Rivalry (economics)
in economics, a phenomenon in which the consumption of some goods prevents their simultaneous consumption by other consumers, occurring for most tangible goods and some nontangible goods (e.g. Internet domains), but not for others (e.g. TV broadcast)
In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. A good is considered non-rivalrous or non-rival if, for any level of production, the cost of providing it to a marginal (additional) individual is zero. A good is anti-rivalrous and inclusive if each person benefits more when other people consume it.
A good can be placed along a continuum from rivalrous through non-rivalrous to anti-rivalrous. The distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous is sometimes referred to as jointness of supply or subtractable or non-subtractable. Economist Paul Samuelson made the distinction between private and public goods in 1954 by introducing the concept of nonrival consumption. Economist Richard Musgrave followed on and added rivalry and excludability as criteria for defining consumption goods in 1959 and 1969.
Rivalry
Most tangible goods, both durable and nondurable, are rival goods. A hammer is a durable rival good. One person's use of the hammer prevents others from using the hammer at the same time.
“Rivalry (economics)” enters the record as in economics, a phenomenon in which the consumption of some goods prevents their simultaneous consumption by other consumers, occurring for most tangible goods and some nontangible goods (e.g. Internet domains), but not for others (e.g. TV broadcast). Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Rivalry, economics and phenomenon can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Rivalry (economics)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Rivalry, economics and phenomenon provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 18, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2901966. The first chronological checks are 1954, 1959 and 1969.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rivalry (economics)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rivalry (economics) primary sources, Rivalry (economics) archive and Rivalry research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rivalry (economics)”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rivalry (economics)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.