14.41 Problem Set 1 with Solutions

Problem Set #1 14.41 Public Economics 1 Question One For each of the examples below, please answer the following: 1. Does an externality exist? If so, classify the externality as positive/negative (or both). 2. If an externality exists, determine whether the Coase theorem applies (i.e. ble/reasonably feasible to asign property rights and solve the problem?) is it possi- 3. If an extenality exists and the Coase theorem does not apply, argue which of the government’s tools are best suited to address the issue: quantity regulation, taxes/subsidies, tradeable permits, or something else. Consider the following examples: 1. British Petroleum drills for oil in the gulf coast Yes; accidents on oil rigs that cause spills impose a negative externality on others (e.g. inhabitants of gulf states). (optional answer: Oil drilling may also yield a positive externality if the identi…cation of the location of oil allows other companies to drill for oil more e¤ectively b/c they know where the oil is). If oil spills only damage property, and these property owners can costlessly recoup costs in the legal system, then the drillers will internalize the impact of their drilling on the social cost of the oil spill. But, if it is hard to determine the true costs from an oil spill (e.g. may be hard to …gure out whether someone lost their job b/c of an oil spill or b/c of some other reason), then the coase theorem may not apply. (Also, in the positive externality case: may be di¢ cult to assign property rights to an oil …eld after it is identi…ed, so coase theorem may not apply). 1 Quantity regulation on the amount of safety/advanced drilling technology investment seems feasible. One could also argue for subsidies for safer drilling technologies (or taxes on less safe technologies). Tradeable permits seems di¢ cult here, since it’s not clear what the permits would specify (but I’m open to a good suggestion!). 2. Carbon emissions from vehicles Yes; Classic negative externality: I drive my car and emit gases that harm others (whose harm I don’t pay for). Coase theorem is unlikely to apply in this case, since it would require assigning property rights to those that are harmed. Since many of the harmed are very dispersed (e.g. driving in boston theoretically harms everyone in the world a small amount) and in some cases involves the "unborn" (future generations facing global warming), the feasibility of negotiated private contracts is highly questionable. As discussed in class, if we believe that the bene…t curve is ‡at, we would want to price the carbon using a tax. Tradeable permits may be more desirable politically though. Quantity regulation would require di¤erential quantities for each producer of carbon, since they all have di¤ering marginal costs; therefore quantity regulation seems suboptimal/di¢ cult without instituting tradeable permits. 3. Your upstairs neighbors throwing an awesome, but loud party Yes; but the externality is either positive or negative, depending on your taste for parties. Coase theorem would require the neighbors to own the rights to holding the party. Then the neighbor would pay the other neighbor to have (or not have) the party. This could work (so an answer of "yes" is …ne). But, in reality, there are likely many di¤erent people who are a¤ected by the throwing of the party (e.g. multiple neighbors hate the noise). Bargaining with all parties may allow one party to "hold-up" the others, rendering the coase theorem inapplicable. 4. Buying a car with added safety features that prevent the drivers/passengers’ deaths in the event of an accident Depends; If people drive more recklessly as a result of having a safer car, then buying the safety feature imposes a negative externality on other drivers. If having a safety feature does not change the likelihood of an accident or the impact on the other cars, then there is no externality. The coase theorem does not apply: It would be incredibly di¢ cult to write a contract with those with whom you may eventually be engaged in a car accident. 