Loadingโฆ
Positive/negative externalities, Pigouvian taxes, public goods, free riders, and the Lorenz curve
Learn step-by-step with practice exercises built right in.
Markets allocate resources efficiently under tight assumptions: many buyers and sellers, well-defined property rights, no spillovers, and goods that everyone can be excluded from consuming. When those assumptions fail, the market produces too much or too little of a good โ a market failure. The two most important sources are externalities and public goods.
An externality is a cost or benefit imposed on a third party who is not part of the transaction. Markets ignore these effects, so equilibrium quantity differs from the socially optimal quantity.
Negative externality (e.g., pollution): producer faces only its marginal private cost (MPC), not the full marginal social cost (MSC = MPC + external cost). Free-market output is HIGHER than the socially optimal . Result: deadweight loss equal to the triangle between MSC and demand from to .
A factory produces steel and emits pollution that imposes $3 of external cost per ton on neighboring farms. Without intervention, the market produces 1,000 tons. (a) Is this a positive or negative externality? (b) Is the market quantity above or below the social optimum? (c) State the size of the per-unit Pigouvian tax that would internalize the externality.
(a) Negative externality (pollution imposes cost on a third party).
(b) Market quantity is ABOVE the socially optimal quantity, because producers ignore the $3 external cost and over-produce.
(c) Pigouvian tax = exactly the per-unit external cost = $3 per ton. This raises MPC to MSC, making each producer face the true social cost.
Review key concepts with our flashcard system
Explore more AP Microeconomics topics
Positive externality (e.g., vaccination, education): consumer's marginal private benefit (MPB) falls short of full marginal social benefit (MSB). Free-market output is LOWER than socially optimal. Deadweight loss equals the triangle between supply and MSB.
Government tools to fix externalities:
A pure public good is:
Examples: national defense, basic research, lighthouses, fireworks. Because consumers cannot be excluded, each has an incentive to free-ride โ wait for others to pay and then enjoy the benefit. The market under-provides public goods, so government typically funds them through taxes.
The socially optimal quantity of a public good is where vertical sum of MBs (because everyone consumes the same unit simultaneously) equals MC.
Non-excludable but rival (fisheries, public grazing land, freeway lanes). Subject to the Tragedy of the Commons โ overuse by individuals each pursuing self-interest. Solutions: privatization, regulation, quotas, user fees.
Almost every government policy debated today โ climate change, healthcare, education โ turns on externality and public-goods analysis.
Vaccinating against a contagious disease creates a positive externality of $50 per vaccination (lower spread reduces others' risk). The free market produces 1 million vaccinations; the social optimum is 1.4 million. (a) What size per-unit subsidy would push the market to the social optimum? (b) Who pays the subsidy and who receives it?
(a) A Pigouvian subsidy equal to the per-unit external benefit = $50 per vaccination would shift MPB up to MSB, equating private and social marginal benefit.
(b) The government pays the subsidy out of tax revenue; the subsidy is typically given to consumers (lower price at point of purchase) or producers (per-shot reimbursement). The economic incidence is shared between the two depending on demand and supply elasticities.
Distinguish a public good from a common-pool resource, naming the two key properties (excludability and rivalry) and giving one example of each.
Both are NON-EXCLUDABLE โ you cannot prevent unpaying users from consuming. The difference is rivalry.
Public good: non-excludable AND non-rival โ one person's consumption doesn't reduce another's. Example: national defense, basic scientific research, fireworks display.
Common-pool resource: non-excludable but rival โ one person's use REDUCES what is available to others. Example: an ocean fishery, an open grazing pasture, congested freeway lanes. Subject to the Tragedy of the Commons (overuse).
Demand for a positive-externality good is . Private supply is . Each unit produces an external benefit of $10. (a) Find the free-market equilibrium . (b) Find the socially optimal . (c) Compute the deadweight loss of the market outcome.
(a) Free market: where MPB = supply: .
Compare a Pigouvian tax with a cap-and-trade system as ways to address pollution. Under what circumstances would you prefer one over the other? Address (a) certainty over emission levels, (b) certainty over price/cost, and (c) administrative simplicity.
Both achieve the efficient outcome IN PRINCIPLE, but they differ in what is fixed and what adjusts.
(a) Certainty over emissions: Cap-and-trade FIXES the total quantity of emissions (the cap). Tax fixes the per-unit price; total emissions adjust based on firms' responses. If we have a strict environmental target (e.g., a planetary COโ budget), cap-and-trade gives more certainty.
(b) Certainty over cost: Tax fixes the per-unit cost of polluting at a known level โ firms know their costs, planning is easier. Permit price under cap-and-trade can spike or crash with economic conditions, creating cost uncertainty.
(c) Administrative simplicity: A tax is simpler to administer (per-unit charge) and avoids the complications of permit allocation, monitoring trades, and enforcement. Cap-and-trade requires building a working permit market, monitoring trades, and policing emissions levels per firm.
Preference:
(b) Social optimum: supply, where . Set .
(c) DWL is the triangle between MSB and supply, from to :
DWL = \tfrac{1}{2}(5)(10) = \boxed{\25}$.