Question

(1) Identify a current federal, state, or local public policy issue that: (a) interests you, (b) allows you to apply microeconomic reasoning, and (c) has not been thoroughly covered within our class. (You may write about an issue that has been discussed in class if you address the issue in greater depth or in a new direction.) (2) Research your issue to familiarize yourself with the major policy and microeconomic arguments that relate to your issue. (3) Apply at least one microeconomic concept studied in our class such as incentives, marginal thinking and sunk costs, opportunity cost, elasticity, competition, externalities, public or common property goods, efficiency, poverty and/or equity, etc., to develop a policy position regarding your issue. (4) Identify your target audience and advocate for your position  

What to Submit:

The product of this assignment is an original one (or at most two) page (less than 500 words, excluding references - Policy memos must be short or they won’t be read by busy politicians or voters!) persuasive public policy memo or editorial. The memo or editorial should be addressed to a specific real-world audience (e.g. a particular politician, newspaper, etc.). It should be written carefully and include a statement of the policy issue, your microeconomic argument (in language appropriate for your audience), and evidence to support your recommendation (e.g., a statistical finding that supports your proposal, a quote from a prominent economist, or other evidence). Appropriately cite at least one source other than the Openstax and Economics for Life books on a separate page below your memo.

Grading:

Your grade will be based primarily on the accuracy and quality of your economic argument and the persuasiveness of your memo or editorial.

Example Public Policy Topics:

Traffic Control, Gas or Other Product Taxes, Education Reform, Crime Deterrence, Pollution Control, Poverty and Inequality, Price Control Policies, Monopoly Regulation, Safety Regulation, Drug Policy, Health Care Reform, Social Security Reform, Farm Subsidies, Protection of Species, Funding for a Public Good, etc.

Answer 1

Policies to reduce pollution

What policies can a government use to reduce pollution?

Pollution is a negative externality – a cost to society. To reduce pollution, the government can use four main policies – tax to raise the price, subsidise alternatives, regulations to ban certain pollutants and pollution permits.

Government policies to reduce pollution

1. Tax. e.g. Carbon tax, which makes people pay the social cost of pollution.
2. Subsidy. e.g. subsidy of alternative energy sources.
3. Pollution permits, e.g. carbon trading schemes where firms are given the right to pollute a certain amount; these permits can be traded with other firms.
4. Regulation. Limits on a number of pollutants that can be discarded into the atmosphere.
5. Changing consumer behaviour – e.g. through advertising, nudges.

1. Tax

The idea of a tax is to make consumers and producers pay the full social cost of producing pollution. For example, petrol tax or a carbon tax.

In this case, the social marginal cost (SMC) of producing the good is greater than the private marginal cost (PMC) The difference is the external cost of the pollution. The tax shifts the supply curve to S2 and therefore, consumers are forced to pay the full social marginal cost. This reduces the quantity consumed to Q2, which is the socially efficient outcome (because the SMC=SMB)

Evaluation

• The advantage of this scheme is that the government raises substantial revenue, which could be used to finance other pollution reduction schemes (e.g. subsidising alternatives)
• It provides a market incentive for firms to offer more efficient engines, which cause less pollution. Increased petrol tax has created an incentive for firms and consumers to switch to less fuel intensive engines.
• One drawback of tax is that demand may be quite inelastic and that an increase in petrol tax may do little to reduce demand and only marginally reduce the amount of pollution. Though in the long term, demand may become more elastic as people switch to other forms of transport over time.
• Another potential problem is that it can be difficult to implement green taxes due to administration costs or it is difficult to know how much to tax.
• In practical terms (non-economic issue), the difficulty is often political resistance – people never like paying new taxes, even if there is a long-term goal of reducing pollution.
• More detail on pros and cons of carbon tax

2. Pollution Permits

Pollution permits are a market-based scheme aimed at reducing pollution and trying to encourage firms to reduce the quantity of pollution they create. Permits create a financial incentive to pollute less because you can then sell your excess permits to other firms. In theory, it can be a good way to reduce pollution, using the incentives of the market.

But, in practice, it can be difficult to implement. It is difficult to know how many permits to give out. If the government is too generous, there will be little pollution reduction. If the government is too strict in implementing permits, firms may complain it adversely affects output because they can not get enough permits. This could harm economic prosperity.

Another practical difficulty of permits is that it is difficult to measure the amount of pollution created. There may be an incentive to cheat and hide the amount of pollution a firm creates. This could make the scheme ineffective.

3. Subsidies

A tax may be ineffective if there are no practical alternatives. However, if the government subsidies alternatives, then firms and consumers will be more willing to switch. For example, solar power is an alternative to burning coal. A government subsidy can make solar power competitive and encourage its development. The subsidy is justified because the development of solar power has a significant positive externality. (See: how close solar power is to other forms of energy)

See: subsidy on positive externality

The problem of subsidies is that there is always a danger government subsidies could be misused. Firms may take the subsidy but keep the money for extra profit rather than for developing the alternative energy source. The government may lack the proper information on what types of energy or firms to subsidise. This may lead to public money being wasted, with little reduction in pollution.

4. Regulation

The EU has created many regulations for limiting the amount of pollution in the air. EU pollution regulations This sets strict limits on the number of pollutants put into the air. The advantage of regulation is that they create clearly defined goals and can make sure that pollution levels are actually reduced rather than relying on market-based incentives, which may or may not work.

In the 1950s, the Clean Air Act (1956) was very effective in reducing the visible smogs from cities, such as London. The act banned the burning of coal in domestic homes in major cities.

The main drawback of regulation is that they can be difficult to enforce, e.g. having regulations on air pollution levels, doesn’t say how that will be achieved. You may still need taxes or directives to make sure air pollution levels are reduced.

5. Changing consumer behaviour

Another strategy would be to encourage consumers to change their behaviour. For example, raising awareness of the environmental costs of leaving on heating/air conditioning.

The government could also use ‘nudges‘ from behavioural theory to encourage different behaviour which discourages pollution. For example, signs at schools ‘please turn off the engine’ when waiting to pick people up’ – a simple reminder encourages people to turn off engine reducing pollution.

Alternatively, if the government offer better cycle lanes and firms offer showers at work, these small nudges may encourage people to cycle to work rather than drive.

6. Free market solutions

Some argue solutions to pollution can come from the free market and we don’t need any government intervention. For example, in recent years technological development, falling costs of solar power mean that cleaner energy is now more competitive than many fossil fuels. However, we can’t always leave to the free market because of the free-rider effect. Smog which used to blight London only ended when the government banned domestic coal fires in major cities.