General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency

General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency
Chapter 16 General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency 1

Topics to be Discussed General Equilibrium Analysis
Efficiency in Exchange Equity and Efficiency Efficiency in Production Chapter 16 2 2

Topics to be Discussed The Gains from Free Trade
On Overview--The Efficiency of Competitive Markets Why Markets Fail Chapter 16 2 3

General Equilibrium Analysis
Partial equilibrium analysis presumes that activity in one market is independent of other markets. Chapter 16 4

General equilibrium analysis determines the prices and quantity in all markets simultaneously and takes the feedback effect into account. Chapter 16 5

A feedback effect is a price or quantity adjustment in one market caused by price and quantity adjustments in related markets. Chapter 16 5

Two Interdependent Markets--Moving to General Equilibrium Scenario The competitive markets of: Videocassette rentals Movie theater tickets Chapter 16 6

Two Interdependent Markets: Movie Tickets and Videocassette Rentals
$6.35 Q’M S*M Assume the government imposes a $1 tax on each movie ticket. Q’V D’V $3.50 General Equilibrium Analysis: Increase in movie ticket prices increases demand for videos. Price Price SM SV DV DM $6.00 QM QV $3.00 Number of Movie Tickets Number of Videos 19

D’M Q”M $6.75 The increase in the price of videos increases the demand for movies. The Feedback effects continue. $3.58 Q*V D*V Price Price D*M $6.82 Q*M SM SV S*M DV DM $3.50 $6.35 $6.00 QM QV $3.00 D’V Q’M Number of Movie Tickets Q’V Number of Videos 19

Observation Without considering the feedback effect with general equilibrium, the impact of the tax would have been underestimated This is an important consideration for policy makers. Chapter 16 20

Questions What would be the feedback effect of a tax increase on one of two complementary goods? What are the policy implications of using a partial equilibrium analysis compared to a general equilibrium in this scenario? Chapter 16 21

The Interdependence of International Markets
Brazil and the United States export soybeans and are, therefore, interdependent. Brazil limited exports in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Eventually the export controls were to be removed, and Brazilian exports were expected to increase. Chapter 16 22

Partial Analysis Brazilian domestic soybean price will fall and domestic demand for soybean products would increase. Chapter 16 23

General Analysis In the U.S. the price of soybeans and output would increase; U.S. exports would increase and Brazilian exports would fall (even after regulations ended). Chapter 16 23

Efficiency in Exchange
Exchange increases efficiency until no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off (Pareto efficiency). The Advantages of Trade Trade between two parties is mutually beneficial. Chapter 16 25

Assumptions Two consumers (countries) Two goods Both people know each others preferences Exchanging goods involves zero transaction costs James & Karen have a total of 10 units of food and 6 units of clothing. Chapter 16 26

The Advantage of Trade James 7F, 1C -1F, +1C 6F, 2C
Individual Initial Allocation Trade Final Allocation James 7F, 1C -1F, +1C 6F, 2C Karen 3F, 5C +1F, -1C 4F, 4C Karen’s MRS of food for clothing is 3. James’s MRS of food for clothing is 1/2. Karen and James are willing to trade: Karen trades 1C for 1F. When the MRS is not equal, there is gain from trade. The economically efficient allocation occurs when the MRS is equal. Chapter 16 28

The Edgeworth Box Diagram Which trades can occur and which allocation will be efficient can be illustrated using a diagram called an Edgeworth Box. Chapter 16 29

Exchange in an Edgeworth Box
James’s Clothing Karen’s Karen’s Food James’s Food 10F 4F 3F 7F 6F 0K 6C A B The initial allocation before trade is A: James has 7F and 1C & Karen has 3F and 5C. +1C -1F The allocation after trade is B: James has 6F and 2C & Karen has 4F and 4C. 2C 1C 5C 4C 6C 0J 10F 34

Efficient Allocations If James’s and Karen’s MRS are the same at B the allocation is efficient. This depends on the shape of their indifference curves. Chapter 16 35

Karen’s Clothing Karen’s Food UK1 UK2 UK3 0K 6C James’s Clothing James’s Food UJ1 UJ2 UJ3 B C D A A: UJ1 = UK1, but the MRS is not equal. All combinations in the shaded area are preferred to A. Gains from trade 6C 0J 10F Chapter 16 39

