A Level Economics 38: Evaluating Perfect Competition

Perfectly competitive markets have both strengths and limitations, which can be evaluated based on their characteristics, including allocative and productive efficiency:

1. Strengths of Perfectly Competitive Markets: a. Allocative Efficiency: Perfectly competitive markets achieve allocative efficiency, meaning resources are allocated in a way that maximizes consumer welfare. Prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand, reflecting consumers' preferences and willingness to pay. Firms produce at the quantity where the market price equals the marginal cost, ensuring that resources are used efficiently to meet consumer demands.

   b. Productive Efficiency: In the long run, perfectly competitive markets achieve productive efficiency. Firms produce at the minimum average total cost, meaning they are using resources as efficiently as possible. No firm can produce at a lower cost, and any inefficiency would lead to losses and exit from the market.

   c. Consumer Welfare: Perfect competition benefits consumers by providing a wide range of products at competitive prices. The absence of market power allows firms to compete solely on price and quality, leading to affordable products for consumers.

   d. Innovation and Dynamic Efficiency: The threat of competition encourages firms to innovate and adopt more efficient production methods. Dynamic efficiency is fostered as firms strive to stay ahead and adapt to changing market conditions.

2. 
   

3. Limitations of Perfectly Competitive Markets: a. Lack of Product Diversity: In perfect competition, all firms produce identical or homogenous products. This limits the availability of diverse products in the market, as there is no differentiation between offerings.

   b. Long Run Equilibrium May Not Be Attained: Perfectly competitive markets assume free entry and exit, but in reality, certain barriers may prevent firms from entering or exiting as freely. As a result, long-run equilibrium may not always be achieved.

   c. Inefficient Resource Allocation: While perfect competition ensures allocative efficiency at the market level, it does not guarantee an optimal allocation of resources at the economy-wide level. Some resources may be underutilized or misallocated across industries.

   d. Ignoring Externalities: Perfect competition assumes no externalities, such as pollution or social costs. In reality, certain industries may impose external costs on society, which are not reflected in the market price.

   e. Real-World Imperfections: Real markets rarely conform perfectly to the assumptions of perfect competition. Information asymmetry, market power, and imperfect factor mobility are examples of real-world imperfections that can affect the functioning of markets.

In conclusion, perfectly competitive markets exhibit strengths such as allocative and productive efficiency, consumer welfare, and the promotion of innovation. However, they also face limitations related to product diversity, barriers to entry, externalities, and real-world imperfections. While perfect competition provides an ideal benchmark for market efficiency, actual markets often deviate from these assumptions, and policymakers need to address such deviations to ensure fair competition and consumer welfare.

A Level Economics 33: Efficiency

1. Productive and Allocative Efficiency:

a. Productive Efficiency: Productive efficiency refers to a situation where a firm or an economy produces goods and services at the lowest possible cost, given the existing technology and inputs. It occurs when a firm is producing on its production possibility frontier (PPF), meaning it is utilizing all available resources in the most efficient way. In other words, it produces the maximum output possible from the given inputs.

Illustration: Imagine a smartphone manufacturing company that uses advanced technology and skilled labor to produce smartphones. If the company operates at a point on its PPF, it is considered productively efficient. Any point inside the PPF represents underutilization of resources, and any point outside the PPF is unattainable with the current resources and technology.

b. Allocative Efficiency: Allocative efficiency occurs when resources are allocated in a way that maximizes society's overall welfare or utility. It happens when the marginal benefit of producing an additional unit of a good or service equals the marginal cost of producing that unit. In allocative efficiency, the distribution of goods and services is such that consumers' preferences are satisfied, given the available resources.

Illustration: Consider a healthcare system that allocates resources to different medical treatments. Allocative efficiency would mean allocating more resources to medical treatments that provide significant health benefits to patients, while reducing resources for treatments that offer minimal or no health improvements. By doing so, society's overall welfare is maximized, and resources are used optimally.

2. Dynamic and Pareto Efficiency:

a. Dynamic Efficiency: Dynamic efficiency refers to the ability of an economy to continually innovate, adapt, and improve over time. It involves maximizing the rate of growth in an economy and adjusting to changes in technology, consumer preferences, and market conditions. Dynamic efficiency is essential for long-term economic growth and sustained improvements in living standards.

