Skip to main content

What is the significance of information failure for the consumption of merit goods?

 

1. 

A merit good is one with positive externalities which is excludable, but which will be under produced and overpriced in the market. The socially optimum level of such a good will therefore not be provided, leading to a welfare loss.

This might be because of the nature of the good but could also be because people might not recognise the benefits which arise from use of the good. This could be because the good has a long-term advantage for people which is difficult to compute. A liberal arts degree which gives rise to a love of and familiarity with literature, poetry, philosophy, history, or art, for instance, might enrich a life, encourage mental health benefits such as patience and resilience, and allow for greater productivity and problem-solving over time than, for instance, an MBA

Some industries could be subject to this type of information failure. The education, healthcare, and insurance industries are all predicated upon the possibility of future loss and future gain, for instance, though none can predict the future. Therefore, those who can afford to pay for them are often distinct from those who might benefit from them, and those who need them in fact often cannot access them financially. This leads to a loss of welfare, productivity, and investment as individuals face needless reverses or difficulties.

A lack of information undermines the market system because the price mechanism is an information device, which allocates, indicates, and incentivises. It will become distorted when the discovery of ‘true’ price is hidden. This asymmetry leads to multiple failure, waste, and unfairness. It favours those who can afford to fund ways around the asymmetry, by using consultants or private sources of information, whilst it actively disfavours those who do not start with the advantage of wealth. In such circumstances, individuals through ignorance might actively resist government activity intended to increase the provision of information or merit goods directly. Those who feel that they have all information in this sub-optimal system might also labour under a moral hazard in which they feel more protected than others against, for instance, ignorance or ill-health, when these things could and do strike anyone, often with disastrous consequences.

Markets are sometimes mistaken for each other. The internet, for instance, is a doorway to the greatest compilation of information in human history, but the consequence has not been an information economy. Instead, an attention economy exists, in which people are encouraged to visit sites or to imbibe information which benefits advertisers and provides dopamine ‘hits.’ These do so by relying on sensationalism, distortion, or the satisfaction of addictive political or personal fantasies. The drugs market worked in a similar way in the unregulated nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During that time, for instance, cocaine and morphine were prescribed by unqualified salespeople for women and children, tired or obese people were put on amphetamines, and soldiers were sustained in some cases by the equivalent of crystal methamphetamine.

The attention economy results in disinformation, generalised stupidity and poor choices, and a disrespect for earned opinion. These outcomes have negative economic and social consequences in terms of policy.

At a less elevated level, information failure results in inelasticity, consumer inertia, and a mismatch of power that then leads to price discrimination and the use of advertising and marketing to worsen irrational choices. These are bad for economies as they reallocate consumer surplus to the profits of companies, which can become oligopolies or monopolies that undermine economic efficiency, waste time and resources, and exploit labour value. As everything has a positive side, they could also provide security of supply and be regulated into the benign consequences of economies of scale by government policy, but this is not a given.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

To what extent do specialisation and the division of labour address the basic economic problem?

  1.   The basic economic problem illustrates the difficulty caused by the fact that economic goods are limited and subject to resource constraints but wants are unlimited. A choice therefore must be made, which gives rise to opportunity cost. Specialisation seeks to lower costs and thereby improve productivity by increasing the quantity and quality of output from firms. It does this by concentrating individuals or economic enterprises (or occasionally whole economies) on particular parts of the production or supply chain. This is often accompanied by the division of labour, in which individual workers or small teams of workers focus on particular aspects of the production process for a good or service. If correctly carried out, specialisation increases output and efficiency, leading to gains in terms of welfare and pareto efficiency for societies (shown by the outward movement of a production possibility curve.) It can also lead to lower costs, and possibly to production ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inequality, Part One: the greatest market failure?

    Income inequality arises when different consumers have different incomes, and different people have different talents. It could also arise because of the source of income or the value of the talents. For instance, employees might have different incomes from each other because of different marginal labour products, different factor returns to their labour, or different elasticities of labour. People might have different skills for which there is a greater or lesser need and employers, or the purchasers of labour might have different demands. Equally, entrepreneurs often take greater risks than others, and thereby expect and receive greater rewards than those who do not take risks. There might be different factor returns to capital or land, which result in various levels of profit, dividend, or rent, for those who do not live by the return to their labour value. A functional market would bring all these diverse groups together as suppliers and consumers and would matc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is the existence of different wages a problem for societies, and if so, how can it be remedied?

  Adam Smith, and Karl Marx, both believed that labour value lies at the heart of all economic value. Commodities, goods, and services arise from the interaction of land, labour, and capital. Since Land is fixed until new land is cleared or built by workers, and since capital enhances labour and is invented by people, they both thought that the only people who added value in economic transactions were workers. This theory of labour value was qualified in the second half of the twentieth century by the elevation of entrepreneurialism as a factor of production. The enterprising businesspeople who took on risks, brought factors together, and who were rewarded with profit having been prepared to make losses, were elevated to a ‘fourth factor.’ This idea makes some sense, but also serves to undermine the idea that labour value on its own creates economic value. If labour has value, some argue that the value of time taken from a life to work should be viewed equally. This means t...
Post a Comment
Read more