chapter 18 externalities and public goods. ©2005 pearson education, inc.chapter 182 topics to be...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 18
Externalities and Public Goods
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 2
Topics to be Discussed
ExternalitiesWays of Correcting Market FailureExternalities and Property RightsCommon Property ResourcesPublic GoodsPrivate Preferences for Public Goods
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 3
Externalities
Externalities arise between producers, between consumers, or between producers and consumers
Externalities are the effects of production and consumption activities not directly reflected in the market They can be negative or positive
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 4
Externalities
Negative Action by one party imposes a cost on
another partyPlant dumps waste in a river, affecting those
downstreamThe firm has no incentive to account for the
external costs that it imposes on those downstream
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 5
Externalities
Positive Action by one party benefits another party
Homeowner plants a beautiful garden where all the neighbors benefit from it
Homeowner did not take their benefits into account when deciding to plant
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 6
Negative Externalities and Inefficiency
Scenario – plant dumping waste Marginal External Cost (MEC) is the increase
in cost imposed on fishermen downstream for each level of production
Marginal Social Cost (MSC) is MC plus MEC We can show the competitive market firm
decision and the market demand and supply curves
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 7
Negative Externalities and Inefficiency
Assume the firm has a fixed proportions production function and cannot alter its input combinations The only way to reduce waste is to reduce
output
Price of steel and quantity of steel initially produced given by the intersection of supply and demand
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 8
Negative Externalities and Inefficiency
The MC curve for the firm is the marginal cost of production
Firm maximizes profit by producing where MC equals price in a competitive firm
As firm output increases, external costs on fishermen also increase, measured by the marginal external cost curve
From a social point of view, the firm produces too much output
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 9
External Costs
MC
S = MCI
P1
q1
P1
Q1
MSC
MSCI
Firm output
Price
Industry output
Price
MEC
MECI
q*
P*
Q*
D
Firm will produce q1 at P1. There is MEC of production from the waste released. The MSC is
true cost of production.
The profit maximizing firmproduces at q1 while the
efficient output level is q*.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 10
External Costs
Aggregate social cost of
negativeexternality
By not producing at the efficient level, there is a social cost on
society. MC
S = MCI
D
P1 P1
q1 Q1
MSC
MSCI
Firm output
Price
Industry output
Price
MEC
MECI
q*
P*
Q*
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 11
External Cost
Negative externalities encourage inefficient firms to remain in the industry and create excessive production in the long run
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 12
Positive Externalities and Inefficiency
Externalities can also result in too little production, as can be shown in an example of home repair and landscaping
Repairs generate external benefits to the neighbors Shown by the Marginal External Benefit
curve (MEB) Marginal Social Benefit (MSB) curve adds
MEB +D
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 13
MCP1
External Benefits
Repair Level
Value
D
q1
MSB
MEB
When there are positiveexternalities (the benefitsof repairs to neighbors),marginal social benefits(MSB) are higher thanmarginal benefits (D).
q*
P* A self-interested home ownerinvests q1 in repairs. Theefficient level of repairs
q* is higher. The higher priceP1 discourages repair.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 14
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Assumption: The market failure is pollution Output decision and emissions decision are
independent Firm has chosen its profit-maximizing output
level MSC is marginal social cost of emissions
Equivalent to MEC from beforeUpward sloping because of substantially
increasing harm as pollution increases
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 15
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
MCA is marginal cost of abating emissions Additional cost to firm of controlling pollution Downward sloping because when emissions
are high, there is little cost to controlling themLarge reductions require costly changes in
production process
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 16
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
If the firm does not consider abatement, their profit maximizing level is 26 units of emissions Level where MCA is zero
The socially efficient level of emissions is 12 where the MSC equals the MCA
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 17
The Efficient Level of Emissions
2
4
6
Dollars/ Unitof Emissions
Level of Emissions0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
MSC
MCA
E*
The efficient level ofemissions is where
MCA = MSC.
At Eo the marginalcost of abating emissions
is greater than themarginal social cost.
E0
At E1 the marginalsocial cost is greater
than the marginal benefit.
E1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 18
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Firms can be encouraged to reduce emissions to the efficient level in three ways:
1. Emissions standards
2. Emissions fees
3. Transferable emissions permits
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 19
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Options for Reducing Emissions to E*1. Emissions Standard
Set a legal limit on emissions at E* (12) Enforced by monetary and criminal penalties Increases the cost of production and the
threshold price to enter the industry
2. Emissions Fee Charge levied on each unit of emission
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 20
Standards and Fees
Level of Emissions
Dollars/ Unitof Emissions MSC
MCA
3
12
E*
Standard
Fee
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 21
TotalAbatement Cost
Cost is less than thefee if emissions were
not reduced.