2 Quantity regulation (e.g. regulating the safety feature, or preventing it), or taxation would correct the externality (Yes, that’s right, we’d theoretically want to tax the safety feature if it causes people to drive more recklessly). 5. Bringing crying babies on a plane Yes; this is the worst negative externality known to all of mankind. Coase theorem does not apply: have you ever tried reasoning with a crying baby? Not many good solutions here. Sure, you can tax parents that bring babies on the plane and rebate the tax to those that are exposed to the crying. The bigger question though is why don’t airlines already do more of this and lower the ticket price to everyone who is subjected to a crying baby (or just serve free drinks or something when a baby starts crying)? It would seem that the airlines are in a better position to solve this than is the government. Why don’t airlines do this? 2 Question Two An natural gas company in San Francisco owns many pipelines running underneath what is now populated areas. The company can invest $u in the maintenance of the pipes. Maintenance a¤ects two things. First, more maintanence means that the gas company will lose less gas in the pipes. Assume that the value of lost gas is given by u1 so that more maintenance reduces the amount of lost gas. Second, more maintenance means less damage to the land above the pipes. Assume that value of the damage to the land above the pipes is given by 3 u1 , so that more maintenance decreases the amount of damage to the land above. 1. What is the socially optimal level of maintenance, u? What is the value of lost gas? What is the value of land damage? The social optimum minimizes total costs: 1 1 min u + 3 + u u or 1=4 1 =0 u2 or up = 2 The socially optimal amount of maintenance is us = 2. The value of lost gas is the value of land damage is 23 . 3 1 2 and 2. What level of u is chosen by the gas company when no one owns the land above the pipes? Now what is the value of lost gas? What is the value of land damage? What is the deadweight loss? The gas company will solve min u + so that 1 u 1 =1 (up )2 or up = 1. The value of lost gas is 1 and the value of land damage is 3. The total social costs are therefore 1 + 1 + 3 = 5. In the social optimum, the social costs are 2 + 21 + 32 = 4. Therefore, the deadweight loss is 5 4 = 1. 3. Suppose now that the gas company owns the land above the pipes. What level of u will they choose now? Is this optimal? If not, calculate the deadweight loss. Gas company will mimize costs that include the damage to the land: 1 1 min u + 3 + u u and choose up = us = 2, which is optimal. There is no deadweight loss. 4. Suppose now that Jimmy Fallon, an ordinary private citizen, owns the property above the plant and can costlessly sue the natural gas company for the losses to his property. What level of u will be chosen by the natural gas company? How much will be paid from the gas company to Jimmy Fallon? Jimmy Fallon’s lawsuits impose a cost on the gas company of P (u) = 3 u1 . They will take this into account in their choice of u, choosing to minimize: 1 + P (u) u 1 1 = min u + + 3 u u min u + Therefore, they choose u = 2, the social optimum. The gas company will pay Jimmy for his property damage. 3 2 5. Suppose now that the courts are imperfect: For every $1 in actual damage, only 50% of the damage can be recouped in court. So, if the true damage to Jimmy is L, the gas company will only pay L2 . (a) Suppose Jimmy Fallon owns the property. What level of u will be chosen by the gas company? Is this e¢ cient? If not, what is the deadweight loss? 4 1 2 In this case, the gas company only pays P (u) = min u + or 1 1 + u 2 3 3 u1 . Therefore, they minimize 1 u 5 1 =0 2 u2 1 or u= r 5 2 This is not e¢ cient (u < 2). The total social costs are now r 5 1 + 4q 2 5 2 so that the deadweight loss is 0r @ 4 1 1 5 + 4q A 2 5 2 (b) Suppose the gas company owns the property. What level of u will be chosen? Is this e¢ cient? If not, what is the deadweight loss? If your answer is di¤erent than in (a), why? Have we violated an assumption