Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Externalities
and Public
Goods
2
Externalities between Firms
3
Externalities between Firms
5
Externalities
Firms can generate air, water, and other types
of pollution when producing products.
Alternatively, auto pollution, graffiti, and noise
are some externalities imposed by people on
firms.
When people do things that harm others, like
playing their radios loudly, or help, like
shoveling their sidewalk, they can impose
externalities on other people.
6
Reciprocal Nature of Externalities
7
APPLICATION 16.1: Secondhand Smoke
8
APPLICATION 16.1: Reciprocal Nature
of the ETS Externality
9
APPLICATION 16.1: Private Action and
Public Actions
11
Social Costs
12
A Graphical Demonstration
13
FIGURE 16.1: An Externality in Charcoal Production
Causes an Inefficient Allocation of Resources
Price, MCS
costs of
charcoal
MC
E
P*
0 q* Charcoal
14 per week
A Graphical Demonstration
The cost of the externality is shown by the vertical
distance between MSC and MC.
At q* the social marginal cost exceeds what people
are willing to pay for the charcoal, P*.
Resources are misallocated and production should
be reduced to q where MSC equals P*.
The reduced total social costs (area ABq*q) exceed
the reduced total spending (area AEq*q).
15
FIGURE 16.1: An Externality in Charcoal Production
Causes an Inefficient Allocation of Resources
Price, MCS
costs of
charcoal
B
MC
A E
P*
0 q q* Charcoal
16 per week
Property Rights
17
Costless Bargaining and
Competitive Markets
18
Ownership by the Polluting Firm
19
Ownership by the Polluting Firm
The charcoal companys marginal cost will be MSC,
and it will produce q.
The charcoal company will sell the remaining air use
rights to the eyeglass maker for a fee of some
amount between AEC (the lost profits of producing
q rather than q*) and ABEC (the maximum amount
the eyeglass maker would be willing to pay to avoid
having the charcoal producer increase production to
q*.
20
Ownership by the Injured Firm
22
Distributional Effects
24
APPLICATION 16.2: Property Rights in
NatureBees and Apples
25
APPLICATION 16.2: Property Rights in
NatureShellfish
26
APPLICATION 16.2: Property Rights in
NatureElephants
27
Externalities with High
Transactions Costs
A E
P*
P* - t
C
0 q q* Charcoal
31 per week
Regulation of Externalities
32
FIGURE 16.3: Optimal Pollution
Abatement
Marginal MC
benefit,
cost
f*
MB
0 R* 100 Reduction
33 in emission
Regulation of Externalities
The curve MC reflects the marginal costs in
reducing environmental emissions including
foregone profits and the costs of antipollution
equipment.
The positive slope reflects the assumption of
increasing marginal costs.
R*is the optimal level of pollution where the
marginal benefits equal marginal costs.
34
Fees, Permits, and Direct Controls
35
Fees
36
FIGURE 16.3: Optimal Pollution
Abatement
Marginal MC
benefit,
cost
f*
MB
0 RL R* RH 100 Reduction
37
in emission
Permits
38
Direct Controls
39
APPLICATION 16.3: Regulating Power
Plant Emissions
40
APPLICATION 16.3: Regulation of
Production Technology
41
APPLICATION 16.3: Emission Charges
42
APPLICATION 16.3: Emissions Trading
44
Attributes of Public Goods
Nonrival
goods are goods that additional
consumers may use at zero marginal cost.
For example, one more person crossing an already
existing bridge during an off-peak period requires no
additional resources and does not reduce
consumption of anything else.
46
Public Goods
47
TABLE 16.1: Types of Public and
Private Goods
Exclusive
Yes No
Hot dogs, automobiles, Fishing grounds, public
Yes
houses grazing land, clean air
Bridges, swimming National defense,
Rival pools, scrambled mosquito control, justice
No
satellite television
signals
48
Public Goods and Market Failure
49
Public Goods and Market Failure
However, the buyer will not take societies
benefits into consideration.
