1. Chapter Nine Applying the Competitive Model

2. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–2 Applying the Competitive Model In this chapter, we examine six main topics –Consumer welfare –Producer welfare –Maximizing welfare –Policies that shift supply curves –Policies that create a wedge between supply and demand –Comparing both types of policies

3. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–3 Consumer Welfare Measuring consumer welfare using a demand curve –Consumer welfare from a good is the benefit a consumer gets from consuming that good minus what the consumer paid to buy the good.

4. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–4 Marginal Willingness to Pay The demand curve reflects a consumer’s marginal willingness to pay: the maximum amount a consumer will spend for an extra unit. The consumer’s marginal willingness to pay is the marginal value the consumer places on the last unit of output.

5. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–5 Figure 9.1 Consumer Surplus 5 4 3 2 1 p 1 543210 CS 2 = $1 1 = $2 E 1 = $3 E 2 = $3 E 3 = $3 Price = $3 q 1 a b c q, Magazines per week q, Trading cards per year Demand Expenditure, E Consumer surplus, CS Marginal willingness to pay for the last unit of output (a) David’s Consumer Surplus Demand (b) Steven’s Consumer Surplus

6. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–6 Consumer Surplus Market consumer surplus is the area under the market demand curve above the market price up to the quantity consumers buy.

7. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–7 Effect of a Price Change on Consumer Surplus Consumer surplus loss from a higher price. –In Figure 9.2

8. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–8 Figure 9.2 Fall in Consumer Surplus from Roses as Price Rises Q, Billion rose stems per year 57.8 32 30 1.1601.25 b a A = $149.64 million B = $23.2 million C = $0.9 million Demand

9. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–9 Solved Problem 9.1 Suppose that two linear demand curves go through the initial equilibrium,. One demand curve is less elastic than the other at. For which demand curve will a price increase cause the larger consumer surplus loss? A price increase causes a larger consumer surplus loss with the less elastic demand curve.

10. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–10 Page 272 Solved Problem 9.1 Q, Units per week Q 1 Q 3 Q 2 p 1 p 2 e 1 e 2 e 3 D C B A Relatively inelastic demand (at e 1 ) Relatively elastic demand (at e 1 )

11. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–11 Producer Welfare A supplier’s gain from participating in the marker is measured by its producer surplus (PS), which is the difference between the amount for which a good sells and the minimum amount necessary for the seller to be willing to producer the good.

12. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–12 Measuring Producer Surplus Using a Supply Curve The producer surplus is closely related to profit. Producer surplus is revenue, R, minus variable cost, VC:

13. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–13 Measuring Producer Surplus Using a Supply Curve Another interpretation of producer surplus is as a gain to trade. Producer surplus equals the profit from trade minus the profit (loss) from not trading of

14. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–14 Competition Maximizes Welfare How should we measure society’s welfare? One commonly used measure of the welfare of society, W, is the sum of consumer surplus plus producer surplus:

15. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–15 Why Producing Less Than the Competitive Output Lowers Welfare Producing less than the competitive output lowers welfare. The change in consumer surplus is The change in producer surplus is The change in welfare,, is

16. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–16 Why Producing Less Than the Competitive Output Lowers Welfare This drop in welfare,, is deadweight loss (DWL): the net reduction in welfare from a loss of surplus by one group that is not offset by a gain to another group from an action that alters a market equilibrium.

17. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–17 Figure 9.4 Why Reducing Output from the Competitive Level Lowers Welfare Q, Units per year Supply Demand p 2 MC 1 = p 1 Q 2 Q 1 e 1 2 e 2 C E B D A F

18. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–18 Why Producing More Than the Competitive Output Lowers Welfare Increasing output beyond the competitive level also decreases welfare because the cost of producing this extra output exceeds the value consumers place on it. Because price falls from p 1 to p 2, consumer rises by The increase in output causes producer surplus to fall by

19. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–19 Why Producing More Than the Competitive Output Lowers Welfare Because producers lose more than consumers gain, the deadweight loss is A market failure is inefficient production or consumption, often because a price exceeds marginal cost.

20. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–20 Figure 9.5 Why Increasing Output from the Competitive Level Lowers Welfare Q, Units per year Supply Demand p 2 MC 1 = p 1 Q 2 Q 1 e 1 2 e 2 C F B DE A GH

21. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–21 Policies That Shift Supply Curves One of the main reasons that economists developed welfare tools was to predict the impact of government policies and other events that alter a competitive equilibrium.

22. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–22 Policies That Shift Supply Curves Virtually all government actions affect a competitive equilibrium in one of two ways. Some government policies, such as limits on the number of firms in a market, shift the supply or demand curve.

23. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–23 Policies That Shift Supply Curves Other government actions, such as sales taxes, create a wedge between price and marginal cost so that they are not equal, as they were in the original competitive equilibrium.

24. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–24 Figure 9.6 Effect of a Restriction on the Number of Cabs (a) Cab Firm q 2 q 1 q, Rides per month E 1 D S 1 S 2 E 2 B A C AC 2 1 MC e 2 e 1 p 2  p 1 p 2 p 1 (b) Market n 2 q 1 Q 2 = n 2 q 2 Q 1 = n 1 q 1 Q, Rides per month

25. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–25 Raising Entry and Exit Costs Barrier to entry –An explicit restriction or a cost that applies only to potential new firms—existing firms are not subject to the restriction or do not bear the cost.

26. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–26 Policies That Create A Wedge Between Supply and Demand Welfare effects of a sales tax –A new sales tax causes the price consumers pay to rise, resulting in a loss of consumer surplus,, and a fall in the price receive, resulting in a drop in producer surplus,. However, the new tax provides the government with new tax revenue, (if tax revenue was zero before this new tax). –As a result, the change in welfare is

27. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–27 Figure 9.7 Welfare Effects of a Specific Tax on Roses Q, Billion rose stems per year 32 30 21 0  = 11 1.161.25 e 1 e 2 D S Demand C E B A F         = 11¢ S + 11¢

28. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–28 Figure 9.8 Effect of Price Supports in Soybeans Without government price supports, the equilibrium is, where per bushel and billion bushels of soybeans per year (based on estimates in Holt, 1992). With the price support at per bushel, output sold increases to and consumer purchases fall to, so the government must buy at a cost of $1.283 billion per year. The deadweight loss is billion per year, not counting storage and administrative costs.

29. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–29 Figure 9.8 Effect of Price Supports in Soybeans Q d = 1.9 Q 1 = 2.1 G D Q s = 2.20 Q, Billion bushels of soybeans per year Q g = 0.3 p 1 = 4.59 3.60 Supply Demand Price support e F B MC A C E p = 5.00 —

30. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–30 Welfare Effects Of A Price Floor Excess production: More output is produced than is consumed, so is stored, destroyed, or shipped abroad. Inefficiency in consumption: At quantity they actually buy,, consumers are willing to pay $5 for the last bushel of soybeans, which is more than the marginal cost, MC=$3.60, of producing that bushel.

31. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–31 Comparing Both Types of Policies: Imports Allow free trade: Any firm can sell in this country without restrictions. Ban all imports: The government sets a quota of zero on imports. Set a positive quota: The government limits imports to. Set a tariff: The government imposes a tax called a tariff (or a duty) on only imported goods.

32. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–32 Free Trade Versus A Ban On Imports Because the supply curve foreigners face is horizontal at the world price of $14.70, the total U>S supply curve of crude oil is when there is free trade. The free-trade equilibrium is.

33. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–33 Free Trade Versus A Ban On Imports With a ban on imports, the equilibrium occurs where the domestic supply curve,,intersects D. The ban increases producer surplus by B = $132.5 million per day and decreases consumer surplus by B+C=$163.7 million per day, so the deadweight loss is C = $31.2 million per day or $11.4 billion per year.

34. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–34 Figure 9.9 Loss from Eliminating Free Trade 9.010.28.211.813.1 Q, Million barrels of oil per day Imports = 4.9 14.70 0 29.04 S a = S 2 S 1, World price e 2 e 1 D B A C Demand

35. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–35 Free Trade Versus A Tariff A tariff of per barrel of oil imported or a quota of drives the U.S. price of crude oil to $19.70, which is $5 more than the world price. Under the tariff, the equilibrium,, is determined by the intersection of the total U.S. supply curve and D demand curve. Under the quota, is determined by a quantity wedge of 2.8 million barrels per day between the quantity demanded, 9.0 million barrels per day, and the quantity supplied, 11.8 million barrels per day.

36. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–36 Free Trade Versus A Tariff Compared to free trade, producers gain million per day and consumers lose million per day from the tariff or quota. The deadweight loss under the quota is million per day. With a tariff, the government’s tariff revenue increases by million a day, so the deadweight loss is only million per day.

37. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–37 Figure 9.10 Effect of a Tariff (or Quota) 9.08.211.813.1 Q, Million barrels of oil per day Imports = 2.8 0 14.70 19.70 29.04 S a = S 2 S 3 Demand S 1, World price e 2 e 3 e 1  = 5.00 F GH B A CE D     

38. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–38 Rent Seeking Given that tariffs and quotas hurt the importing country, why do the Japanese, U.S., and other governments impose tariffs, quotas, or other trade barriers? The reason is that domestic producers stand to make large gains from such government actions; hence it pays for them to organize and lobby the government to enact these trade policies.

39. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–39 Rent Seeking Economists call efforts and expenditures to gain a rent or a profit from government actions rent seeking. If producers or other interest groups bride legislators to influence policy, the bribe is a transfer of income and hence does not increase deadweight loss (except to the degree that a harmful policy is chosen).

40. © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.9–40 Rent Seeking If this rent-seeking behavior—such as hiring lobbyists and engaging in advertising to influence legislators— uses up resources, the deadweight loss from tariffs and quotas understates the true loss to society.