that of suppliers who provide goods and services to shipowners. Property rights only play an unusual role in regulating the price of royalties.
Later, the lighthouse in England and Wales was entrusted to the Pilots Association, a private organization responsible to the public, but the cost continued to be paid by the lighthouse use fee of the ship. Samuelson's favorite system-the government raising money from general taxes-has never been implemented in Britain. This government-funded system does not necessarily exclude private enterprises from building and managing lighthouses, but it seems that private ownership of lighthouses is not allowed (except in a small scale), which is quite different from the British system that lasted until the end of the 1930s.