As a result, private markets will tend to
underallocate resources to public goods.
Figure 16.4 shows a situation two people
have a demand for a public good. The total
demand for the public good is the vertical
sum of each persons demand curve.
50
FIGURE 16.4: Derivation of the Demand
for a Public Good
Willingness
to pay
Total demand
Demand by
person 2
Demand by
person 1
Quantity of
[
, ] Denotes equal distances
51 public good
per week
Public Goods and Market Failure
52
Voluntary Solutions for Public
Goods
53
The Lindahl Equilibrium
54
FIGURE 16.5: Lindahl Equilibrium in the
Demand for a Public Good
0
Quantity of
55 public good
The Lindahl Equilibrium
56
FIGURE 16.5: Lindahl Equilibrium in the
Demand for a Public Good
J
S
0 100
Quantity of
57 public good
The Lindahl Equilibrium
58
FIGURE 16.5: Lindahl Equilibrium in the
Demand for a Public Good
C
60 40
J
S
0 100
E Quantity of
59 public good
The Lindahl Equilibrium
For output levels greater than OE, people are not
willing to pay the total cost of the good.
Output level OE is a Lindahl equilibrium
which is a balance between peoples demand
for public goods and the tax shares that each
must pay for them.
The tax shares are pseudo prices, and the
outcome can be shown to be efficient.
60
Revealing the Demand for Public
Goods: The Free Rider Problem
61
The Free Rider Problem
62
APPLICATION 16.4: Why is There So
Much Fund-Raising Public
Broadcasting?
The public radio and television broadcasting
corporations in the U.S. were intended to be
supported primarily by listeners and viewers
through voluntary contributions.
Since users can not be excluded from using
what is on the air and costs do not increase if
another user tunes in, broad-casting appears
to be a pure public good.
63
APPLICATION 16.4: Why is There So
Much Fund-Raising Public
Broadcasting?
However, thriving commercial markets suggest
that broadcasting may not be underproduced.
Viewed as a mechanism for delivering
advertising messages, broadcasting is both
exclusive (advertisers must pay) and rival (only
one advertiser can use a time slot).
64
APPLICATION 16.4: Why is There So
Much Fund-Raising Public
Broadcasting?
An alternative justification is that certain types
of broadcasting will be unattractive to
advertisers (for example, cultural) and will be
underprovided in private markets.
However, the free rider problem tends to
undermine voluntary support.
Fewer than 10 percent of the viewers of public
television make voluntary contributions.
65
APPLICATION 16.4: Why is There So
Much Fund-Raising Public
Broadcasting?
Public broadcasting has had to turn to
advertising.
Cable television stations, such as The Learning
Channel, today provide programming that is
indistinguishable from public broadcasting.
Voluntary support of public is declining and its
long-run viability is in doubt.
66
Local Public Goods
68
TABLE 16.3: Preferences That Produce
the Paradox of Voting
69
The Paradox of Voting
70
The Paradox of Voting
Preferences of the three voters are indicated by the
order listed in the table.
For example, Smith prefers A to B and B to C.
In a vote between A and B option A would win.
Similarly, a vote between A and C would result in
option C winning.
But, a vote between C and B would find B (which
lost to A above, and A lost to C) winning.
71
Single-Peaked Preferences and the
Median Voter Theorem
72
Single-Peaked Preferences and the
Median Voter Theorem
73
FIGURE 16.6: Single-Peaked Preferences and
the Median Voter Theorem
Utility
Fudd
Fudd (alternate)
Jones
Smith
A B C Quantity of
public good
74
Single-Peaked Preferences and the
Median Voter Theorem
76
APPLICATION 16.5: Referenda on
Public Spending
77
APPLICATION 16.5: Referenda on Public
Spending--Californias Proposition 13
78
APPLICATION 16.5: Referenda on Public
Spending--Massachusetts and Michigan
79
APPLICATION 16.5: Referenda on Public
Spending --Home Rule in Illinois
80
Representative Government and
Bureaucracies
81