Standards and Fees
Level of Emissions
Dollars/ Unitof Emissions
3
Total Feeof Abatement
12
Fee
MSC
MCA
E*
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 22
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Standards Versus Fees Assumptions
Policymakers have asymmetric informationAdministrative costs require the same fee or
standard for all firms
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 23
The Case for Fees
Assume two firms Same marginal social cost curve Different marginal abatement cost curves
MCA1 and MCA2
Emissions fees are preferable to standards in this case We want to reduce total emissions by 14
units The cheapest way to do that is for Firm 1 to
reduce by 6 and Firm 2 by 8 units
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 24
MCA1
MCA2
The Case for Fees
2
4
6
Fee perUnit of
Emissions
1
3
5
Level of Emissions0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
The cost minimizing solution would be an abatement of 6 for Firm 1 and 8 for Firm 2 andMCA1= MCA2 = $3.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 25
The Case for Fines
What if the regulatory agency forces each firm to cut emissions by 7 units? MAC for Firm 1 increases to $3.75 MAC for Firm 2 decreases to $2.50
This is not cost minimizing because one firm can reduce emissions at a lower cost than the other firm
Marginal cost of abatement must be equal between firms for reductions to occur at minimum cost
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 26
The Case for Fees
2
4
6
Fee perUnit of
Emissions
1
3
5
Level of Emissions0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
MCA1
MCA2
The impact of a standard ofabatement of 7 for both firms
is illustrated.Not efficient because
MCA2 < MCA1.
3.75
2.50
Firm 2’s ReducedAbatement
Costs
Firm 1’s IncreasedAbatement Costs
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 27
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Advantages of Fees When equal standards must be used, fees
achieve the same emission abatement at a lower cost
Fees create an incentive to install equipment that would reduce emissions further
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 28
The Case for Standards
Assume we have Steep marginal social cost curve Flat marginal cost of abatement An emissions fee of $8 would be efficient but
because of limited information, fee is set at $7
Firms’ emissions increase and with steep MSC, this will lead to significant additional social costs
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 29
The Case for Standards
What if standard is used instead and has the same percentage mistake? Standard set at 9 instead of 8 Increase in social costs and decrease in
abatement costs Net increase in social costs is smaller than
with fees
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 30
ABC is the increasein social cost less thedecrease in abatement
cost.
The Case for Standards
Level of Emissions0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fee perUnit of
Emissions
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Based on incompleteinformation, standard is 9
(12.5% decrease).ADE < ABC
Based on incompleteinformation, fee is $7
(12.5% decrease).Emission increases to 11.
MarginalSocialCost
Marginal Costof Abatement
B
C
E
DA
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 31
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Summary: Fees vs. Standards Standards are preferred when MSC is steep
and MCA is flat Standards (incomplete information) yield
more certainty on emissions levels and less certainty on the cost of abatement
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 32
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Summary: Fees vs. Standards Fees have certainty on cost and uncertainty
on emissions Preferred policy depends on the nature of
uncertainty and the slopes of the cost curves
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 33
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Transferable Emissions Permits Permits help develop a competitive market
for externalitiesAgency determines the level of emissions and
number of permitsPermits are marketableHigh cost firm will purchase permits from low
cost firms
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 34
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
The market for externalities is appealing since it combines the system of standards with the system of fees
The agency who administers the system determines the total number of permits and therefore the total amount of emissions
Marketability of the permits allows pollution abatement to be achieved at minimum cost
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 35
The Costs and Benefits of Reduced Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
Costs of Reducing Emissions Conversion to natural gas from coal and oil Emission control equipment
Benefits of Reducing Emissions Health Reduction in corrosion Aesthetic
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 36
The Costs and Benefits of Reduced Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
The efficient sulfur dioxide concentration equates the marginal abatement cost to the marginal social cost
Can show the marginal abatement cost curve in a series of steps, each representing a different abatement technology
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 37
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Reductions
Sulfur dioxide concentration (ppm)
20
40
60
0
Dollarsper
unit ofreduction
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Marginal Social Cost
Marginal Abatement Cost
Observations• MAC = MSC @ .0275• .0275 is slightly below actual emission level• Economic efficiency improved
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 38
Emissions Trading and Clean Air
Bubbles Firm can adjust pollution controls for
individual sources of pollutants as long as a total pollutant limit is not exceeded
Offsets New emissions must be offset by reducing
existing emissions 2000 offsets since 1979
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 39
Emissions Trading and Clean Air