of the coase theorem? This is the same as in part (3). The solution is e¢ cient. The 50% recoup rate imposes a transactions cost, which violates the assumptions of the coase theorem. Question Three Two power plants provide power to all of Cambridge: an MIT plant and a Harvard plant. Both power plants burn coal to produce electricity, and consequently produce smog as a by-product. The MIT power plant could reduce its smog, but at a total cost: cM (xM ) = 5 x2M where xM indicates the total number of units of smog abated by MIT. The Harvard plant is slightly less e¢ cient, and its total cost for cutting down on smog by xH is: cH (xH ) = 7 x2H + 10 xH : The Cambridge government hires a team of environmentalists who calculate that the total bene…t 5 of smog abatement to the city of Cambridge is 100 (xM + xH ): 1. Calculate the socially optimal level of abatement for each power plant. The social optimum equates marginal cost to marginal bene…t: 10xM = 100 =) xM = 10 90 14xH + 10 = 100 =) xH = 14 2. The Cambridge government considers imposing a tax on power production. (a) What tax should it impose to reach the abatement amounts you calculated in part (1)?1 The optimal tax would be the negative of the marginal bene…t, = 100 per unit of "non-abatement", or alternatively a subsidy of 100 for each unit abated. (b) Write down each …rm’s optimization problem under the tax, and show that each will privately choose the socially optimal abatement amount. Each …rm, i = H; M , chooses to maximize max 100xi ci (xi ) so that 100 = c0i (xi ) = 10xM = 14xH + 10 and each …rm chooses optimally. 3. Suppose that instead of taxation, the Cambridge government tries to regulate quantities. However, the city of Cambridge cannot write a law for each …rm, so it simply declares that all Cambridge power plants must cut down on smog by xC 1 units each year. Show that this is not e¢ cient with BOTH math and intuition. Intuitively, this is ine¢ cient because the marginal cost of abatement is di¤erent across the plants. The plants would like to abate at di¤erent levels. Mathematically, the marginal cost of abatement at Harvard is c0H (1) = 14 + 10 = 24. But, the marginal cost of abatement at MIT is c0M (1) = 10. Therefore, if MIT abated a bit more and Harvard a bit less, there could be more abatement for less cost. 4. Suddenly, an economist is voted in as Mayor of Cambridge. She declares that Cambridge power plants must cut down on smog by 5 units overall. Additionally, she declares that …rms will be able to competitively trade permits that will allow them NOT to abate. One of the 1 Hint: we can think of a Pigouvian tax here as a subsidy on abatement. So taxes on pollution provide …rms an incentive to abate. 6 mayor’s old classmates from graduate school runs the MIT power plant, so the Mayor grants MIT 5 permits and Harvard 0 permits. As a result, Harvard is expected to abate by 5 units, and MIT (since it owns all the permits) is not expected to abate at all. (a) Harvard will surely want to buy some of MIT’s permits. Explain intuitively (no math), why this trade might happen. The marginal cost of abatement at harvard when xH = 0 is 10, while the marginal cost of abatement at MIT is 10 5 = 50. It’s a lot cheaper to abate at Harvard than at MIT at the point where harvard does xH = 0 and MIT does xM = 5. (b) Denote the number of permits that MIT holds as yM (so that xM = 5 yM ), and denote the competitive price of permits as p. Derive the amount of permits that MIT will eventually hold as a function of p. MIT will choose to purchase permits until p = c0M (xM ) = 10xM so that xM = p 10 or p 10 yM = 5 is the demand for permits. (c) Calculate the amount of permits that Harvard will hold as a function of p. Harvard will purchase permits until p = c0H (xH ) = 14xH + 10 or xH = p or yH = 5 10 14 p 10 14 (d) Using that fact that yM + yH = 5, calculate p. We have 5 p 10 +5 14 7 p = 5 10 p p 10 5 = + 10 14 or p 1 1 + 10 14 =5+ 10 14 10 5 + 14 100 p= 1 1 = 3 + 14 10 (e) If the new mayor had divided the permits up di¤erently, what outcomes would have changed and