Page 11 - kpi6282
P. 11

2

                                                                °“√§≈—ß∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ



            °«à“π—°°“√‡¡◊ÕßÀ√◊Õ¢â“√“™°“√¢Õß√—∞∫“≈°≈“ß „π∑’Ë ÿ¥°“√°√–®“¬Õ”π“®
            ∑“ß°“√§≈—ß®– àߺ≈„Àâ°“√º≈‘µ ‘π§â“·≈–∫√‘°“√ “∏“√≥–¢Õß√—∞∫“≈∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ

            ®–¡’ª√– ‘∑∏‘¿“æ Ÿß°«à“·≈– àߺ≈„Àâ «— ¥‘°“√ —ߧ¡‚¥¬√«¡¥’¢÷Èπ
                  °“√∑’ËÕߧå°√ª°§√Õß à«π∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ¡’Õ‘ √–„π°“√®—¥À“ ‘π§â“·≈–∫√‘°“√
             “∏“√≥– ¡’¢âÕ π—∫ πÿπ∑“ß∑ƒ…Æ’‡»√…∞»“ µ√åÕ¬à“ßπâÕ¬ Õߪ√–°“√

                                                 2
                  ª√–°“√·√° Charles M. Tiebout   ‡ πÕ«à“°“√°√–®“¬Õ”π“® Ÿà
            √—∞∫“≈∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ ‚¥¬„Àâ¡’Õ‘ √–„π°“√µ—¥ ‘π„®„π°“√‡≈◊Õ°„™âπ‚¬∫“¬°“√§≈—ß §◊Õ

             “¡“√∂‡≈◊Õ°π‚¬∫“¬√“¬‰¥â·≈–π‚¬∫“¬°“√„™â®à“¬√Ÿª·∫∫µà“ßÊ „π°“√º≈‘µ
             ‘π§â“·≈–∫√‘°“√ “∏“√≥–¿“¬„π∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ„π√–¥—∫∑’Ë·µ°µà“ß°—π ®– àߺ≈„Àâ
            ª√–™“°√ “¡“√∂‡≈◊Õ°∂‘Ëπ∑’ËÕ¬Ÿà∑’ˇÀ¡“– ¡°—∫§«“¡æÕ„® à«π∫ÿ§§≈ ·≈–
            ª√–™“°√®–‡§≈◊ËÕπ¬â“¬‰ª∑’Ë∑âÕß∂‘Ëππ—ÈπÊ ‡√’¬°À≈—°°“√π’È«à“ À≈—° çVote on their

            feeté ∑—Èßπ’Ȫ√–™“°√   “¡“√∂‚¬°¬â“¬∂‘Ëπ∞“π‰¥âÕ¬à“߇ √’‚¥¬‰¡àµâÕ߇º™‘≠°—∫
            µâπ∑ÿπ°“√‡§≈◊ËÕπ¬â“¬ (No Transaction Cost) ∑’ËÕ“®‡°‘¥¢÷Èπ

                  ª√–°“√∑’Ë Õß Wallace E. Oates ‡ πÕ∑ƒ…Æ’∫∑°“√°√–®“¬Õ”π“® (The
            Decentralization Theory) ∑ƒ…Æ’∫∑π’ȇ πÕ«à“°“√º≈‘µ ‘π§â“·≈–∫√‘°“√
             “∏“√≥–¢Õß√—∞∫“≈°≈“ß ®–¡’≈—°…≥–∑’˪√‘¡“≥·≈–√–¥—∫√“§“§ß∑’Ë∑—Èߪ√–‡∑»
            ´÷Ë߇¡◊ËÕµâÕ߇º™‘≠°—∫ºŸâ∫√‘‚¿§∑’Ë¡’§«“¡™Õ∫ (Preference) ·µ°µà“ß°—π  àߺ≈„Àâ
            ¡’√–¥—∫Õÿª ß§åµàÕ ‘π§â“ “∏“√≥–·µ°µà“ß°—π ®–¡’°≈ÿà¡Àπ÷Ëß∑’ˇ°‘¥Õÿª ß§å à«π‡°‘π

            ·≈–Õ’°°≈ÿà¡Àπ÷Ë߇°‘¥Õÿª∑“π à«π‡°‘π ´÷Ëß°àÕ„À⇰‘¥º≈‡ ’¬µàÕ —ߧ¡‚¥¬√«¡
            (Deadweight Loss) ¥—ßπ—Èπ∂â“°√–®“¬Õ”π“®„Àâ√—∞∫“≈∑âÕß∂‘Ëπ “¡“√∂®—¥ √√
             ‘π§â“·≈–∫√‘°“√„πª√‘¡“≥·≈–√–¥—∫√“§“·µ°µà“ß°—π„π·µà≈–æ◊Èπ∑’Ë  ‡æ◊ËÕ‰¡à„Àâ

            ¡’Õÿª ß§å·≈–Õÿª∑“π à«π‡°‘π‡°‘¥¢÷Èπ °“√®—¥ √√∑√—欓°√¢Õß —ߧ¡®–¡’
            ª√– ‘∑∏‘¿“æ Ÿß ÿ¥ (Pareto-efficient level of output)

            2
              Charles M. Tiebout . A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64:
              1956, p. 416-424.
   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16