- Greater equality – redistribute income and wealth to improve
equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
- Overcome market failure – Markets fail to take into account
externalities and are likely to under-produce public/merit goods.
For example, governments can subsidise or provide goods with
positive externalities.
- Macroeconomic intervention. – intervention to overcome
prolonged recessions and reduce unemployment.
- Disaster relief – only government can solve major health crisis
such as pandemics.
Arguments against government intervention
- Governments liable to make the wrong decisions – influenced by
political pressure groups, they spend on inefficient projects which
lead to an inefficient outcome.
- Personal freedom. Government intervention is taking away
individuals decision on how to spend and act. Economic intervention
takes some personal freedom away.
- The market is most efficient at deciding how and when to
produce.
Arguments for government intervention to improve equality
In a free market, there tends to be inequality in income, wealth
and opportunity. Private charity tends to be partial. Government
intervention is necessary to redistribute income within
society.
- Diminishing marginal returns to income. The law of diminishing
returns states that as income increases, there is a diminishing
marginal utility. If you have an income of £2 million a year. An
increase in income to £2.5 million gives only a marginal increase
in happiness/utility. For example, your third sports car gives only
a small increase in total utility.
- However, if you are unemployed, and surviving on £50 a week. A
10% increase in income gives a substantial boost in living
standards and quality of life. Therefore, redistributing income can
lead to a net welfare gain for society. Therefore income
redistribution can be justified from a utilitarian
perspective.
- Fairness. In a free market, inequality can be
created, not through ability and handwork, but privilege and
monopoly power. Without government intervention, firms can exploit
monopoly power to pay low wages to workers and charge high prices
to consumers. Without government intervention, we are liable to see
the growth of monopoly power. Government intervention can regulate
monopolies and promote competition. Therefore government
intervention can promote greater equality of income, which is
perceived as fairer.
- Inherited wealth. Often the argument is made that people should
be able to keep the rewards of their hard work. But, if wealth and
income and opportunity depend on being born into the right family,
is that justified? A wealth tax can reduce the wealth of the
richest, and this revenue can be used to spend on education for
those who are born in poor circumstances.
- Rawls social contract. Rawls’ social contract stated that the
ideal society is one where you would be happy to be born in any
situation, not knowing where you would end up. Using this social
contract, most people would not choose to be born in a free market
because the rewards are concentrated in the hands of a small
minority of the population. If people had no idea where they would
be born, they would be more likely to choose a society with a
degree of government intervention and redistribution.
Government intervention to overcome market failure
1. Public goods. In a free market, public goods such as law and
order and national defence would not be provided because there is
no financial incentive to provide goods with a free-rider problem
(you can enjoy without paying them). Therefore, to provide public
goods like lighthouses, police, roads, e.t.c it is necessary for a
government to pay for them and out of general taxation. see: public
goods
2. Merit goods / Positive externalities. Goods like education
and health care are not strictly public goods (though they are
often referred to as public goods). In a free market, provision
tends to be patchy and unequal. Universal education provided by the
government ensures that, in theory, everyone can gain an education,
which has a strong social benefit.
see: Government subsidy for goods with positive
externalities
3. Negative externalities. The free market does not provide the
most socially efficient outcome if there are externalities in
consumption and production. For example, a profit maximising firm
will ignore the external costs of pollution through burning coal.
This leads to a decline in social welfare. By contrast, other forms
of energy production, like solar power, are environmentally
friendly and have a positive externality. By taxing production
which causes pollution costs and using the subsidy to encourage
other forms of energy production, there is a net gain in social
welfare.
see: Tax on negative externalities
4. Regulation of monopoly power. In a free market, firms may
gain monopoly power; this enables them to set higher prices for
consumers. Government regulation of monopoly can lead to lower
prices and greater economic efficiency. See: Regulation of monopoly
power
5. Disaster relief. In a major disaster such as Coronavirus,
there is a strong need for government intervention in many forms as
the market cannot solve. Firstly, governments are needed to slow
the spread of a very infectious virus. This may involve imposing
lockdowns and quarantines. Secondly, there is a need for government
intervention to deal with the economic costs of these health
measures. For example, giving loans and subsidies to firms to keep
hiring workers during the difficult time period.
Should governments save declining industries?
- Yes. If large industries go out of business, there will be high
regional unemployment and market failure from the difficulty in
finding new jobs.
- No. If the government prop up declining industries, they will
be saddled with high costs and a permanently unprofitable
industry.