Karen’s Clothing Karen’s Food UK1 UK2 UK3 0K 6C James’s Clothing James’s Food UJ1 UJ2 UJ3 B C D Is B efficient? Hint: is the MRS equal at B? Is C efficient? and D? A 6C 0J 10F Chapter 16 39

Efficient Allocations Any move outside the shaded area will make one person worse off (closer to their origin). B is a mutually beneficial trade--higher indifference curve for each person. Trade may be beneficial but not efficient. MRS is equal when indifference curves are tangent and the allocation is efficient. A Karen’s Clothing Karen’s Food UK1 UK2 UK3 James’s James’s Food UJ1 UJ2 UJ3 B C D 10F 0K 0J 6C Chapter 16 39

The Contract Curve To find all possible efficient allocations of food and clothing between Karen and James, we would look for all points of tangency between each of their indifference curves. Chapter 16 43

The Contract Curve 0K G F E 0J Contract Curve E, F, & G are
Pareto efficient . If a change improves efficiency, everyone benefits. Karen’s Food 0K James’s Clothing Karen’s Clothing 0J James’s Food Chapter 16 47

Observations 1) All points of tangency between the indifference curves are efficient. 2) The contract curve shows all allocations that are Pareto efficient. Pareto efficient allocation occurs when trade will make someone worse off. Chapter 16 48

Application: The policy implication of Pareto efficiency when removing import quotas: 1) Remove quotas Consumers gain Some workers lose 2) Subsidies to the workers that cost less than the gain to consumers Chapter 16 50

Consumer Equilibrium in a Competitive Market Competitive markets have many actual or potential buyers and sellers, so if people do not like the terms of an exchange, they can look for another seller who offers better terms. Chapter 16 51

Consumer Equilibrium in a Competitive Market There are many Jameses and Karens. They are price takers Price of food and clothing = 1 (relative prices will determine trade) Chapter 16 52

Competitive Equilibrium
Karen’s Food 10F 0K 6C P Price Line P’ PP’ is the price line and shows possible combinations; slope is -1 C A Begin at A: Each James buys 2C and sells 2F Each James would move from Uj1 to Uj2, which is preferred (A to C). Each Karen buys 2F and sells 2C. Each Karen would move from UK1 to UK2, which UJ1 UJ2 UK1 UK2 James’s Clothing Karen’s Clothing 6C 0J 10F James’s Food 60

Karen’s Food 10F 0K 6C Price Line At the prices chosen: Quantity food demanded (Karen) equals quantity food supplied (James)--competitive equilibrium. P UJ1 UJ2 UK1 UK2 James’s Clothing Karen’s Clothing C At the prices chosen: Quantity clothing demanded (James) equals quantity clothing supplied (Karen) --competitive equilibrium. A P’ 6C 0J 10F James’s Food 60

Scenario PF and PC = 3 James’s MRS of clothing for food is 1/2. Karen’s MRS of clothing for food is 3. James will not trade. Karen will want to trade. The market is in disequilibrium. Surplus of clothing Shortage of food Chapter 16 61

Questions How would the market reach equilibrium? How does the outcome from the exchange with many people differ from the exchange between two people? Chapter 16 62

The Economic Efficiency of Competitive Markets It can be seen at point C (as shown on the next slide) that the allocation in a competitive equilibrium is economically efficient. Chapter 16 63

Karen’s Food 10F 0K 6C Price Line P James’s Clothing Karen’s Clothing C UJ2 A UJ1 P’ UK2 UK1 6C 0J 10F James’s Food Chapter 16 64

Observations concerning C: 1) Since the two indifference curves are tangent, the competitive equilibrium allocation is efficient. 2) The MRSCF is equal to the ratio of the prices, or MRSJFC = PC/PF = MRSKFC. Chapter 16 65

Observations concerning C: 3) If the indifference curves were not tangent, trade would occur. 4) The competitive equilibrium is achieved without intervention. Chapter 16 66

Observations concerning C: 5) In a competitive marketplace, all mutually beneficial trades will be completed and the resulting equilibrium allocation of resources will be economically efficient (the first theorem of welfare economics) Chapter 16 67