Illustration: A dynamic and innovative technology sector that consistently develops new products, such as smartphones with advanced features, illustrates dynamic efficiency. The ability to innovate and stay ahead of competitors allows the sector to grow, attract investment, and contribute to overall economic progress.

b. Pareto Efficiency: Pareto efficiency, also known as Pareto optimality, occurs when resources are allocated in a way that no individual can be made better off without making someone else worse off. In a Pareto-efficient allocation, it is impossible to improve the well-being of one person without reducing the well-being of another.

Illustration: Consider a scenario where a company wants to expand its production by using more resources, but doing so would result in reducing the resources available for another company. If the expansion of one company makes it better off but makes the other company worse off, the initial allocation was not Pareto efficient. Achieving Pareto efficiency requires reallocating resources so that both companies' welfare is maximized without harming each other.

In summary, productive efficiency focuses on producing goods and services at the lowest cost, while allocative efficiency ensures that resources are allocated to maximize societal welfare. Dynamic efficiency refers to an economy's ability to innovate and grow over time, and Pareto efficiency ensures that no individual can be made better off without making someone else worse off. Each of these concepts plays a crucial role in understanding and improving the overall performance of an economy.

A Level Economics 9: Specialisation and Productivity

 Define productivity and explain how it may be increased by the use of specialisation and other factors.

Productivity refers to the efficiency with which inputs, such as labor, capital, and resources, are utilized to produce goods or services. It measures the output generated per unit of input.

Specialization can increase productivity through various mechanisms:

1. Focus and Expertise: When individuals or firms specialize in specific tasks or industries, they can concentrate their efforts, time, and resources on developing specialized skills and knowledge. This focus allows them to become more proficient and efficient in their area of specialization, leading to higher productivity. For example, a factory worker who specializes in assembling a particular component of a product can become highly skilled and efficient in that specific task, leading to increased productivity.

2. Division of Labor: Specialization enables the division of labor, where different individuals or groups focus on specific tasks within the production process. This division allows for greater efficiency, as workers can become more specialized in their respective roles, eliminating the need to switch between various tasks. By specializing and dividing tasks, each worker can become highly skilled in their area, resulting in increased productivity for the overall production process.

3. Economies of Scale: Specialization can lead to economies of scale, which occur when larger quantities of goods or services are produced, resulting in lower average costs. Specialized firms can take advantage of efficiencies and streamlined processes specific to their area of expertise, allowing them to produce at a larger scale, reduce per-unit costs, and increase productivity.

Apart from specialization, other factors that can contribute to increased productivity include:

1. Technological Advancements: The adoption of advanced technologies, machinery, and automation can enhance productivity by improving efficiency, reducing errors, and increasing output. Technological advancements can streamline production processes, minimize waste, and optimize resource utilization, leading to higher productivity levels.

2. Human Capital Development: Investing in education, training, and skill development enhances the knowledge and capabilities of the workforce. A skilled and knowledgeable workforce can contribute to higher productivity levels by applying their expertise effectively in their respective roles. Continuous learning and upskilling can improve productivity by keeping workers updated with the latest practices and technologies.

3. Infrastructure and Access to Resources: Adequate infrastructure, including transportation networks, communication systems, and reliable access to resources, can support productivity growth. Efficient infrastructure reduces bottlenecks, allows for smoother operations, and facilitates the movement of goods and services. Access to necessary resources, such as raw materials or energy sources, enables uninterrupted production, contributing to increased productivity.

4. Effective Management Practices: Strong management practices, such as strategic planning, efficient coordination, and effective supervision, can positively impact productivity. Well-designed organizational structures, clear communication channels, and performance incentives can motivate employees and ensure smooth operations, enhancing productivity within a firm or organization.

In summary, productivity is increased through specialization by leveraging focus, expertise, division of labor, and economies of scale. Additionally, factors such as technological advancements, human capital development, infrastructure, and effective management practices also contribute to improved productivity levels in an economy or organization.