Cost of achieving an 85% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions for DuPont Three Options
85% reduction at each source plant (total cost = $105.7 million)
85% reduction at each plant with internal trading (total cost = $42.6 million)
85% reduction at all plants with internal and external trading (total cost = $14.6 million)
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 40
Emissions Trading and Clean Air
1990 Clean Air Act Since 1990, the cost of the permits has fallen
from an expected $300 to below $100
Causes of the drop in permit prices More efficient abatement techniques Price of low sulfur coal has fallen
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 41
Price of Tradable Emissions Permits
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 42
Ways of Correcting Market Failure
Recycling Households can dispose of glass and other
garbage at very low cost The low cost of disposal creates a
divergence between the private and the social cost of disposal
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 43
Recycling
Marginal private cost likely constant for fixed amount of garbage
Social cost of disposal includes the harm to environment from littering and injuries caused by litter
Without market intervention, the level of scrap will be at m and m1 > m*
With refundable deposit, MC increases and MC = MSC = MCR
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 44
The Efficient Amount of Recycling
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 45
Refundable Deposits
Deposit is paid when bottle is purchased and then refunded when bottle returned
Can choose the deposit to give household incentive to recycle more
Deposit increases private cost of disposalSupply of glass comes from new glass
and recycled glass Increasing deposit increases supply of
recycled glass and lowers price of glass
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 46
Refundable Deposits
Amount of Glass
$
D
Price falls to P’ and the amount of recycled glass increases to M*.
Sv
Sr
S
The supply of glass is the sum of the supply
of virgin glass (SV) and the supply of recycled
glass (Sr).
M1
P
Without refunds the price of glass is P and
Sr is M1.S’r
S’
P’
M*
With refunds Sr increasesto S’r and S increases to S’.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 47
Externalities and Property Rights
Property Rights Legal rules describing what people or firms
may do with their property For example:
If residents downstream owned the river (clean water) they would control upstream emissions
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 48
Externalities and Property Rights
Bargaining and Economic Efficiency Economic efficiency can be achieved without
government intervention when the externality affects relatively few parties and when property rights are well specified
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 49
Profits Under AlternativeEmissions Choices (Daily)
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 50
Externalities and Property Rights
Assumptions Factory pays for the filter Fishermen pay for the treatment plant
Efficient Solution Buy the filter and do not build the plant
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 51
Bargaining with Alternative Property Rights
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 52
Externalities and Property Rights
Conclusion: Coase Theorem When parties can bargain without cost and to
their mutual advantage, the resulting outcome will be efficient, regardless of how the property rights are specified
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 53
Costly Bargaining – The Role of Strategic Behavior
Bargaining requires clearly defined rules and property rights If property rights were not clear, the other
party might not be willing to pay as much and the bargaining process would break down
One party might incorrectly assume the other party will eventually break down and accept less
Problems also arise when there are many parties affected
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 54
A Legal Solution – Suing for Damages
In many situations involving externalities, one party is harmed (victim)
They can recover monetary damages equal to harm suffered
A suit for damages is different than effluent fee since the victim, not the government, is paid
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 55
A Legal Solution – Suing for Damages – Example
Fishermen have the right to clean waterFactory has two options:
No filter, pay damagesProfit = $100 ($500 - $400)
Filter, no damagesProfit = $300 ($500 - $200)
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 56
A Legal Solution – Suing for Damages – Example
Factory has the right to emit effluentFishermen have three options:
Put in treatment plantProfit = $200
Filter and pay damagesProfit = $300 ($500 - $200)
No plant, no filterProfit = $100
A suit for damages results in an efficient outcome
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 57
The Coase Theorem at Work
Negotiating an Efficient Solution 1987 – New York garbage spill (200 tons)
littered New Jersey beachesThe potential cost of litigation resulted in a
solution that was mutually beneficial to both parties
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 58
Common Property Resources
Characteristics Everyone has free access Likely to be overutilized Examples
Air and waterFish and animal populationsMinerals
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 59
Common Property Resources
Consider a lake where people fishEach fisherperson takes fish up to the
point where the marginal benefit to them equals the marginal cost
There is no reason that any one fisherperson take into account how their taking fish affects others’ experience
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 60
Common Property Resources
Private cost underestimates the true cost to society More fishing reduces the stock of fish Less is available to others and too low of a
stock will completely deplete the fish Too many fish are caught
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 61
Common Property Resources
Fish per Month
Benefits,Costs($ per
fish)
Demand (MB)
However, private costsunderestimate true cost.