Policy Issues What is the role of government? Chapter 16 68

Equity and Efficiency Is an efficient allocation also an equitable allocation? Economists and others disagree about how to define and quantify equity. Chapter 16 69

Equity and Efficiency The Utility Possibilities Frontier Indicates
the level of satisfaction that each of two people achieve when they have traded to an efficient outcome on the contract curve. all allocations that are efficient. Chapter 16 70

Utility Possibilities Frontier
*Any point inside the frontier (H) is inefficient. *Combinations beyond the frontier (L) are not obtainable. Karen’s Utility OJ OK E F G Lets compare H to E and F. H *Movement from one combination to another (E to F) reduces one persons utility. *All points on the frontier are efficient. James’s Utility Chapter 16 74

Equity and Efficiency E & F are efficient.
James’s Utility Karen’s Utility OJ OK E F H G E & F are efficient. Compared to H, E & F make one person better off without making the other worse off. Chapter 16 76

Equity and Efficiency Is H equitable?
James’s Utility Karen’s Utility OJ OK E F H G Is H equitable? Assume the only choices are H & G Is G more equitable? It depends on perspective. At G James total utility > Karen’s total utility Chapter 16 77

Equity and Efficiency Is H equitable?
James’s Utility Karen’s Utility OJ OK E F H G Is H equitable? Assume the only choices are H & G Is G more equitable? It depends on perspective. H may be more equitable because the distribution is more equal, therefore, an inefficient allocation may be more equitable. Chapter 16 77

Equity and Efficiency Social Welfare Functions
Used to describe the particular weights that are applied to each individual’s utility in determining what is socially desirable Chapter 16 78

Four Views of Equity Egalitarian Rawlsian
All members of society receive equal amounts of goods Rawlsian Maximize the utility of the least-well-off person Chapter 16 79

Four Views of Equity Utilitarian Market-oriented
Maximize the total utility of all members of society Market-oriented The market outcome is the most equitable Chapter 16 80

Equity and Efficiency The Social Welfare Function and Equity
Equity is dependent on a normative priority ranging from Egalitarian to Market-orientation. Chapter 16 81

Equity and Efficiency Equity and Perfect Competition
A competitive equilibrium leads to a Pareto efficient outcome that may or may not be equitable. Chapter 16 82

Equity and Efficiency Points on the frontier are Pareto efficient.
James’s Utility Karen’s Utility OJ OK Points on the frontier are Pareto efficient. OJ & OK are perfect unequal distributions and Pareto efficient. To achieve equity (more equal distribution) must the allocation be efficient? Chapter 16 83

Equity and Efficiency Second Theorem of Welfare Economics
If individual preferences are convex, then every efficient allocation is a competitive equilibrium from some initial allocation of goods. Chapter 16 84

Equity and Efficiency Second Theorem of Welfare Economics
Consider the cost of programs to redistribute income and the trade off between equity and efficiency. Chapter 16 84

Efficiency in Production
Assume Fixed total supplies of two inputs; labor and capital Produce two products; food and clothing Many people own and sell inputs for income Income is distributed between food and clothing Chapter 16 85

Observations Linkage between supply and demand (income and expenditures) Changes in the price of one input triggers changes in income and demand which establishes a feedback effect. Use general equilibrium analysis with feedback effects Chapter 16 86

Production in the Edgeworth Box The Edgeworth box can be used to measure inputs to the production process. Chapter 16 87

Production in the Edgeworth Box Each axis measures the quantity of an input Horizontal: Labor, 50 hours Vertical: Capital, 30 hours Origins measure output OF = Food OC = Clothing Chapter 16 88

A is inefficient Shaded area is preferred to A B and C are efficient The production contract curve shows all combinations that are efficient Labor in clothing production 50L 40L 30L 20L 10L 0C 30K B C D A 10C 80F 30C 25C 20K 10K 60F 50F Capital in clothing production Capital in food production Each point measures inputs to the production A: 35L and 5K--Food B: 15L and 25K--Clothing Each isoquant shows input combinations for a given output Food: 50, 60, & 80 Clothing: 10, 25, & 30 10K 20K 30K 0F 10L 20L 30L 40L 50L Labor in Food Production 94