A Level Economics 5: Production Possibility Frontier

Consider an economy that produces two goods, computers and bicycles. Explain why the PPF is typically drawn as a concave curve to the origin when representing the trade-off between these goods. Additionally, discuss what it means when a PPF is depicted as a straight line and how it relates to perfect factor substitutability.

The PPF is usually drawn as a concave curve to the origin when representing the trade-off between two goods, such as computers and bicycles. This concave shape reflects the concept of imperfect factor substitution.

The concave curve of the PPF signifies that resources used in production are not equally efficient in producing both goods. It suggests that as an economy shifts resources from producing one good to the other, there is a diminishing marginal rate of transformation (MRT). In simpler terms, it means that as more resources are allocated to producing one good, the economy must sacrifice increasing amounts of the other good. This diminishing MRT arises due to factors like specialization, different resource requirements, or technological limitations.

On the other hand, a straight-line PPF represents perfect factor substitutability. In this scenario, resources used in production can be easily switched between producing one good and the other without any loss of efficiency or trade-off. The straight-line PPF indicates that the economy can reallocate resources between the two goods without experiencing diminishing returns or increased opportunity costs.

Perfect factor substitutability implies that the production technology used in the economy allows for seamless and efficient switching of resources between goods. For example, if the production process for computers and bicycles is highly flexible, and resources like labor and capital can be effortlessly shifted, the economy can produce any combination of computers and bicycles along the straight-line PPF without facing any loss in productivity.

However, it is essential to note that in reality, perfect factor substitutability is rare. Most production processes involve specialized resources, different skill sets, and specific technologies, leading to diminishing returns and trade-offs between goods, as represented by the concave shape of the PPF.

In summary, the concave shape of the PPF demonstrates imperfect factor substitution, indicating diminishing returns and trade-offs between goods. A straight-line PPF, on the other hand, signifies perfect factor substitutability, suggesting that resources can be interchanged without any loss in productivity or trade-offs between goods.

Economics Essay 73: Perfect Competition and Efficiency

Explain how perfect competition should lead to outcomes which are both productively and allocatively efficient.

Perfect competition is a market structure characterized by a large number of buyers and sellers, homogeneous products, free entry and exit, perfect information, and no market power. In such a competitive market, the forces of supply and demand interact freely, leading to outcomes that are both productively and allocatively efficient.

1. Productive Efficiency: Productive efficiency occurs when goods and services are produced at the lowest possible cost. In perfect competition, firms face intense competition, which drives them to minimize their costs of production. This is achieved through various mechanisms:

a. Price competition: In perfect competition, all firms sell homogeneous products at a market-determined price. Firms have no control over the price and must accept it as given. To stay competitive, firms strive to minimize their costs and increase their efficiency to ensure profitability. This drives firms to adopt cost-saving technologies, improve production processes, and achieve economies of scale, resulting in productive efficiency.

b. Entry and exit: Perfect competition allows for free entry and exit of firms in the market. If a firm is unable to operate efficiently and incur losses in the long run, it can exit the market. On the other hand, if a firm identifies an opportunity for profit, it can enter the market. This constant entry and exit mechanism ensure that only efficient firms survive in the long run, leading to overall productive efficiency in the market.

2. Allocative Efficiency: Allocative efficiency occurs when resources are allocated in a way that maximizes social welfare, where the marginal benefit of consuming a good equals its marginal cost of production. In perfect competition, allocative efficiency is achieved through the following mechanisms:

a. Price as a signaling mechanism: In a perfectly competitive market, the price of a product is determined by the interaction of demand and supply. The price acts as a signal for both consumers and producers. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise, signaling producers to increase production. Conversely, when supply exceeds demand, prices fall, signaling producers to reduce production. This process ensures that resources are allocated to the production of goods and services that are in high demand, leading to allocative efficiency.

b. Zero economic profit in the long run: In the long run, firms in perfect competition earn only normal profits, where total revenue equals total cost. This implies that firms are operating at the point where marginal cost equals price. At this equilibrium, resources are allocated efficiently, as any reallocation would lead to either higher costs or lower revenues. Therefore, perfect competition ensures that resources are allocated in a way that maximizes social welfare.

