Visiting a 13th-century cathedral, climbing the steps of its belfry with stone steps that echo centuries of human footsteps, and encountering chimeras and gargoyles overlooking the rooftops of Paris is, if not a religious experience. It provides a unique aesthetic experience. But economists may see something else in the restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which was destroyed in a fire five years ago.
The Economist magazine describes the cathedral’s reopening with photos of its stunning stained glass windows and majestic nave (“Emmanuel Macron unveils beautifully restored Notre-Dame”, The Economist ” November 29, 2024):
Perhaps the most striking feature is the cathedral’s new brilliance. After being darkened by centuries of dirt, the whitened stonework of the columns and vaults now resembles what they would have looked like in the Middle Ages. As Victor Hugo wrote of the columns in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, visitors expecting to see them towering “magnificently in the darkness” have been cleaned, strengthened, recut and restored to their original state. You will be amazed at the pristine appearance of the returned stones.
The Economist also reminds us of a remarkable fact. That means the research, which cost about $1 billion, was largely privately funded. Although I couldn’t find the latest official figures, it appears that about half of the money came from a small number of French billionaires and big companies, confirming that having the rich and big companies around you is beneficial. It will be done. Most of the remaining funding is expected to come from small private donors in France and around the world.
The magazine points out that the rebuilding of Notre Dame Cathedral was made possible by the fact that, for whatever subjective reasons, some public goods were made unrealistic by consumers who would rather pay a higher price than be deprived of the public goods they covet. It could have gone further by observing that it shows how private funds can be privately funded. “Consumer” includes anyone who benefits from the availability of a public good. Anthony de Jasay developed this argument very forcefully, especially in his The Social Contract and Free Ride. (My linked review explains in some detail what a “public good” is in mainstream economics, and how its special character is often overstated.) In short: , public goods are things that many people desire, but free riders Perhaps a public good that cannot be voluntarily funded is not “public” at all, as de Jasay says. Make them pay a good price and let free riders ride.
Indeed, the public tender for Notre Dame’s restoration was launched by the French government and received generous tax deductions, but of course some tax deductions mean that the cost of the donation is zero for donors. It’s not a thing. And if there were no mandatory taxes, many people would be able to donate more money to their preferred public goods. The lesson is that it is not unrealistic to think that public goods of great value to some portion of the population could be voluntarily funded.
Note also that public goods are rarely (if ever) public goods for all members of a territorial society. There is no doubt that many people in France and the rest of the world (even in civilized society) do not think of Notre Dame as a good thing, but as something that actually has utility. There are certainly some atheists, Muslims, and Baptists who don’t like it, or at least don’t want to pay a dime to benefit from its availability. The largely private, non-compulsory funding of Notre-Dame Cathedral’s restoration shows how conflicts in society can be resolved. In other words, pay for what you want and don’t force anyone to do it.
These considerations are not a panacea, but they provide a way to solve the problem.
*******************************************
Close-up of a chimera standing on top of the bell tower of Notre Dame de Paris
