 What is a Public Good?  Efficient Provision of Public Goods  The Efficiency Conditions  Private Provision of Public Goods  Free-Riders  Privatization

A PURE PUBLIC GOOD has two features: 1)Nonrival – once provided, another person can consume it at no additional cost 2)Nonexcludable (nonexclusive) – once provided, it is impossible or highly expensive to prevent anyone from consuming it 2

National Defense is a good example of a pure public good: 1)Nonrival – all Canadians benefit 2)Nonexcludable – it’s impossible to prevent a Canadian from benefitting Other examples: Conventional Radio, A Beautiful View, A Canada-Wide Sunglass dome designed to block harmful sun rays (Canadome) 3

A PRIVATE GOOD has two features: 1)Rival – once consumed, another person cannot consume it 2)Excludable (exclusive) – others can be prevented from consuming it Food (ie: pizza or sushi) is a good example of a private good. Once I eat it, it’s gone. (YUM!) 4

6 Issues arise out of Pure Public Goods: 1)Different Values 2)Public Goods Aren’t Absolute 3)NONRIVAL ≠ NONEXCLUDABLE 4)Unconventional Public Good 5)Private Provision 6)Private Production 5

-National defense protects everyone equally. Paranoid people love it and peace activists hate it. -The Canadome is popular among people concerned with cancer and unpopular with people wanting tans. It affects everyone, however 6

-technology and the market can affect a public good. A free TV station becomes private if you need a decoder. A beautiful view becomes rival if there is a crowd. -An IMPURE PUBLIC GOOD is to some extent rival or to some extent excludable -most public goods are impure, but analysis of pure public goods still gives valuable results for impure public goods 7

-National parks are excludable if they have gates, but practically nonrival as they are so big -My office hours are nonexcludable, as everyone is welcome, but rival if too many people are waiting in line -Therefore many public goods are impure public goods 8

-Inspiration can be nonrival and nonexcludable (such as coming from a sunset) -Fear is nonrival, as one person being afraid doesn’t prevent others. Fear is also nonexcludable, as its hard to prevent. -Income distribution or honesty are public goods as everyone benefits 9

-Medical services, housing, licenses, and utilities can all be provided by the government and/or private sector -The label public or private doesn’t indicate what sector provides the item 10

-Some public services are contracted out to private contractors -For example, the City of Edmonton contracts out much of its snow removal business -it provides the public service through private contractors 11

-To cover efficient provision of public goods, we first look at efficient provision of private goods -Consider Maka and Susan’s individual demands for video games -At a market price, we add up Maka and Susan’s quantity demanded for video games to find market demand -This results in a HORIZONTAL SUMMATION 12

13 2 MakaSusanMarket demand QQ Q P=$40, Q M +Q S =Q D 2+5=7 57

14 2 MakaSusanMarket QQ Q PPP When market supply intersects market demand, we find equilibrium price and individual demand. 57 S Q*=5 1.5 P*=$65, Q M +Q S =Q * =5 65

-From microeconomic theory, we know that a consumer maximizes utility where MRS xy =P x /P y -If we normalize P y to $1, this simplifies to MRS xy =P x -Since price is found on the demand curve, Maka’s (Susan’s) demand expresses Maka’s (Susan’s) MRS at each level of consumption 15

-From microeconomic theory, the supply curve comes from MC -MRT xy =MC x /MC y, but since P y =MC y and P y =$1, MRT xy =MC x -therefore the supply curve represents MRT xy Then, at equilibrium, Supply=Demand, and 16 Pareto Efficiency Condition

-Consider Maka and Susan’s individual demands for a public good: youtube cooking shows -youtube is nonrival and nonexcludable; one person’s consumption doesn’t affect the other -The key difference in a public good is that BOTH can consume a purchased good; it is not used up -This results in a VERTICAL SUMMATION to calculate willingness to pay 17

18 2 MakaSusan Market demand 4 10 QQ Q PPP Maka is willing to pay $4 each for 2 youtube shows, and Susan is willing to pay $7 each, therefore the market is willing to pay $11 each

19 2 MakaSusan Market demand 4 10 QQ Q PPP The market Supply gives an equilibrium quantity of 3. Here price paid in the market ($6) is the sum of Maka’s payment ($2) and Susan’s payment ($4) S 6 4 2

-Once again, if we normalize our other good to $1, demand (willingness to pay) represents MRS for each person. -The sum of both people’s willingness to pay (market demand), is therefore the sum of individual MRS. -The supply curve still represents MC and therefore MRT, so we have: 20

-Furthermore, again since P y =$1, 21 -Intuitively, public goods should therefore be provided until the point where the marginal cost of the good is equal to the sum of marginal benefits -The private good equation can also be rewritten as

In short, public goods are always best provided where Total Marginal Benefit = Marginal Cost 22

23 1)Solve each demand for P 2)Find where P=0 to find cut-off points. 3)Add together applicable demand curves between cut-off points.

