‘Market failure’ arguments are a poor guide to policy

Abstract

‘Market failure’ is frequently offered as a justification for government intervention in the economy. Proponents of interventions can point to almost limitless examples of markets which do not meet all the criteria for Pareto optimality and argue that government taxation, subsidies or regulation can perfect them, maximising social welfare. But comparing market outcomes with an unattainable and unidentifiable ideal is not useful in a world of imperfect knowledge and government failure. It is better to compare market outcomes against realistic alternatives. Furthermore, even within the market failure paradigm, concepts such as ‘public goods’ and ‘negative externalities’ are routinely misunderstood and inconsistently applied. This leads to predictably poor policy outcomes.

Using MCDA to assist an Intermunicipal community develop a resilience strategy in face of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2

“…When this is the case, it is possible to find a new equilibrium by improving the allocation of resources to benefit at least one economic agent without harming the interests of all the others [ 27 ]; pp.185-187). Under this set up, many scholars argue that governments should intervene when the free market system of perfectly competitive markets does not lead to Pareto efficiency [ 28 ]. In effect, such imperfections may arise due to different underlying conditions such as the presence of asymmetric information or significant externalities [ 29 ], which the government may help mitigate.…”

Societal and economic options to support grassland-based dairy production in Europe

“…In the past, additional services were not specifically rewarded by society, which was used as the rationale for government interventions and associated taxes, subsidies and regulations. As pointed out by, for example, Bourne (2019), this government intervention often does not lead to the desired results. True incentives for the primary producer come as consumers are going to pay more for grassland-based products.…”

Transforming Energy Sector Impact for Supporting Climate Change Mitigation: The Case of Pakistan

“…However, major reliance remained on imported fossil fuels. For instance, out of the total installed capacity of more than 11,000 megawatts of CPEC-Energy priority projects, coal-based power projects comprise more than 8,000 megawatts (GoP, 2021) 1 .…”

“…First, market failures (negative externalities, information asymmetries, incomplete markets, etc.) can be corrected and prevented (Bourne, 2019). Second, targeted regulations can be used as an intervention to avoid socially unacceptable outcomes (reducing inequalities and correcting distribution of wealth) (United Nations Development Programme, 2019).…”