what would have stayed the same? The abatement by each …rm would remain the same. The equilibrium abatement levels do not depend on who owned the permits in the …rst place. But, the pro…ts for each company depend on who owns the permits in the …rst place. If MIT owns the permits, they can sell them to Harvard and make more money (and vice-versa). But the amount of abatement done at each plant does not depend on who owned the permits in the …rst place. Question Four Vermont Hardwood crafts solid wood furniture using a combination of time-tested hand construction and modern …nishing techniques. Residual wood …nishing chemicals are washed away as run-o¤ and deposited in the nearby lake, a favorite …shing site for locals. A variety of technologies, including high volume, low pressure sprayers and on-site solvent recovery sills are available for implementation. These technologies allow the manufacturer to reduce chemical emissions at a cost: C1 (a) = 20 a2 where a is the level of pollution abatement. A city planner determines that the bene…t to the residents of pollution abatement is 10 per unit. 1. Sketch a graph depicting the private marginal costs and bene…ts of abatement, and label the private market equilibrium. On the same set of axis, sketch the social marginal costs and bene…ts of abatement, and label the e¢ cient outcome. Indicate the DWL if the city takes no action. 8 The private marginal bene…t is zero. The private marginal cost is mc = 40a. PMC=40a=SMC 10 SMB = 10 DWL a* a PMB = 0 2. Calculate the level of pollution abatement that is socially e¢ cient. SMC=SMB when 40a = 10, or a = 14 . 3. If the city institutes a per-unit tax on chemical emissions, what speci…c tax ( ) will reach the socially optimal amount of abatement? The city should choose = 10. The city planner is considering either taxing the …rm’s pollution or requiring the …rm to reach a minimum level of pollution abatement. However, given constant progress in abatement technologies the costs of abatement might reduce to: C2 (a) = 20 a2 a. Thus while the social bene…ts of abatement are known, the social costs are uncertain. 4. Suppose that the planner institutes the per-unit tax calculated in (b). Assume that the true costs of abatement are revealed as C2 (a) = 20 a2 a. Illustrate the problem graphically and indicate the DWL relative to the social optimum. What level of abatement will be undertaken by the …rm? Calculate the DWL. We have M C2 = 40a2 1. Now, the …rm will choose 40a2 1 = 10, or a2 = 11 . There is 40 no deadweight loss. The …rms adjust to the social optimum in response to the taxation. MC_1 MC_2 10 a_1 a_2 a 5. Suppose instead that the planner institutes a mandatory minimum abatement at the socially optimal level found in (2). Again, assume that the true costs of abatement are revealed as 9 C2 (a) = 20 a2 a. Illustrate the problem graphically and indicate the DWL relative to the social optimum. What level of abatement will be undertaken by the …rm? Calculate the DWL. In this case, the …rm abates a = 14 when the socially optimal level of abatement is 2 11 11 . Total welfare when . Total welfare under the socially optimal case is 40 9 20 11 40 40 1 1 11 2 abatement is 4 is 4 9 20 40 , yielding a DWL of 11 DW L = 9 40 20 11 40 2 1 9 4 20 11 40 2 ! as shown in the graph: MC_1 MC_2 10 DWL a_1 a 6. Given the uncertainty in abatement costs, which strategy makes the most sense for reducing pollution in this context? Taxation is better than quantity mandates is better 7. Intuitively discuss what is driving this result. Price controls are better than quantity regulation when the SMB curve is relatively ‡at (relative to the SMC curve). Setting a "price" allows one to get "closer" to the true social bene…t when the social bene…t curve is ‡at. If it’s steep, then using quantity regulation allows one to get close to the true social bene…t. In some sense, a ‡at SMB curve allows one to be relatively more con…dent in the level of the tax as opposed to the quantity of the abatement. Question Five Gilroy, CA is the garlic capital of the world. Unfortunately, the