In 2017, President Donald Trump was considering a major increase on federal government spending on infrastructure, including building and repairing bridges, highways, rail lines, and subways. An article in the Economist argued, "Just as economists talk of 'negative externalities' (from, say, pollution), infrastructure can have positive externalities that are not captured by investors but will benefit society." a. Explain what positive externalities infrastructure spending might generate. b. If infrastructure spending generates a positive externality, what effect should this have on government policy?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Infrastructure spending can generate positive externalities such as increased business productivity owing to better transport networks, or enhancement of property values due to better public utilities. These are benefits that are not captured by the market price. When these positive externalities exist, it implies that market forces alone will not result in an optimal level of infrastructure because they do not account for these positive external benefits. This means government intervention is necessary, either via subsidies or direct investment, to ensure these benefits are realized.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding Positive Externalities

Positive externalities are additional benefits that an individual or society receives from a product or service, but that are not accounted for in the market price. In the context of infrastructure spending, positive externalities might include the increased productivity of businesses owing to improved transportation networks, or the enhancement of property values in areas that gain better access to public utilities.
02

Effects of Positive Externalities

If a positive externality is present, the social benefit from a good or service exceeds the private benefit. Due to these external benefits, the product or service will be under-consumed and under-produced in a freely functioning market. The reason is that the individuals or firms producing the product or service do not have an incentive to factor in these external benefits while making their production decision.
03

Positive Externalities and Government Policy

If infrastructure spending generates a positive externality, it implies that market forces alone will not lead to an optimal level of infrastructure. This is because market forces do not account for the positive external benefits generated by infrastructure spending. As a result, this should lead to government intervention to increase the production and consumption of infrastructure. The government can do this by subsidizing infrastructure projects, for example, or by directly investing in infrastructure itself.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Yellowstone National Park is in bear country. The National Park Service, at its Yellowstone Web site, states the following about camping and hiking in bear country: Do not leave packs containing food unattended, even for a few minutes. Allowing a bear to obtain human food even once often results in the bear becoming aggressive about obtaining such food in the future. Aggressive bears present a threat to human safety and eventually must be destroyed or removed from the park. Please obey the law and do not allow bears or other wildlife to obtain human food. What negative externality does obtaining human food pose for bears? What negative externality do bears obtaining human food pose for future campers and hikers?

A column in the New York Times notes that many economists "support Pigovian taxes because, in some sense, we are already paying them." In what sense might consumers in a market be "paying" a Pigovian tax even if the government hasn't imposed an explicit tax?

William Easterly in The White Man's Burden shared the following account by New York University Professor Leonard Wantchekon of how Professor Wantchekon's village in Benin, Africa, managed the local fishing pond when he was growing up: To open the fishing season, elders performed ritual tests at Amlé, a lake fifteen kilometers from the village. If the fish were large enough, fishing was allowed for two or three days. If they were too small, all fishing was forbidden, and anyone who secretly fished the lake at this time was outcast, excluded from the formal and informal groups that formed the village's social structure. Those who committed this breach of trust were often shunned by the whole community; no one would speak to the offender, or even acknowledge his existence for a year or more. What economic problem were the village elders trying to prevent? Do you think their solution was effective?

What is economic efficiency? How do externalities affect the economic efficiency of a market equilibrium?

(Related to the Apply the Concept on page 156 ) Ira Goldman invented the Knee Defender, which keeps the airline seat in front of a passenger from reclining. He argues that airlines have sold the space between two seats to the person occupying the seat but also to the person in the seat in front of that seat by allowing the occupant of that seat to recline it. Assume that Goldman is correct. According to the Coase theorem, does this airline policy make it impossible for passengers to achieve an economically efficient outcome with respect to the issue of reclining seats? Briefly explain.

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free