EC325 MT Flashcards
When and why should government interfere?
- Create framework of law in which markets operate (property rights, prohibition of some markets)
- Correct market failures, eg Limited rationality, externalities & Public goods, Asymmetric information, imperfect competition
- Paternalistic concerns (individuals being irrational), eg impatience, overconfidence, default options, inattention
- Redistribution (equity efficiency tradeoff)
Utility assumptions
- Non satiation - more is better: U’(X) > 0
2. Diminishing marginal utility: U’‘(X) <0
Compensating variation
What change in income would restore the consumers well-being to what it was before the price change
Equivalent variation
What change in the consumer’s income would have an equal effect on the consumer’s well being as the price change
Consumer Surplus
Area to the left of the demand curve between the before and after prices: he difference between the total amount that consumers are willing and able to pay for a good or service (indicated by the demand curve) and the total amount that they actually do pay (i.e. the market price).
First Fundamental of Welfare Economics
Competitive Markets reach a pareto efficient equilibrium
ASSUMPTIONS:
- Perfect competition (producers and consumers are price takers)
- Complete markets (markets exist for all commodities)
- Perfect information
- No externalities (perfectly defined property rights)
FFTW implies little role for government, however efficiency may not be only goal for society
Second fundamental of welfare economics
We can reach any pareto efficient allocation by altering initial endowments of resources - just have to redistribute income/wealth and from there the market will do the rest
Thus in theory, efficiency and equity issues can be addressed separately. In practice, these lump sum transfers aren’t feasible so there is efficiency-equity tradeoff
Rawlsian Social Welfare Function
Min(Ua, Ub, Uc…)
Kaldor Hicks Efficiency
Pareto efficiency hard to come by in real world, reallocation is kaldor-hicks improvement if the winners can compensate the losers:
Sum of CV >/= 0
After the compensation, there is a pareto improvement, this maximises utilitarian social welfare
Remedies to externalities
Coasian Bargaining (private solution)
Pigouvian taxation
Regulation
Cap and Trade/ Permits
Coasian Bargaining and its limits
Coase theorem: If transaction costs are low and sources of damages can be identified, once property rights are completely defined, private bargaining will restore efficiency irrespective of initial assignments of property rights.
LIMITS:
Costs of bargaining:
- EG Air pollution, would require millions of agents to coordinate and bargain
- To reduce transaction costs, need association (eg government) to represent agents
Cost of enforcement:
- High costs of monitoring
- Often hard to identify precise source of damage
Pigouvian taxation + Limits
Impose tax t equal to marginal cost of the externality to an activity that generates negative externalities, such that t=s (s=Marginal damage by externality).
makes a firm’s marginal cost c’(x) + t = c’(x) + s = MSC
LIMIT: Must know marginal damage function which is unrealistic
Regulation + advantages + disadvantages
Legally mandating/capping a certain level of consumption/production of an activity that generates externality. If we know efficient quantity with certainty, this will have same effect as pigouvian taxation
PROS:
- Easy to enforce, Salience + Political expedience
Cons:
- no incentive for innovation
- Allocative inefficiency with heterogeneity in cost of pollution reduction
Cap and Trade permits
Hybrid of coasian bargaining and regulation:
Cap total amount of pollution and allow firms to trade permits to pollute.
Useful when private costs of carbon usage unknown so carbon tax is unfeasible.
The market mechanism embedded in this system ensures that costs of reducing emissions are borne efficiently.
Public good features
- Non Rival in consumption: one person’s consumption of a good will not affect another’s opportunity to consume the good
- Non excludable: cannot deny individuals opportunity to consume a good
- Suffer from free rider problem -> inefficient private provision -> first welfare theorem breaks down
Free Riding
When investment has a personal cost but common benefit/s, individuals underinvest. Thus there is market under-provision compared to the Samuelson rule
Limitations of Samuelson Rule
Difficult to implement public intervention properly:
- Govt needs to know preferences or have mechanism to reveal preferences
- Issue of how to finance the public good if only distortionary taxes available
- Samuelson analysis is a first best benchmark