Question

1. Using an example of your choice, explain how, despite the Coase Theorum, the allocation of rights can:

1. Affect the distribution of income and
2. Affect market demand for different products

Answer 1

Coase Theorem is a legal and economic theory developed by economist Ronald Coase that affirms that where there are complete competitive markets with no transactions costs, an efficient set of inputs and outputs to and from production-optimal distribution will be selected, regardless of how property rights are divided. Further, the Coase Theorem asserts that if conflict arises over property rights under these assumptions, then parties will tend to settle on the efficient set of inputs and output.

The Coase Theorem is applied to situations where the economic activities of one party impose a cost on or damage the property of another party. Based on the bargaining that occurs during the application of the Coase Theorem, funds may either be offered to compensate one party for the other's activities or to pay the party who's activity inflicts the damages to forgo that activity.

For example, if a business is subject to a noise complaint initiated by neighboring households, the Coase Theorem leads to two possible settlements. The business may choose to offer financial compensation to the affected parties in order to be allowed to continue producing the noise. Or the business might refrain from producing the noise if the neighbors can be induced to pay the business to do so, in order to compensate the business for additional costs or lost revenue associated with noise abatement.

another example:

After the economists’ analytical assault, the case for smoking regulations seemed pretty thin in the early 1990s. Then, a new argument was proposed by World Bank economist Howard Barnum. It relied on welfare economics, a field of neoclassical economic theory designed to show that “market failures,” created by external costs or other types of “externalities” (phenomena that bypass the market), prevent free markets from maximizing social welfare. The welfare-economics argument against smoking has since been refined by other economists working with the World Bank, and has provided the intellectual basis for the Bank’s 1999 report on the smoking “epidemic.”…

The argument runs as follows. Smoking is not like other consumption choices, and the economic presumption of market efficiency does not apply. This is because, as the World Bank puts it, “many smokers are not fully aware of the high probability of disease and premature death,” and because of the addictive nature of tobacco.

Positive externalities are benefits that are infeasible to charge to provide; negative externalities are costs that are infeasible to charge to not provide. Ordinarily, as Adam Smith explained, selfishness leads markets to produce whatever people want; to get rich, you have to sell what the public is eager to buy. Externalities undermine the social benefits of individual selfishness. If selfish consumers do not have to pay producers for benefits, they will not pay; and if selfish producers are not paid, they will not produce. A valuable product fails to appear. The problem, as David Friedman aptly explains, “is not that one person pays for what someone else gets but that nobody pays and nobody gets, even though the good is worth more than it would cost to produce.

Most economic arguments for government intervention are based on the idea that the marketplace cannot provide public goods or handle externalities. Public health and welfare programs, education, roads, research and development, national and domestic security, and a clean environment all have been labeled public goods….

Externalities occur when one person’s actions affect another person’s well-being and the relevant costs and benefits are not reflected in market prices. A positive externality arises when my neighbors benefit from my cleaning up my yard. If I cannot charge them for these benefits, I will not clean the yard as often as they would like. (Note that the free-rider problem and positive externalities are two sides of the same coin.) A negative externality arises when one person’s actions harm another. When polluting, factory owners may not consider the costs that pollution imposes on others.

“The Problem of Social Cost,” Coase’s other widely cited article (661 citations between 1966 and 1980), was even more path-breaking. Indeed, it gave rise to the field called law and economics. Economists b.c. (Before Coase) of virtually all political persuasions had accepted British economist Arthur Pigou’s idea that if, say, a cattle rancher’s cows destroy his neighboring farmer’s crops, the government should stop the rancher from letting his cattle roam free or should at least tax him for doing so. Otherwise, believed economists, the cattle would continue to destroy crops because the rancher would have no incentive to stop them.

But Coase challenged the accepted view. He pointed out that if the rancher had no legal liability for destroying the farmer’s crops, and if transaction costs were zero, the farmer could come to a mutually beneficial agreement with the rancher under which the farmer paid the rancher to cut back on his herd of cattle. This would happen, argued Coase, if the damage from additional cattle exceeded the rancher’s net returns on these cattle. If for example, the rancher’s net return on a steer was two dollars, then the rancher would accept some amount over two dollars to give up the additional steer. If the steer was doing three dollars’ worth of harm to the crops, then the farmer would be willing to pay the rancher up to three dollars to get rid of the steer. A mutually beneficial bargain would be struck.

Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption. “Nonexcludability” means that the cost of keeping nonpayers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive. If an entrepreneur stages a fireworks show, for example, people can watch the show from their windows or backyards. Because the entrepreneur cannot charge a fee for consumption, the fireworks show may go unproduced, even if demand for the show is strong

Underlying both cases is the assumption that free markets determine prices and that there are no market failures. But market failures can occur. A market failure arises, for example, when polluters do not have to pay for the pollution they produce. But such market failures or “distortions” can arise from governmental action as well. Thus, governments may distort market prices by, for example, subsidizing production, as European governments have done in aerospace, as many other governments have done in electronics and steel, and as all wealthy countries’ governments do in agriculture. Or governments may protect intellectual property inadequately, leading to underproduction of new knowledge; they may also overprotect it. In such cases, production and trade, guided by distorted prices, will not be efficient.

As seen in our experiment, we reached three nights of barbecuing no matter who had the property right. While the efficient solution is reached under both scenarios, there is a difference in the income distribution.

In many cases, transaction costs are high and negotiating can be difficult. Acid rain, for example, impacts a wide area involving millions of people. When property rights are not clearly defined, the matter is often taken to the judicial system. Some individuals will try to use the court system to force an outcome in their favor.