From Reuters:
Societies should not rely on market forces to protect the environment or provide quality health care for all citizens, a winner of the 2007 Nobel Prize for economics said on Monday. ... "The market doesn't work very well when it comes to public goods," said [Professor Eric] Maskin ...
Mechanism Design Theory is one explanation for why even a well-regulated market with external costs priced via Pigovian or green taxes is inadequate in areas like environmental performance or health care.
Certain types of goods -- public goods -- simply cannot be allocated efficiently through market mechanisms alone. This was known long before Mechanism Design Theory came along.
For example, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, and gets worse results. There are various reasons for this, but one is that a competitive market in health insurance tends to provide more insurance and less healthcare than public insurance mechanisms.
This is relevant to arguments over solving global warming, because a great many emissions involve public goods. For example, transmission lines are public goods; transportation infrastructure (roads, seaports, and airports) is a public good; pipelines for water and fuel are public goods.
A lot of people like to argue that markets helped liberate us from feudalism, but they are overlooking an important point: what liberated us from feudalism was capitalism, and capitalism never relied on markets alone.
Let's look just at the U.S. for the moment. To make the most favorable case for "pure markets," let's overlook, for the moment, slavery, stolen land, and so on. Capitalism has always depended on public goods -- a post office, a public currency. Since early in U.S. history we have had a public banking system, though there were fights between those who wanted a national bank and those who wanted state banks. And of course there is the history of transportation; canals came early in our history, then railroads, then a highway system. We had public education in New England almost from the beginning of our nation; it spread to the entire country after the civil war. We tried private fire departments; ultimately they did not work out, and no one (excluding some of the loonier libertarians) object today to public fire departments or claim they should be turned over to the "free market."
In short, capitalism has been a mixed economy from the beginning. It always depended on substantial public goods; it could never have grown and flourished if everything had been left to a market. There is a good argument to be made that we fetishize markets today. Yes, people like Peter Barnes are right that there is room for a third sector between public and private. But it is also true that there are many things the public sector can do well, and that hatred of all government and public spending handicaps our ability to do many of these things.
Comments View as Flat
tidal Posted 8:51 am
18 Oct 2007
thanks for posting this...
I was going to say that this year's Nobel Prize for economics had some crossover interest for grist readers...
I am going to the hockey game in a few minutes, so I am just picking off a decent primer amongst many, but this paper is a good, accessible survey of the types of goods and services most suited to being (pure) market goods or (pure) public goods, with a specific environmental frame of reference...
I will try to post some other germane papers on mechanism design and informational assymetries - with application to environmental economics - later...ABSTRACT
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:19 am
18 Oct 2007
In the long-run the free market is dead....
...one thing that should be easy to prove, it seems to me, is that the market does not function properly when the important time frame is the long-term -- which can be a fairly long-time, but neoclassical economics is set up to deal with the short-term, and in certain situations, the medium-term. For instance, neoclassical economics cannot explain long-term technological change; but its inability to deal with the long-term is why it leads to exactly the wrong policy prescriptions to ecological problems, which are very long-term.
This leads to an even bigger problem; it is difficult if not impossible for neclassical economics to properly value natural assets. So it makes sense to destroy whole ecosystems by mining or deforestation, or by mining the soil as in the Midwest, whereas in the very long term the destruction of these natural assets is disastrous.
I think the solution to this may be to change the property rights to natural assets, such that the government has certain ownership rights. But that's just an idea to throw out there. I don't know if mechanism design can handle these objections.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:46 am
18 Oct 2007
Straw-man argument
Sorry, but what's the point of this post? Who besides purist libertarians "fetishize markets"? As Gar writes, theories about public goods and externalities became part of mainstream economics a long time ago.
Many services have public good aspects but can still be operated by the private sector. The UK's public health system may be cheap, but having lived in that country I can personally attest that systems in countries like France or the Netherlands, which have universal health insurance but are comprised of many private and public health-care professionals and clinics, provide a higher standard of service.
As for giving governments property rights to natural resources, experience shows that what matters is governance, not so much who owns the resources. I can think of numerous examples of poor stewardship of natural resources by government owners, from various Communist-run countries to the UK when it still ran a state-run coal monopoly.
Most governments exercise some control over access to their marine resources, but their performance has varied widely. Canada botched it in the 1980s and 1990s (when its policies to promote expansion of a domestic fishing fleet helped precipitate the collapse of the north-west Atlantic cod stock); Iceland, New Zealand and Norway have managed their stocks reasonably well.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:04 am
18 Oct 2007
Self-interest is not restricted to the market...
...as Communist regimes (or dictatorships in general) have shown, the worst resource exploitation occurs in the absence of the capacity to challenge a particular use of a resource. So in the interest of discussing political economy, it seems clear that a democratic political system is an important part of an economic system; in effect, the public seeks to restrict the uninhibited use of property rights when that action is against the public interest. I'm not sure that that idea is well-integrated in the economics literature, perhaps you can clarify.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:24 am
18 Oct 2007
And so?
Well put, Jon:
But what I don't understand is why economics and economists deserve bashing here. Yes, pick up an Economics 101 textbook and there won't be much in it on political economy. But the training of people who specialize in economic policy usually includes a grounding in political economy, as well as some training in law, and the intersection between law and economics. How many economists do you know who pretend there aren't such things as externalities, public goods and institutions that enforce property rights and the rule of law?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:51 am
18 Oct 2007
To be more concrete...
...The problem, the way I see it, is that at the core of neoclassical economics lie models which, because of their construction, show governmental intervention as leading to suboptimal outcomes (I hope I'm saying that correctly). So, when we talk about solutions to global warming problems, for instance, the policy implication is that the market should be structured in such a way that it will lead to the best outcome. The consequence is that public investment -- or, to differentiate from nordhaus and shellenberger -- public construction, such as public transit, gets left out the picture -- and it's not because economists necessarily don't discuss it, the entire intellectual environment seems to dismiss such public construction out of hand.
People operate according to various frameworks, or paradigms, if you will, and neoclassical economics resides at the core of the conservative critique of government. So that is fundamentally what worries me.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:47 pm
18 Oct 2007
I still don't get it
I must be missing something here. Neoclassical economics can be a useful tool to explain a lot of things that happen in markets, or are prevented from happening in markets, including actions by governments. And, having worked for governments at all levels -- local, state, federal and inter-governmental -- I confess to having a healthy skepticism for proposed solutions to the problems of society that reflexively assume that direct government control is the answer. I think anybody working in policy should be hard-nosed about where bureaucracies can add value and where they are more likely to mess things up.
But that does not mean that "public construction, such as public transit, gets left out the picture", as you put it. To go back to my original comment -- that this post sets up a straw-man argument -- you must be talking to a rather select group of policy advisers, Jon, if you have the impression that "the entire intellectual environment seems to dismiss such public construction out of hand". Yes, economists have some interesting and useful thoughts about how some infrastructure could be privately provided, but more often the debate is how to introduce competition into the provision of public services (or infrastructure) that are nonetheless still regulated by the government.
Trash collection in Paris (which now includes collection of recyclable materials as well), for example, was long ago contracted to private companies. You know what? It works, and it works well. Seven days a week.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:44 pm
18 Oct 2007
How the parts fit together
Ron --
I have no doubt that neoclassical economics is a useful tool in certain situations, particularly when the situation fits the basic outlines of most models -- where there is a competitive situation, with many similar firms, in the short term. But in the situation I feel we are in now, we should at least be discussing very big questions about how to fit together the different pieces of our civilization -- energy, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc -- and I think that requires a different kind of thinking.
In fact, I hope in the next couple of posts to lay out some of these ideas in a more organized fashion (I hope), because my main interest is not in criticizing neoclassical economics (as cathartic as that might be) but in trying to offer an alternative. So I hope that I can gain more of the benefits of your wisdom in that venue -- in this particular one at this moment, though, I must put my three-year old to bed. So thanks for the back-and-forth, a bientot.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:56 pm
18 Oct 2007
This Nobel winner...
is just stating the basic fact that economists have been saying for 50 years. Nothing new, but good to hear it I guess. The straw man of "economists think markets solve everything" is getting old. No economists say this.
I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:56 pm
18 Oct 2007
I'm going to side with Ron, which is unusual ; )
That is a translation by the article's author of the following quote:
"The market doesn't work very well when it comes to public goods,"
It sensationalized the quote to grab attention. Your second link explains the value of the theory:
"It can provide important justifications for government intervention in the operation of markets such as health care..."
In other words, it can help identify where government intervention in the market might make sense. The bottom line is that we need good governance capable of picking when and when not to use the creative power of millions of competitors to solve a problem. The articles also use cars as an example where markets work. Half a million Priuses getting twice the mileage of the Subaru Outbacks they replaced is a prime example of how a market can make massive changes based on consumer demand for an environmentally benign car. The fuel saved dwarfs that saved by government backed corn ethanol.
The mindset that government is good, markets are bad is simplistic. You need both and finding which works best in a given instance is not always obvious and that is why these guys have developed this theory of Mechanism Design.
"For example, the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, and gets worse results. There are various reasons for this, but one is that a competitive market in health insurance tends to provide more insurance and less healthcare than public insurance mechanisms"
Our health care system sucks but you sure can't say it is the result of a free market. The AMA lobbies our "government" to allow them to restrict the number of physicians, thus keeping their wages grossly inflated. I can't walk into any doctor's office I choose and get care. Switching health care is a nightmare of red tape. This system bears little resemblance to any free market system I'm familiar with. Doctors should be falling over themselves to get my business.
Imagine what buying a car would be like if the process resembled our medical system. The car salesmen would all be making a quarter-million a year. You would be making huge monthly payments just in case you need a new one some day and have to get approval before you could buy from the approved dealer.
I'd say our crappy medical system is ultimately the result of bad governance, which admittedly, may be the result of an ignorant, uninformed public.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:45 pm
18 Oct 2007
Darn you, BioD!
We can't have that, you and me in agreement! ;-)
Where did you come up with that? It's brilliant -- I'm still chuckling!
P.S., I'm writing from Quito, Ecuador, where I've been attending a meeting on (what else) biofuels. A lot of the countries -- governments that is --down here have big plans for palm oil and diesel made from palm oil. It doesn't seem to matter to them (or they don't understand the point) that, per litre, the world price of crude palm oil is almost twice that of crude petroleum oil. One official even defended turning palm oil into biodiesel by saying, "But of course we want to sell a product with more value added". Um, sir, you mean with value subtracted, don't you?
But that's a story for another blog.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:38 am
19 Oct 2007
Transportation is a good example...
...of where the market works and where it doesn't do a very good job. Once you have a particular transportation system in place -- particularly if it's an automobile-based system -- the market works reasonably well, when you have some government regulation. But the choice of what kind of transportation system to have, I feel, should be one that society makes collectively, because the choice of a transportation system can be a make or break deal.
It may well be that the automobile will turn out to be either the worst or one of the worst technological choices humans ever made. And the imposition of that system, like every transportation system in history, has been constructed mostly by the government (think Rome). So how should a choice of a transportation system be made? I think it requires a wide-ranging discussion of alternatives.
Also, BioD and Ron, I think BioD and I came to an agreement a while back that we need both the government and markets, either one in isolation would be a disaster (has been a disaster). If I understand you correctly, when you use the word "governance", you're talking about policy, regulatory and otherwise, which I think means the government (at all levels, not just Federal) makes particular policy decisions, ideally in a democratic and participatory way.
Also, you guys might be interested in the work of my mentor, the late Professor Seymour Melman, because if there is one excellent example of where government involvement in the economy has bad results, the military-industrial complex is it, and Melman wrote several books going into gory detail on how that process works, or rather doesn't work.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:29 am
19 Oct 2007
Public versus Private
It's amazing that when things are owned by people, you call them private.
But when they are owned by Government, you call them public.
Health care: I have proposed a child health care plan based on the XO machine's Give One, Get One. I would allow each adult to add a poor child to their health care plan who is not related. Simple, and the kid would get the same care as if her dad or mom had that plan.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
thunksalot Posted 9:17 am
19 Oct 2007
Air, Water, Fertile Top Soil are also public goods
The author mentioned transportation infrastructure and health care as public goods. I just wanted to assert that the distribution of fresh water is a public good that should not be left to market forces (though that's what many companies want to see happen). And, clean/breathable air is a public good. That too, should not be left to market forces. And when you leave land-use planning to market forces, you get fertile farmland plowed-under for the construction of unnecessary housing stock in California.
Also, to address this whole straw-man argument: Yes, you will rarely find an economist in a university who says "free markets are the best way to go all the time." BUT, you can't move without stepping on a corporate "expert" (often trained as an economist) who is happy to take a huge paycheck in exchange for saying things like "yes, privatizing water is the most efficient way to make sure everyone has water" at public hearings or behind closed doors when the regulations are being written. They probably know that economics textbooks are full of counter-examples but they don't care.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:14 am
20 Oct 2007
Water is not a public good
If we're going to throw around terms like "public good", and use them to justify certain policies or approaches to policies, we should use them accurately.
Water is not a public good, at least not according to the economics definition of a public good. A pure public good is non-rivalrous in consumption (i.e., if I consume some of it, it doesn't affect your consumption: think street lighting), and is non-excludable (e.g., national defense).
Water fails both tests. The one aspect of water that does arguably have public-good characteristics is its quality: everybody benefits by keeping water-born pathogens out of the water supply. That in itself does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole supply and distribution of water has to be government owned and operated.
France -- that leftist bastion -- privatized water supply 100 years ago. It works. Of course public authorities regulate the industry. But the quality and reliabiliy of its supply is among, if not THE, best in the world. The UK used to have public water companies that for years under-invested. Many are now operated by French companies, which had to pour in billions of dollars to bring the infrastructure up to snuff.
Allowing the private provision of water infrastructure does not necessarily mean that governments have to cede control of the water itself (e.g., if it comes from a public reservoir), nor over pricing policy. While some governments in developing countries have negotiated bad deals with foreign water suppliers, neither have they universally operated their own systems particularly well, nor equitably. It is well known that cronyism in governments often leads to supplying rich and middle-class houses with water, but leaving poor people to fend for themselves -- often by buying water from small-time vendors at many multiples of the price charged to the lucky families served by the "public" water system.
I think that we can all agree that there is a public interest in ensuring that everybody has access to clean water. But invoking "public good" arguments to reject private-company involvement in the provision of water is not, in my view, convincing.
Permalink