In summary, perfect competition leads to outcomes that are both productively and allocatively efficient. Productive efficiency is achieved through cost minimization and the entry and exit of firms, while allocative efficiency is achieved through the price mechanism and zero economic profit in the long run. These characteristics of perfect competition ensure that resources are allocated optimally and goods and services are produced at the lowest possible cost, benefiting both consumers and society as a whole.

A Level Economics Essay 25: Productive and Allocative Efficiency

 Using diagrams, explain the ways in which allocative and productive efficiency are efficient. 

1. Allocative efficiency is considered efficient because it ensures that resources are allocated in a way that maximizes overall societal welfare. When resources are allocated according to consumer preferences, the production of goods and services reflects the desires and needs of society. This leads to several benefits:

• Maximum satisfaction: Allocative efficiency aims to produce the combination of goods and services that provides the highest level of satisfaction to consumers. It ensures that resources are devoted to producing goods that are in high demand, satisfying consumer preferences to the fullest extent possible.

• No waste or underutilization: Allocative efficiency avoids misallocation of resources, preventing wasteful production of goods that are not desired by consumers. It ensures that resources are not underutilized in the production of goods that have low demand, thereby avoiding inefficiencies.

• Improved resource allocation: By aligning production with consumer preferences, allocative efficiency encourages the efficient allocation of resources. Scarce resources are directed toward the production of goods that have the greatest value to society, resulting in better resource utilization and economic efficiency.

2. Productive Efficiency: Productive efficiency is considered efficient because it allows an economy to produce the maximum possible output with the given resources and technology. Achieving productive efficiency has several advantages:

• Optimal resource utilization: Productive efficiency ensures that resources are used in the most efficient way to produce goods and services. It minimizes waste, reduces unnecessary costs, and maximizes output per unit of resources employed.

• Cost minimization: Productive efficiency leads to cost minimization in the production process. When resources are used efficiently, costs are reduced, enabling firms to produce goods at the lowest possible cost. This can result in lower prices for consumers and improved competitiveness in the market.

• Increased productivity: Productive efficiency drives improvements in productivity, as resources are allocated optimally and production processes are streamlined. Higher productivity enables firms to produce more output with the same level of resources, contributing to economic growth and higher living standards.

Both allocative efficiency and productive efficiency are important for overall economic efficiency and growth. Allocative efficiency ensures that resources are allocated to meet consumer preferences, while productive efficiency ensures that resources are used optimally to maximize output. By achieving both types of efficiency, an economy can experience improved resource allocation, lower costs, increased productivity, and ultimately, higher standards of living.

This pandemic has exposed the uselessness of orthodox economics

Post Covid-19, our priority should be to build resilient systems explicitly designed to withstand worst-case scenarios opines Jonathan Aldred in The Guardian 

 

‘Framing the future in terms of probabilities gives us the illusion of knowledge and control, which is extraordinarily tempting, but it’s all hubris.’ Photograph: Daniel Sorabji/AFP via Getty Images


Even before the pandemic came along, the world economy faced a set of deepening crises: a climate emergency, extreme inequality and huge disruption to the world of work, with robots and AI systems replacing humans.

Conventional economic theories have had little to offer. On the contrary, they have acted like a cage around our thinking, vetoing a range of progressive policy ideas as unaffordable, counter-productive, incompatible with free markets, and so on. Worse than that, economics has led us, in a subtle, insidious way, to internalise a set of values and ways of seeing the world that prevents us even imagining various forms of radical change.

Since economic orthodoxy is so completely embedded in our thinking, escape from it demands more than a short-term spending splurge to prevent immediate economic collapse, vital though that is. We must dig deeper to uncover the economic roots of the mess we’re in. Putting it more positively, what do we want from post-coronavirus economics?

Mainstream economics has taught us that the only rational way to deal with an uncertain future is to quantify it, by assigning a probability to every possibility. But even with the best expertise in the world, our knowledge often falls far short. Frequently we struggle to predict which outcomes are more likely. Worse still, there may be outcomes we haven’t even considered, futures that no one had imagined, as the pandemic has so vividly shown.