The efficient level of fish/month is F* where
MSC = MB (D).
Marginal Social Cost
F*
Private Cost
FC
Without control, the numberof fish/month is FC where
PC = MB.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 62
Common Property Resources
Solution Private ownership Owner will set fee for use of resource equal
to the marginal cost of depleting the stock Fishermen will no longer find it profitable to
catch more than the efficient amount of fish It is often the case that when private
ownership is not possible, the government steps in
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 63
Crawfish Fishing in Louisiana
Crawfish has become very popular in restaurants
As a common property resource, too many crawfish have been trapped, causing the population to fall below efficient level
Finding the Efficient Crawfish Catch F = crawfish catch in millions of pounds/yr C = cost in dollars/pound
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 64
Crawfish Fishing in Louisiana
Demand C = 0.401 = 0.0064F
MSC C = -5.645 + 0.6509F
PC C = -0.357 + 0.0573F
Efficient Catch D = MSC 9.2 million pounds
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 65
Crawfish Catch(millions of pounds)
Cost($/pound)
Demand
Marginal Social Cost
Private Cost
Crawfish as a CommonProperty Resource
11.9
2.10
9.2
0.325
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 66
Public Goods
Characteristics Nonrival
For any given level of production, the marginal cost of providing it to an additional consumer is zero
NonexclusivePeople cannot be excluded from consuming the
good Example – use of lighthouse by a ship
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 67
Public Goods
Nonexclusive goods Goods that people cannot be excluded from
consuming, so that it is difficult or impossible to charge for their use
Example: fireworks, national defense
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 68
Efficiency and Public Goods
Efficient level of private good is where marginal benefit equals marginal cost
For a public good, the value of each person must be considered Can add demand of all those who value good
Must equate the sum of these marginal benefits to the marginal cost of production
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 69
D1
D2
D
D1 is demand for consumer 1.
D2 is demand for consumer 2.
D is total demand for all consumers.
Efficient Public Good Provision
Output0
Benefits(dollars)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 109
$4.00
$5.50
$7.00
MC
$1.50
Efficient output occurswhere MC = total MB
2 units of output. MB is $1.50 + $4.00 or $5.50.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 70
Public Goods and Market Failure
Free Riders There is no way to provide some goods and
services without benefiting everyone Households do not have the incentive to pay
what the item is worth to them Free riders understate the value of a good or
service so that they can enjoy its benefit without paying for it
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 71
Public Goods and Market Failure
Establishing a mosquito abatement company How do you measure output? Who do you charge? A mosquito meter?
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 72
The Demand for Clean Air
Clean Air is a public good Nonexclusive and nonrival No market and no observable price at which
people are willing to trade clean air for other goods
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 73
The Demand for Clean Air
Choosing where to live Study in Boston correlates housing prices
with the quality of air and other characteristics of the houses and their neighborhoods
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 74
The Demand for Clean Air
Nitrogen Oxides (pphm)0
Dollars
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 109
2000
2500
3000
500
1500
1000
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 75
The Demand for Clean Air
Findings The amount of people who are willing to pay
for clean air increases substantially as pollution increases
Higher income earners are willing to pay more (the gap between the demand curves widen)
National Academy of Sciences found that a 10% reduction in auto emissions yielded a benefit of $2 billion---somewhat greater than the cost
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 76
Private Preferences for Public Goods
Government production of a public good is advantageous because the government can assess taxes or fees to pay for it
Determining how much of a public good to provide when free riders exist is difficult
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 77
Private Preferences for Public Goods
Can represent different citizens’ willingness to pay for education minus any required tax payments
In general, benefit from increased spending on education increases as spending increases
Tax payments to provide more education increase as well
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 78
Determining the Levelof Educational Spending
Educational spendingper pupil$0
Willingnessto pay
$
$1200$600 $1800 $2400
AW
The efficient level of educational spending is determined by summing thewillingness to pay for education for each
of three citizens.
Will majority rule yield an efficient outcome?•W1 will vote for $600•W2 and W3 will vote for $1200The median vote will always win in a majorityrule election.
W2W3W1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 79
Private Preferences for Public Goods
Question Will the median voter selection always be
efficient?
Answer If two of the three preferred $1200, there
would be over-investment If two of the three preferred $600, there
would be under-investment
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 80
Private Preferences for Public Goods
Majority rule is inefficient because it weighs each citizen’s preference equally The efficient outcome weighs each citizen’s
vote by his or her strength of preference