24 A) Equate S=D in multiple pieces of demand function -When solved Q* value lies in the appropriate range, it is valid B) Use individual demand to calculate each person’s price (negatives are zero)

25 Rick and Shane decide to buy some fireworks to cheer up the survivors of the Zombie apocalypse. Their demand curves and firework supply are:

26

27

28

29 Rick will pay $42.20 and Shane will pay $35.60 for 57.8 fireworks…. Which attracts the zombies, who eat everyone… Which is good for the zombies?

30 ShaneRick Market demand QQ Q PPP Shane and Rick both put money towards the public good, which everyone enjoys (until they’re eaten) S

If a public good is provided privately, its efficiency depend on how people represent their willingness to pay -For private goods, people have no incentive to misrepresent their willingness to pay -if the price is $10, and that lies in their willingness to pay, they will pay the $10, consume the good and be happy 31

-For public goods, people have an incentive to misrepresent their willingness to pay -if the price is $10, a person could hope someone else pays the price, then they get to enjoy it (they are a FREE RIDER) -for example, at an alligator reserve, people can pay money to throw meat into the water and watch the alligators go, and often wait for someone else to buy and throw the meat 32

-If the public good can be made excludable (ie: entrance fee), it is still provided inefficiently, as the MC of an additional consumer is zero, therefore P>MC -The one way to avoid the free rider problem is through PERFECT PRICE DISCRIMINATION – everyone pays their willingness to pay -this requires full information, therefore private provision is often doomed to be inefficient 33

THE FREE RIDER PROBLEM comes from the incentive to let others pay while you enjoy the benefits -Yet empirically, people do band together to raise funds for public goods such as libraries -This typically only happens when the number of contributors are small and everyone can see their impact -Therefore government intervention is often needed for public goods 34

The argument about who should PRODUCE public goods (government or private) often hinges on two concepts: Cost vs.Quality 35 -private companies often have lower costs due to a focus on profit and lack of unions -private companies often produce inferior products (as in US health insurance refusing coverage or charging high premiums)

Some argue that quality can be maintained through good contracts -Some contracts are straightforward: cut the park lawn once a week -Some contracts are near impossible: treat this yet-to-be-discovered disease with the following yet-to-be-discovered drugs 36

Market structure also needs to be considered: -If the government has a monopoly, is lack of competition causing inefficiency? -If privatization creates a monopoly or oligopoly, will market power cause inefficiency? 37

West (1997) studied the 1993 privatization of Alberta liquor stores and learned the following: -the number of liquor stores rose from 258 to 604, and although selection and individual stores fell, overall selection increased -liquor prices rose between 8.5% and 10% (compared to 5% inflation) 38

-Liquor store employment tripled as wages fell by up to 50% (the union was replaced) -There was no evidence of increased alcohol consumption or alcohol-related crimes 39

Was privatization good? More stores vs. poorer selection Liquor Price Increases More employment vs. Lower wages If this privatization is so complex, what does that say about privatizing healthcare, utilities or schools? 40

41  Externalities occur when one agents actions affect another outside market mechanisms  Externalities cause P≠SMC, causing inefficiency  Externalities can be dealt with privately through: 1)Assigning property rights (Coase Theorem) 2)Mergers 3)Social Conventions

42  The government can deal with externalities through: 1)Pigouvian Taxes 2)Pigouvian Subsidies 3)Permits and a market 4)Regulation  Taxes and Permits are generally most efficient and effective

43  All public methods to address negative externalities suffer from: 1) the difficulty in measuring externalities 2) possible redistribution issues  Positive externalities can be dealt with through subsidies  These can be hard to measure  Financing subsidies can be distortionary  This may effect equitable distribution

 Public goods are nonrival and nonexcludable  Public Goods are efficiently provided where ∑MRS=MRT or ∑MB=MC  (Private goods are efficiently provided where MRS A = MRS B = MRT)  Efficient provision occurs where Total Benefit = Total cost  It is unlikely that markets would provide public goods efficiently, even if they are excludable 44

 Free-riding limits private provision of public goods  Two issues with production of public goods are efficiency and quality  Econ 384 had great students. Your professor had a lot of fun teaching this course. 45