Framing the future in terms of probabilities gives us the illusion of knowledge and control, which is extraordinarily tempting, but it’s all hubris. In the run-up to the 2007 financial crisis, bankers were proud of their models. Then that August, the Goldman Sachs chief financial officer admitted the bank had spotted huge price moves in some financial markets, several times in one week. Yet according to its models, each of these moves was supposed to be less likely than winning the UK national lottery jackpot 21 times in a row. World events sometimes demand humility.

There are clear lessons here for how to address the climate emergency: rather than focusing on the average climate impacts predicted by mathematical models that depend on probabilistic knowledge that is highly unreliable, we must think seriously about worst-case scenarios, and take steps to avoid them. Yet economic orthodoxy pushes us away from precautionary action. If mainstream economics has a single overarching objective or principle, it is efficiency.

Efficiency means getting the most “bang for your buck”, the most benefit for every pound spent. Any other course of action is wasteful, surely? But eliminating waste implies eliminating excess capacity, and we now see the consequences of that in health systems worldwide. Our obsession with efficiency, if it means failing to plan for a pandemic or a climate emergency, will cost lives.

Our priority should be resilience, not efficiency. We need to build resilient systems and economies that are explicitly designed to withstand worst-case scenarios – and have a fighting chance of coping with unforeseen disasters too.

Ultimately the problem with economic orthodoxy lies in how it frames our values and priorities. Decisions must always be about trade-offs – the weighing up of costs against benefits, ideally measured through prices in markets. If we take our ignorance about the future seriously, this cost-benefit calculus should not even get started. Because costs outweighing benefits is the oldest excuse for not taking precautions – and is a recipe for disaster when the benefits, or the costs of inaction, are vastly undervalued.

Cost-benefit thinking also leads us to assume that all values can be expressed in monetary terms. Many politicians and business leaders fixate on statements such as “a 2°C rise in average global temperature will reduce GDP by up to 2%”, as though a fall in GDP measures the true costs of the climate emergency.

In practice, this thinking means that the value of everything is measured by how much people offer to pay for it. Since the rich can always pay more than the poor, priorities get skewed towards the desires of the rich, away from the needs of the poor. So more money is spent on R&D for anti-wrinkle creams than for malaria treatments. Big Pharma has been relatively uninterested in developing vaccines, because a vaccination programme only works if the poor get vaccinated too, which limits the price manufacturers can charge.

We might seem to be beyond that now: the world has woken up, and rich countries will spend “whatever it takes” to tackle the pandemic. But Covid 19 vaccine research – and countless other fields of medical research with the potential to save as many lives in the long-term – needs continuous, reliable funding over many years. Once the market sees better profit elsewhere, funding will be cut, and the researchers will retire or move on, their experience lost.

Economic orthodoxy supports the narrative that this pandemic is a unique disaster no one could have prepared for, and with no wider lessons for economics and politics. This story suits some of the world’s billionaires, but it’s not true. There is an alternative: the pandemic provides further evidence that to tackle the climate emergency, inequality and any emerging crises, we must re-think our economics from the bottom up.

Coronavirus is our chance to completely rethink what the economy is for

The pandemic has revealed the danger of prizing ‘efficiency’ above all else. The recent slowdown in our lives points to another way of doing things. Malcolm Bull in The Guardian

 

Illustration: Matt Kenyon/The Guardian


There’s been a lot of argument about how best to handle the coronavirus pandemic, but if there are two things on which most people currently agree, it’s that governments should have been better prepared, and that everyone should get back to work as soon as it is safe to do so. After all, it seems more or less self-evident that you need to be ready for unexpected contingencies – and that it is better for the economy to function at full capacity. More PPE would have saved doctors’ and nurses’ lives; more work means less unemployment and more growth.

But there is a catch to this, and it has been at the heart of political debate since Machiavelli. It is impossible to achieve both goals at once. Contingency planning requires unused capacity, whereas exploiting every opportunity to the full means losing the flexibility needed to respond to sudden changes of fortune.

It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that economists started to realise that it might be better to leave a bit of slack in the economy to help cope with exogenous shocks. In the years after the Great Depression, governments saw the problem as “idle men, idle land, idle machines and idle money”. But there were also economists, such as the Englishman William Hutt, who went against the Keynesian consensus and pointed out that there were some things – fire extinguishers, for example – that were valuable precisely because they were never used. Having large stocks of PPE, underemployed nurses, or a lot of spare capacity in ICUs, falls into the same category. Idle resources are what you need in a crisis, so some degree of inefficiency isn’t necessarily a bad idea. 

