Reasons for government intervention in markets (3)
Resources |
Revision Questions |
Economics
Login to see all questions
Click on a question to view the answer
1.
The UK government has introduced a price cap on energy bills. Discuss the likely consequences of this policy for both consumers and energy suppliers.
The UK government's price cap on energy bills is a direct intervention in the market aimed at protecting consumers from volatile energy prices. The consequences of this policy are complex and affect both consumers and energy suppliers in various ways.
Consequences for Consumers:
- Reduced Bill Costs: The most immediate impact is a reduction in energy bills for consumers, providing financial relief, particularly during periods of high wholesale energy prices.
- Increased Consumer Confidence: The price cap can boost consumer confidence, knowing that their energy bills are protected from sudden, drastic increases.
- Potential for Over-Consumption: Lower bills might incentivize some consumers to increase their energy consumption, potentially leading to higher overall demand.
- Reduced Incentive for Energy Efficiency: Consumers may be less motivated to invest in energy-efficient measures (e.g., insulation, energy-saving appliances) if they know their bills are capped.
Consequences for Energy Suppliers:
- Reduced Revenue: The price cap limits the amount suppliers can charge, leading to reduced revenue.
- Financial Strain: If wholesale energy prices remain high, suppliers may face financial strain and potentially be forced to reduce investment in infrastructure or even face insolvency.
- Reduced Investment: The reduced revenue can discourage investment in new energy generation and infrastructure, potentially impacting the long-term energy security of the country.
- Potential for Rationing: In extreme cases, if suppliers face severe financial difficulties, they may be forced to ration energy supplies.
Overall: The price cap represents a trade-off. While it provides immediate relief to consumers, it can create financial difficulties for energy suppliers and potentially hinder long-term investment in the energy sector. The effectiveness of the policy depends on the level of the cap and the prevailing wholesale energy prices.
2.
Question 1: Discuss how market failure arises with respect to the provision of public goods. Evaluate the effectiveness of government intervention in addressing this market failure, considering the potential drawbacks of such intervention.
Answer:
Market Failure with Public Goods: The core market failure with public goods is free-rider problems. Public goods are non-excludable (it's difficult to prevent people from consuming the good even if they don't pay) and non-rivalrous (one person's consumption doesn't diminish the amount available for others). This leads to a situation where private firms are unwilling to supply the good because they cannot capture the benefit from those who don't pay. Consumers, aware they can benefit without contributing, have an incentive to be free-riders. As a result, the market will under-allocate to public goods, leading to a level of provision below the socially optimal level. This is because the marginal social benefit (MSB) of a public good often exceeds the private benefit (PB), but the market price reflects only the PB.
Government Intervention: Governments typically intervene through direct provision (e.g., national defence, street lighting) or subsidies (e.g., for renewable energy). Direct provision ensures the good is available regardless of ability to pay. Subsidies encourage private firms to provide public goods by covering some of the production costs. Regulation can also be used, such as requiring certain levels of environmental protection.
Effectiveness: Government intervention can be effective in addressing the market failure. It can lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and provide benefits that the market would otherwise miss. However, there are potential drawbacks:
- Information Problems: Governments may lack the information needed to efficiently determine the optimal level of public good provision.
- Bureaucracy and Inefficiency: Government provision can be bureaucratic and inefficient, leading to higher costs than private provision.
- Political Capture: Government decisions can be influenced by political considerations rather than economic efficiency.
- Taxation: Funding public goods through taxation can disincentivize work and investment.
The effectiveness of government intervention depends on the specific public good, the design of the intervention, and the overall economic context.
3.
Question 2: Consider the provision of national defence as a public good. Using the concepts of externalities and public goods, explain why it is considered a merit good and discuss the arguments for and against government provision of national defence.
Answer:
National Defence as a Public Good: National defence exhibits both non-excludability (it's difficult to prevent someone from benefiting from national security) and non-rivalry (one person's security doesn't diminish the security of others). This makes it a classic example of a public good.
Externalities and Merit Goods: National defence generates positive externalities. A stronger national defence benefits not only the nation with the defence but also other nations through increased stability and security. Because the private benefit to an individual from national defence is less than the social benefit (which includes the positive externalities), national defence is considered a merit good. Merit goods are those that society believes should be provided even if the market wouldn't produce them in sufficient quantities due to under-valuation of their social benefits.
Arguments for Government Provision:
- Addressing Market Failure: The market would under-provide national defence due to the free-rider problem. Government provision ensures an adequate level of defence.
- Positive Externalities: Government provision captures the positive externalities associated with national security, leading to a socially optimal outcome.
- National Sovereignty: Maintaining national defence is seen as essential for national sovereignty and security.
Arguments Against Government Provision:
- Cost to Taxpayers: National defence is expensive and requires significant taxation, which can be unpopular.
- Potential for Waste: Government spending on defence can be inefficient and wasteful, with potential for corruption.
- Moral Hazard: A strong defence might encourage aggressive foreign policy, leading to conflict.
The debate over government provision of national defence revolves around balancing the need for security and the costs associated with it. The optimal level of defence is a complex issue with no easy answers.