Document date: May 24, 2010
Released online: May 26, 2010
The U.S. Postal Service, once the centerpiece of American commerce and communications, is fighting for its life. The Urban Institute's Nancy Pindus scans the Postal Service's varied benefits and asks, What are Americans willing to pay or give up to keep it afloat?
Read the commentary in PDF format.
Are electronic communications, bill paying, and banking killing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)? If so, what’s really at stake? For almost a year now, the Postal Service has been on the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s endangered species list thanks to its deteriorating financial situation and low chances of covering its expenses and financial obligations. In March, the postmaster general outlined a 10-year plan to save the USPS through cost-cutting, increased productivity, and service changes.
Far more than Saturday mail delivery is up for grabs. Throughout its more than 230-year history, the postal system has had a civic as well as an economic mandate that legislators and regulators interpret with changing times and circumstances in mind. An independent agency of the executive branch, the USPS opens access to information for preserving democracy, fostering commerce, and promoting the general welfare. It’s a public good and a great equalizer insofar as it serves rich and poor, urban and rural, young and old, unhealthy and hale.
When the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) asked the Urban Institute to identify benefits of postal services and post offices to individuals and society in general, we found eight types and note some associated examples:
Social benefits, though hard to quantify, contribute to individual and community well-being. But even as researchers make strides in measuring these benefits in a range of industries and social ventures and in getting the results used to make practical decisions, a key question remains—Who pays for all of these benefits?
In the case of the public goods provided by the USPS, does it make sense to keep ruling out a federal subsidy? If this option raises concerns about expanding the role of government, the potential impact of market-based decisions—whether no Saturday mail service, no last-mile delivery to remote areas, or post office closings—must be weighed along with the USPS’s challenging dual identity as a public service meeting multiple demands and a business that must pay its own way.
It’s natural to want full service without paying the full costs. But if we insist on Saturday delivery, convenient local post offices, reduced rates for nonprofit and community organizations, and other social benefits as the right of citizens, we can’t expect the USPS to operate in the black as mail volume drops. A wiser question than “Can’t we pay less for what we want?” may be “What are taxpayers willing to give up or to pay, especially since those who stand to lose the most are the most isolated and vulnerable among us?”
Nancy Pindus and her colleagues at the Urban Institute just completed a study for the Postal Regulatory Commission on challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. Read the study.
(The commentary is available in PDF format.)
Other Publications by the Authors
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact email@example.com.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.