Producer Equilibrium in a Competitive Input Market Competitive markets create a point of efficient production. Chapter 16 98

Competitive Market Observations The wage rate (w) and the price of capital (r) will be the same for all industries. Minimize production cost MPL/MPK = w/r w/r = MRTSLK MRTS = slope of the isoquant Competitive equilibrium is on the production contract curve. Competitive equilibrium is efficient. Chapter 16 99

Labor in clothing production 50L 40L 30L 20L 10L 0C 30K B C D A 10C 80F 30C 25C 20K 10K 60F 50F Capital in clothing production Capital in food production 10K 20K Discuss the adjustment process that would Move the producers from A to B or C. 30K 0F 10L 20L 30L 40L 50L Labor in Food Production 94

The Production Possibilities Frontier Shows the various combinations of food and clothing that can be produced with fixed inputs of labor and capital. Derived from the contract curve Chapter 16 102

Production Possibilities Frontier
Clothing (units) OF & OC are extremes. Why is the production possibilities frontier downward sloping? Why is it concave? 60 100 OF OC B C D B, C, & D are other possible combinations. A A is inefficient. ABC triangle is also inefficient due to labor market distortions. Food (Units) Chapter 16 105

Production Possibilities Frontier
Clothing (units) 60 100 OF OC B 1C 1F MRT = MCF/MCC B D C 2C A 1F The marginal rate of transformation (MRT) is the slope of the frontier at each point. D Food (Units) Chapter 16 105

Output Efficiency Goods must be produced at minimum cost and must be produced in combinations that match people’s willingness to pay for them. Efficient output and Pareto efficient allocation Occurs where MRS = MRT Chapter 16 109

Assume MRT = 1 and MRT = 2 Consumers will give up 2 clothes for 1 food Cost of 1 food is 1 clothing Too little food is being produced Increase food production (MRS falls and MRT increases) Chapter 16 110

Output Efficiency Clothing (units) 60 C 100 How do you find the
MRS = MRT combination with many consumers who have different indifference curves? MRS = MRT C 60 100 Production Possibilities Frontier Indifference Curve Food (Units) Chapter 16 114

Efficiency in Output Markets Consumer’s Budget Allocation Profit Maximizing Firm Chapter 16 115

Competition and Output Efficiency
Clothing (units) B C2 F2 A shortage of food and surplus of clothing causes the price of food to increase and the price of clothing to decrease. 60 100 A C1 F1 C C* F* Adjustment continues until PF = PF* and PC = PC*; MRT = MRS; QD = QS for food and clothing. U1 U2 Food (Units) Chapter 16 121

The Gains from Free Trade
Comparative Advantage Country 1 has a comparative advantage over country 2 in producing a good if the cost of producing that good, relative to the cost of producing other goods, in 1, is lower that the cost of producing the good in 2, relative to the cost of producing other goods in 2. Chapter 16 122

The Gains from Free Trade
Comparative Advantage Comparative advantage is a relative measurement, not absolute. A country with an absolute advantage in the production of all goods will not have a comparative advantage in the production of all goods. Example: Holland and Italy produce cheese and wine Chapter 16 123

Hours of Labor Required to Produce
Cheese (1 lb.) Wine (1 gal.) Holland 1 2 Italy 6 3 Holland has an absolute advantage in both products. Chapter 16 126

Cheese (1 lb.) Wine (1 gal.) Holland 1 2 Italy 6 3 Holland’s comparative advantage over Italy is in cheese: the cost of cheese is 1/2 the cost of wine and Italy’s cost of cheese is twice the cost of wine. Chapter 16 126

Cheese (1 lb.) Wine (1 gal.) Holland 1 2 Italy 6 3 Italy’s comparative advantage is wine, which is half the cost of cheese. Chapter 16 126

Cheese (1 lb.) Wine (1 gal.) Holland 1 2 Italy 6 3 Without Trade: Assume PW = PC in Holland & Italy. Holland has 24 hrs. of labor--max. wine = 12 gals & max. cheese = 24 lbs. or a combination Chapter 16 126

Cheese (1 lb.) Wine (1 gal.) Holland 1 2 Italy 6 3 With Trade: Italy produces 8 gal. and trades 6; consumes 6 lbs. and 2 gals. Without Trade: 3 lbs. and 2 gals. Chapter 16 126