Trying to manage a pandemic in a world of just-in-time production lines and precarious labour brings these issues into sharper focus. On the one hand, there weren’t enough idle resources for most countries to cope adequately with the spread of the virus. On the other, the enforced idleness of the lockdown leads to calls to get the economy moving again.

For Donald Trump, the prospect of a prolonged shutdown is particularly alarming because it threatens to undermine the competitiveness of the US economy relative to other nations (notably China) that have dealt with the crisis more efficiently. That’s an argument Machiavelli would have understood very well. One of his constant refrains was that idleness could lead to what he called corruption (the diversion of resources from the public good, which Trump equates with the Dow Jones Industrial Average) – and that corruption leads inevitably to defeat at the hands of your rivals.

For Machiavelli, the contagion of corruption was spread above all by Christianity, a “religion of idleness”. And it is true that the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its sabbaths, jubilees, feast days, and religious specialists devoted to a life of prayer and contemplation rather than martial virtue, built a lot of slack into the system. Machiavelli thought it should be squeezed out through laws that would prevent surplus becoming the pretext for idleness, rather in the way that later economists looked to the pressure mechanism of competition to do the same.

But there’s a contradiction in Machiavelli’s thinking here, because he also acknowledged that one of the things every polity needed was periodic renewal and reform, and that corruption was what preceded it. So you’re in a double bind: either you can squeeze out the slack and never experience renewal, or you can court corruption and create an opportunity to start over and make things better.

With hindsight it looks like that’s one of the problems the religions of idleness tried to address, by incorporating idleness into the calendar. In ancient Hebrew tradition, there were weekly sabbaths, and every seventh year was meant to be a year of release in which the land was left to lie fallow, debts were forgiven and slaves emancipated. The idea was picked up by the Chartist William Benbow, who in 1832 used it as the model for what he called a Grand National Holiday, in effect a month-long general strike that would allow a National Congress to reform society “to obtain for all at the least expense to all, the largest sum of happiness for all”.

Benbow’s plan came to nothing, but it provides an alternative model for how the lockdown might be viewed. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has complained that the lockdown is a state of exception with an increase in executive powers and a partial abrogation of the rule of law; but the flipside is that it is the closest thing to a Grand National Holiday that most of us have ever experienced. Despite all the suffering the pandemic has caused, for many it has also meant no work, debt relief, empty roads and a rare opportunity to live on free money from the government.

Generally speaking, exogenous threats like wars or natural disasters act as pressure mechanisms forcing us to redouble our efforts to combat them together. The benefit of contagion is that the only way to combat it is to do less rather than more. That has some demonstrable advantages. There has been a dramatic global fall in carbon emissions. The only comparable reduction in greenhouse gases during the past 30 years came as the result of the decline of industrial production in eastern Europe after the fall of communism. That was managed exceptionally badly because neoliberal economists thought that what post-communist states needed was the pressure of free market competition. Shock therapy would galvanise the economy.

The pandemic has been a shock alright, but its effect has been the opposite of galvanising. People everywhere had to stop whatever they were doing or planning to do in the future. That provides an altogether different model of political change. The philosopher Walter Benjamin once noted that while Karl Marx claimed that revolutions were the locomotives of world history, things might actually turn out to be rather different: “Perhaps revolutions are the human race … travelling in this train, reaching for the emergency brake.”

Everyone keeps saying that we are living through strange times, but what is strange about it is that because everything has come to a stop, it is as though we are living out of time. The emergency brake has been pulled and time is standing still. It feels uncanny, and there’s more slack in the world economy than there ever has been before. And that means, as both Benjamin and Machiavelli would have recognised, that there is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for change and renewal.

For some, this might mean a shorter working week, or less air travel. For others, it might suggest the opportunity for a more fundamental remaking of our political system. A space of possibility has unexpectedly opened up, so although the lockdown may be coming to an end, perhaps the standstill should continue.

Richard Wolff: Competition & Monopoly In Capitalism