stench of garlic permeates all aspects of life in the city. There are only two residents willing to live within city-limits, Abe and Betty. Abe earns an income of 460, and Betty earns an income of 440. A traveling salesman is 10 visiting the town, o¤ering odor conversion units which conveniently inputs garlic odor and outputs clean air. Preferences over clean air (C) and all private consumption goods (xi ) for individual i are given by: Ui = 5 ln(xi ) + ln(C) The total provision of clear air is given as the sum of individual purchases: C = CA + CB (+CG when the local government purchases clean air in parts (4)-(5)). The price of clean air is 2 while the price of all other consumption goods is 1. 1. For both Abe and Betty, calculate each individual’s private provision of clean air, taking the other’s provision as given. That is, solve for CA as a function of CB in Abe’s optimization problem (and solve for CB as a function of CA in Betty’s optimization problem). Can you explain the sign on the contribution of the other resident in these response functions? Let yA , yB be the income of Abe and Betty. Given CB , Abe’s maximization problem is max 5 ln (xA ) + ln (CA + CB ) xA ;CA st xA + 2CA so, if A yA is the lagrange multiplier on the BC, we have 5 = xA 1 [CA ] : =2 CA + CB [xA ] : and xA = yA so that = and so 2CA 5 yA 2CA 1 10 = CA + CB yA 2CA or 10 (CA + CB ) = yA 2CA 12CA = yA 10CB yA 5 CA = CB 12 6 460 5 CA = CB 12 6 Now, also, by reversing A and B and noticing the convenient symmetry of the maximiza11 tion problem, we have yB 12 440 = 12 5 CA 6 5 CA 6 CB = CB Note that an individual’s contribution is inversely related to the contribution of others - this is because it’s a public good! If the other person contributes to air quality, it decreases my own marginal bene…t to contributing to air quality, so I invest less in it and choose to consume more x. 2. If the government does not intervene, what level of clean air will be provided? How many units are provided by Abe? How many by Betty? We search for the levels CB and CA such that both equations hold: 440 12 440 = 12 440 = 12 CB = CB 1 55 66 CB = 440 12 1 5 CA 6 5 460 5 CB 6 12 6 5 460 6 12 5 460 170 6 12 = 55 11 66 and 5 CB 6 5 170 280 = 6 11 11 460 12 460 = 12 CA = CA so that C= 170 280 450 + = 11 11 11 3. What is the socially optimal level of clean air provision? (You may assume a utilitarian social welfare function) Does this value di¤er from that found in (2)? Explain in the context of externalities. The social optimum is given by the samuelson condition M RSA + M RSB = priceratio or 1 C 5 xA 12 + 1 C 5 xB = 2 1 or xA xB + = 2 5C 5C xA + xB = 10C using the pooled budget constraint, we have xA + xB + 2C = 460 + 440 = 900 so xA + xB = 10C = 900 2C so 12C = 900 or C = 450 900 > 12 11 4. Suppose the local government is dissatis…ed with the level of private provision. The government taxes both Abe and Betty 30 each in lump-sum fashion (net-of-tax incomes are e¤ectively reduced to 440 and 410 respectively) to provide 30 units of clean air. Both Abe and Betty are free to purchase additional units of clean air if they …nd it privately optimal to do so. What is the total level of clean air provided? Clearly explain the impact of the taxation/provision by the local government on the private provision by each resident. How does this answer compare to (2)? Now, abe will choose yA 5 (CB + 30) 12 6 460 30 5 = (CB + 30) 12 6 430 5 5 = 30 CB 12 6 6 CA = and Betty will choose 440 30 5 (CA + 30) 12 6 410 5 5 = 30 CA 12 6 6 CB = 13 so equilibrium will be determined by 410 12 410 = 12 410 = 12 410 = 12 5 30 6 5 30 6 5 430 6 12 5 430 6 12 CB = CB CB CB 1 55 66 CB = 410 12 5 430 6 12 1 5 CA 6 5 430 6 12 5 1 6 5 1 6 5 1 65 6 55 66 5 5 30 CB 6 6 5 55 30 + CB 6 66 5 30 6 30 5 170 = < 11 11 and so 430 12 430 = 12 CA = 5 30 6 5 30 6 5 CB 6 5 5 115 280 = < 6 11 11 11 So, the total amount of clean air is C = 30 + 115 5 450 + = 11 11 11 Which is the same as in part (2)! The government provision of clean air completely "crowds-out" the clean air that would be provided by the agents. 14