The Gains from Trade Cheese (pounds) A B CB WB U1 CD WD D U2
Without trade: production & consumption at A in Holland. MRT = Pw/PC = 2 World prices B CB WB With trade (assume relative price Pw = PC): Produce at B, MRT = 1 Pre-trade prices U1 CD WD D U2 Consumption at D after trade. Holland imports the wind and exports cheese. Who gains and who loses from trade? Wine (gallons) Chapter 16 136

The Effects of Automobile Import Quotas
A Changing Automobile Market Imports (as a percentage of domestic sales) % % In 1981 a voluntary export restraint (VER) was negotiated. In 1980 Japan exported 2.5 million cars to the U.S. In 1981 with the VER exports fell to 1.68 million cars. Chapter 16 137

Measuring the Impact of the VER 1) Japanese car prices rose nearly $1,000/car in , and revenue increase by $2 billion. 2) Demand for U.S. cars increased U.S. profits by $10 billion Chapter 16 138

Measuring the Impact of the VER 3) U.S. car prices were $350 to $400/auto higher than they would have been without VER, or consumers were worse off by $3 billion . 4) U.S. sales rose by 500,000 units creating about 26,000 jobs. Chapter 16 139

Measuring the Impact of the VER 5) Cost/Job = $4.3 billion (consumer cost)/26,000 jobs) = $160,000 Chapter 16 140

Quantifying the Costs of Protection
Producer Gains Consumer Losses Efficiency Losses Industry ($ millions) ($millions) ($millions) Book manufacturing Orange juice Textiles an apparel 22,000 27,000 4,850 Carbon steel 3,800 6, Color televisions Sugar Dairy products 5,000 5,500 1,370 Meat 1,600 1,

An Overview---The Efficiency of Competitive Markets
Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in Exchange Chapter 16 141

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in Exchange (for a competitive market) Chapter 16 142

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in the Use of Inputs in Production Chapter 16 143

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in the Use of Inputs in Production (for a competitive market) Chapter 16 144

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in the Output Market Chapter 16 145

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency Efficiency in the Output Market (in a competitive market) Chapter 16 146

Conditions Required for Economic Efficiency However, consumers maximize their satisfaction in competitive markets only if Chapter 16 147

Why Markets Fail Market Power
In a monopoly in a product market, MR < P MC = MR Lower output than a competitive market Resources allocated to another market Inefficient allocation Chapter 16 148

Why Markets Fail Market Power Monopsony in the labor market
Restricted supply of labor in food wf would rise, wL would fall Clothing input: Food input: Chapter 16 149

Why Markets Fail Incomplete Information Externalities
Lack of information creates a barrier to resource mobility. Externalities When consumption or production creates cost and benefits to third parties which changes the cost and benefits of decisions and create inefficiencies. Chapter 16 150

Why Markets Fail Public Good
Markets undersupply public goods because of difficulty associated with measuring consumption. Chapter 16 151

Summary Partial equilibrium analyses of markets assume that related markets are unaffected, while general equilibrium analyses examine all markets simultaneously. An allocation is efficient when no consumer can be made better off by trade without making someone else worse off. Chapter 16 152

Summary A competitive equilibrium describes a set of prices and quantities, so that when each consumer chooses his or her most preferred allocation, the quantity demanded is equal to the quantity supplied in every market. The utility possibilities frontier measures all efficient allocations in terms of the levels of utility that each person achieves. Chapter 16 153

Summary Because a competitive equilibrium need not be equitable, the government may wish to help redistribute wealth from rich to poor. An allocation of production inputs is technically efficient if the output of one good cannot be increased without increasing the output of some other good. Chapter 16 154

Summary The production possibilities frontier measures all efficient allocations in terms of the levels of output that can be produced with a given combination of inputs. Efficiency in the allocation of goods to consumers is achieved only when the MRS of one good for another in consumption is equal to the MRT of one good for another in production. Chapter 16 155

Summary Free international trade expands a country’s production possibilities frontier. Competitive markets may be inefficient for one or more of four reasons. Chapter 16 156

General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency
End of Chapter 16 General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency 1

General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "General Equilibrium and Economic Efficiency"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback