Externalities and Public Goods

Externalities are the effect on the third party of an action made by an individual or a firm - whether it be for the better or the worse. A lot of the time externalities are negative, pollution for example, and this is the example we will use here. We'll look at a firm in industry creating a good that means they are polluting the atmosphere.

With externalities being ignored, the firm will hire workers and capital according to the rule: (Marginal revenue product of labour = marginal cost of labour = wage = marginal cost of labour)

In Layman's terms, this means they'll employ labour up until the point where the marginal revenue product of labour is equal to the marginal cost of labour, meaning profits are being maximised. If the producer had to clean up the pollution as well then the amount they'd employ would become:

What has been added is a new Price, the price of cleaning pollution. This is taken away from the price of the product they're producing which will overall leave a lower figure. If we rearranged above we could achieve this:

The marginal cost of the good will now be the wage plus the marginal cost of cleaning up the pollution. This means the social cost of the firms actions have been taken into account. Previously, the marginal cost of production was below the marginal social cost - leading to an overproduction. Here it is graphically:

Q2 is the social optimum when the cost of clearing the pollution is taken into account. If MSC is greater than MC then there are external costs of production, if it's the other way round there are external benefits to production.

Now for a quick look at public goods, a fairly simple sub-topic. A public good is one that has the characteristics 'non rival' and 'non excludable'. What does this mean? It means that my consumption of the good does not stop other people consuming it (non rival) and I cannot be prevented from consuming the good once it is provided (non excludable). Street lighting is a good example. It's a good that generally has to be provided by a government because no individual or firm would pay for it - they'd just wait for someone else to buy and free ride. A good that has only one of the characteristics stated above but not both is known as a 'quasi-public good'.

That's all boys and girls! Comment if you need more help, share the blog if it has assisted you. Cheers!
Sam.

Factor Markets

When discussing factor markets we are talking about the market for factors of production. Recall the circular flow of income (there is a post on it somewhere) - firms are demanders of factors of production and households are suppliers. Firms pay money to households in exchange for their factors of production - wages for labour, for example.

We'll be looking at perfectly competitive factor markets. Everyone in this market is a price taker, whether it be the firms, the workers or whoever. Freedom of entry and exit exists. It costs nothing for a person to leave the labour force and nor does it cost anything for someone to join it. We assume that the factors are homogenous. Everyone/everything in the market has the same level of skill and motivation. Finally, there is perfect knowledge. Workers know everything about the firm and firms know everything about the workers, for example.

Let us zoom in on the labour market more specifically. A perfectly competitive labour market looks as follows:

On the left we have the market as a whole. The wage rate is determined by the interaction of demand for workers and the supply of workers.  With this wage rate, we can look at an individual firm on the right. At wage rate W the firm would be willing to employ Q hours worth of labour.

We need to somehow ascertain how much labour would be supplied by people in the labour market. This figure is dependent on many factors. From the point of view of the worker, working involves disutility's such as sacrificing leisure time and it being tedious/boring.  The more they work the larger the disutility. The marginal disutility of work (MDU) will increase as people work more. Due to this, we see an upwards sloping supply curve of labour. To encourage people to work more hours, higher wages need to be paid in order to compensate for the higher disutility.

In general, an individual's supply of labour will look like this. The higher the wage rate, the more hours worked. However, there is a case where the shape of the individuals supply of labour actually bends backwards. This is the case when an individual feels that after a certain point they can afford to work less and have more leisure time. It looks like this:

Once wage reaches W the individual feels that they are earning enough and can afford to cut back on the amount they work should wages rise further.

The amount of labour a firm demands rests on the assumptions that firms are trying t maxisimise profits. The theory is known as the marginal productivity theory. We look at the marginal revenue product of labour in this piece of analysis (MRPL). We know that to maximise profits, marginal costs must equal marginal revenue, so therefore the firm will employ labour up until the point wages (the marginal cost) equal the marginal revenue product of labour. It looks like this:

The firm will hire Q hours worth of labour in order to maximise their profits. What about the demand curve for a firm as a whole? Well, because whatever the wage the firm will be producing where wages equal MRPL, this means that the demand curve for the firm is the MRPL curve. From the peak of the curve to the right is the demand for labour for a firm trying to maximise its profits.

There are some firms that are known as monopsomists. These firms are wage setters, not wage takers. They are a firm with monopoly power on factors of production in an area - say a single employer in a village. They have the power to restrict the amount of labour they employ to keep wage rates down. The firm faces an upwards sloping supply curve for labour, to employ more workers they need to pay a higher wage rate. This supply curve shows us what wage must be paid to attract a certain amount of labour. The wage is also the average cost of employing labour, therefore the supply curve is the AC curve. The marginal cost of labour will be above the average costs because to attract more employees the wage rate must be raised. The profit maximising point for the firm would be where MCL = MRPL with a wage of W1. If we were in a perfectly competitive market the wage rate would have been at W2 with a higher amount of labour employed. The monopsomist forces the wage rate down by restricting how many workers it employs.

Firms and Isoquant Maps

If you read the previous post about indifference analysis then you'll notice a lot of similarities when studying this topic. Isoquant analysis is essentially the same as indifference analysis but from the point of view of a firm. Each isoquant measures the combinations of capital and labour a firm would need to produce a constant output. They follow the same shape as indifference curves, sloping downwards, as you can see below.

  

The downwards sloping shape is due to the diminishing marginal rate of technical substitution (MRTS). It's the rate at which we can substitute capital for labour and still end up with the same level of output. We have to give up capital to add more labour, hence why there is a negative slope.

An isoquant map is a series of isoquants showing combinations of capital and labour that give different levels of output. It looks very similar to an indifference map. 

Each isoquant represents a different level of output. The further up and to the right you go, the higher the production. From these maps we can see what returns to scale the firm in question is facing. By returns to scale we are talking about the increase in output given an increase in capital and labour. If we doubled both capital and labour and saw a doubling of output then the firm would be facing constant returns to scale. On the isoquant map this is shown by the isoquants being evenly spaced. If we doubled the inputs and received more than double the output then we'd say the firm is facing increasing returns to scale. The isoquants would get closer together when increasing returns to scale was present. Finally, if the firm doubles the inputs and receives less than double the output then the firm is facing decreasing returns to scale. On an isoquant map this would be shown by the isoquants getting further apart. 

 We move on now to isoquants and marginal returns for firms. A marginal return measures the change in output the firm gets when one variables is changed and the other is held constant. Look at the diagram below this paragraph - we'll hold capital constant at 25.

 So, to achieve output of 5000 with capital held at 25 we need 10 units of labour. To get from 5000 to 10000 production we need to add an additional 20 units of labour (30-10). To get from 10000 to 15000 production we need to add an additional 35 units of labour (65-30). We can see that the more labour we add the less productive they become - this shows the principle of diminishing marginal returns. Each additional worker will add less production than the previous one.

Right, now for firms to choose their optimal level of production we need to include their budget into the analysis. This works the same as a budget line. Anywhere along the line gives us combinations of the two inputs with equal costs.

The dotted line above shows an example of changing factor costs and what would happen to the isocost line. Here, the price of labour (wages) have fallen and therefore the firm can afford more of them with a given budget. The line swings out, pivoting around the point on the y axis. If the price of labour rose the line would swing in. If the firm's overall budget increased/decreased then the whole isocost line would shift out/in. 

 Now, firms choose their production in one of two ways. They either go down the route of getting the least cost combination of factors for a given level of output or they aim to maximise output for a given production cost. The two examples can be seen in the diagram below. 

Time to get a bit mathematical now. We are going to work out the equilibrium point of production and what occurs at this point. So, the slope of an isoquant is as follows: If we reduce capital (K) then the loss of output will be: (MPP being the marginal physical product).

 And if we increase labour at the same time, the gain in output will be :

Now, at any point on the isoquant the change in quantity is 0, therefore these two terms must equal each other:

A simple rearrangement and we are left with the following formula for the slope of the isoquant,which equals the marginal rate of technical substitution:

 The slope of an isocost now. The reduction in cost should we reduce capital would be: (- the price of capital times the change in capital). 

The rise in cost if we increase labour will be: 

 Once again, the change in cost along the line is 0 therefore these two will equal each other at all times. Equating these two together and rearranging we get the slope of an isocost as: 

In equilibrium, the slope of the isoquant will equal the slope of the isocost:

 The final rearrangement now, I promise. We can derive this sneaky formula: 

What's interesting about this is that it tells us that money spent on each factor at the margin should yield the same level of additional output for the firm. Interesting. 

 We can map out the firm's costs in the long run on an isoquant map. It is called the expansion path as you can see below. 

 Typically, in the long run the firm will experience a varying level of costs. At low levels of output they will experience economies of scale. Then as output increases there will come a time when costs become constant. As output increase further still they will eventually reach a point of diseconomies of scale - where being a mass producer actually makes things costlier. In the short run costs are always higher than in the long run, always. Why? Because capital stock is fixed, we can only vary the amount of labour we employ. 

 That's it, the firm and isoquants covered. As usual post a comment if something doesn't make sense or you need further clarification - I'd be happy to help. Share the blog if you find it helpful, please. Cheer guys. 

Sam.

The Transformation of Policy Between the Wars

Immediately after the First World War, the government's aim for policy was to get the economy back to the 'normality' experienced prior to 1914. This sort of thing included the government playing a limited role in the economy, more integration with the world economy and restoration of the gold standard, free trade and a balance budget.

Initially these three final points are achieved. The budget is eventually balanced, albeit a higher budget than previous years due to the increase social spending and maintenance of the national debt. During the 1920's the policy of free trade is also pretty much restored. Britain gets back on the gold standard in 1925 at the rate of £1 = $4.86. Germany and France both rejoin the gold standard at a similar time, along with most other leading economies. Why did we return to the gold standard you may ask? Well, firstly it helped achieve the restoration of pre-war 'normality'. Also, it aimed to try and stabilise the currency which would in turn help out trade. Another feature of the gold standard was to allow the monetary system to function on its own. What I mean by this, is that if the country runs a payments surplus then gold will flow into the country, interest rates will be decreased so wages and prices will fall. This will in turn cure the surplus. It also works the opposite way for a payments deficit. A final point is that the gold standard was a means of stopping politicians from meddling with the money supply!

However, pre 1914 the gold standard worked but after the war and during the 1920's it just didn't. There is a list of potential reasons for this:

• Why the gold standard worked pre-1914:
• It was developed gradually over time.
• Capital and labour was freely moving.
• The central bank could use interest rates to protect the currency, independent of the government. 
• London was still a financial centre.

• What changed in the 20's?
• There was a rush to return to the gold standard.
• More protectionism and less migration due to barriers.
• Central banks were under pressure from politicians.
• Paris and New York now competing against London as financial centres. 

Mr. Keynes pops up again in this debate. He pointed out that British prices had risen faster than the US', so starting at the same £1 = $4.86 rate would be an overvaluation of the pound. Although this shouldn't have matter because the gold standard should re-adjust prices, Keynes doubted it would work. He thought it would have bad domestic effects including interest rates needing to be kept at 4.5-4.5% and due to this borrowing would become expensive and investment would suffer.

The world slump is the next chronological step in the economic history of Britain. The recession of 1929 - 1931 started because of the Wall Street Crash in the US. This meant massive balance of payments problems. In 1931 came the European Banking Crisis and so in Autumn of that year Britain was forced off of the gold standard. This was first portrayed as a temporary change, but gradually the realisation came about that it was for good. Interest rates were cut to 2% to encourage borrowing and investment which would boost the economy again! Amazingly, there was a recovery. GDP rose as investment rose and Britain actually now compared well with other global economies. It would be easy to say all of this was because of the gold standard, but it isn't true as many other factors were also contributing to the recovery of the British economy. What the slump did cause, however, is the abandonment of free trade between 1931 and 1932. 

Keynes had the idea that investment from the government was something that was necessary for the economy. But, the treasury wasn't in agreement with this theory. They believed it would unsettle foreign investors and worsen the national debt. Keynes thought that there was no point in cutting wages because demand and consumption would suffer. What was needed was public investment which would boost the economy via the multiplier effect. The treasury argued it would be inflationary and any more borrowing would get out of control. The only time borrowing was allowed was in a one-off circumstance for rearmament!

Thanks for reading again guys, that'll be it for economic history for a while... I promise! Haha.

Sam. 

Debate: Thoughts on U.K Foreign Aid

Quick point I'd like to discuss in today's post is the foreign aid given out by the United Kingdom and whether it's justified. The form of aid I'm most focusing on here is 'Official Development Assistance'. It comes in many different forms, not just lump sums of cash, and it represents one of the financial flows received by the so called 'developing economies'.

In many cases I'm sure this aid is very much necessary. For example, a case I think the aid is necessary is to Ethiopia. In 2007, Ethiopia received $273 million in Official Development Assistance from the United Kingdom. In that same year, the GDP per capita in that country by PPP was $779, making Ethiopia a very poor country. They also had a Human Development Index rating of 0.414 which is a low score, bearing in mind in 2012 the United Kingdom posted a rating of 0.863. I feel in this scenario, the aid is justified because they need capital to help their economy grow, and with such little money to start out with they'd have been getting nowhere without such aid. Another fairly decent example of justified ODA is to Afghanistan who had a HDI rating of 0.352 in 2007. However, this does lead me on to the main argument I have against foreign aid. It's all well and good it being justified, but is the money going to where it needs to go?

Lots of these less economically developed countries are like that for a reason. Whether it be corrupt government, lack of resources or whatever. Donating lump sums of money to countries with a corrupt government is just a pure waste of capital. The money will be thrown about to fund lavish lifestyles for those in favour of the government with very little being invested into the people living in poverty and on expanding the economy. This is a big put off against ODA in my opinion. The money needs to be directed at precisely the places that need it, there's no use giving it to governments if the money will not be invested efficiently. Furthermore, adding on to this point is the fact that are we not partly to blame for the money not being invested wisely? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if the money is invested into the economy and the economy grows, the aid will stop. Living off the aid is an easy way out for these developing countries and they may be using that as an incentive not to expand their economies. The over-reliance on aid would soon become apparent when it stops and the developing countries start to crumble again. It seems the aid that has been throw around has placed the world in a bit of a catch 22. Keep investing money in the form of aid and the money is not all used efficiently, or stop the aid and watch countries fall further into poverty. Dilemma, in my opinion.

What's more is that it's not like our country is a perfect example. We throw all this money away to other countries without a second thought about the issues we have regarding poverty and a dwindling economy. I know that we feel there is an obligation to Commonwealth countries or an expectation that at some point in the future we'll be rewarded with great trading deals from these countries when they finally develop, but i think it has to be toned down. The money needs to be re-invested directly into our own country in times like these until we can reach the point where we can say 'Yes, our economy is running smoothly and the people are happy'. If that ever happens, who knows?

I guess I wouldn't have as much of a problem if the amount we plan to give in foreign aid didn't grow anymore, but that isn't the case.

Notice here, virtually all government departments in the United Kingdom were planned to be cut by 2014-2015 and that money basically sent out in the form of foreign aid. How that can be justified i do not know! Our economy is shrinking, taking more money out of it doesn't seem at all logical in my mind. Believe it or not, though, in 2007 we gave almost $1 billion of ODA to China and India, the two economies that will be dominating the world potentially in the coming years. Of course they do have problems, but we have problems too.

I'll tie it up there, I think my opinion on foreign aid has become very clear in this post. But that's all it is, my opinion. What do you think? Thanks for reading!