Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: positive externality

How much should cities plan for the storm of the century?

Reading economist Arnold Kling’s explanation of why it will take a very long time to return to normal from Hurricane Sandy, I kept thinking of my own NJ disaster devastated neighborhood with downed trees on roads covered with branches, leaves and wires.

Kling: “You cannot solve problem A without first solving problem B, which requires solving problem C and so on.”

Me:

  • Problem A: Electricity needs to be restored.
  • Problem B: Utility wires and poles have to be removed from the road and replaced.
  • Problem C: NJ does not have enough crews to do all of the utility work.

 

Kling: But then, “because A is not working, problems X, Y and Z emerge.”

Me:

  • Problem X: Schools are closed.
  • Problem Y: Cell phones cannot be recharged at home.
  • Problem Z: Traffic lights do not work.

And then, as you can see, B and C, and X, Y, and Z each create a list of their own problems.

Kling: “…my guess is that it will take much longer to get back to normal than people are assuming. In fact, the process will take so long that in the meantime “normal” will have been redefined.”

As economists, what is our bottom line? Infrastructure interdependence takes us to many positive and negative externalities.

The entire Arnold Kling post is here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

In NYC and China, developers are building smaller apartments.

An iPad turns on the lights, the shower is a futuristic sounding vertical tube near the door and the bed becomes seating.  Occupying 161 square feet, this Dongguan, China micro-apartment is the size of a US mall parking space. But, at $133 a square foot (835 yuan), for a young Chinese software engineer, the price is right.

In NYC also, you might be able to buy a micro-apartment. While currently the minimum apartment square footage is 400, Mayor Bloomberg is suppporting a pilot project that downsizes units to 275 or 300 square feet. If the experiment works, he says zoning minimums might change.

What is the message?

In China, it is about the labor force. As workers move to cities and factory towns, an increasingly urban workforce needs affordable housing that is far better than the substandard dwellings currently available.

In the US, more of us are living alone. With a 51% marriage rate among the adult population, a typical woman marrying at 26.5 and the average male at 28.7, with elevated divorce rates and longevity creating more widows and widowers, we have more urban singles.

Smaller urban units have so many implications.

Harvard economist Ed Glaeser tells us that people who live in cities not only use up fewer resources but also, they create “spillover.” As we said in an earlier post, “A spillover is just the spread of something, such as a new idea, beyond the spot where it originated. When a new idea easily spreads because…people [live closer to each other in the city], we would say the spillover created a positive externality. That just means that an accomplishment that originally involved 2 entities, rippled outward to benefit many.”

Sources and Resources: Articles about micro-apartments are fascinating–especially the pictures. This Reuters report talks about NYC while WSJ focuses on China and here is what San Francisco is planning. For more about demographic trends in the US, you might want to see these Pew Research facts. Also, past econlife posts on the benefits of urban living in the US are here and here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

What to do when you’ve paid extra for an aisle seat and a person asks you to switch with his wife so that they can sit next to each other? Do you say yes or endure his irritation through the entire flight?

Watching, an economist might have cited a negative externality. The airline needed the revenue and the person in the aisle seat wanted more legroom. Between 2 parties, the transaction was satisfactory. Then, though, the negative externality materialized when a third individual became unhappily involved. The third individual also “paid” for the aisle seat through his inconvenience.

A negative externality represents the cost “paid” by an uninvolved third party. Not being able to study in a dormitory because of loud music and respiratory ailments from factory emissions are examples of third party “cost.” On the other hand, a doctor and patient generate a positive externality, a benefit to others, through a vaccination.

As the proliferation of fees shifts our flying behavior, I wonder how much new externalities are adding to our cost.

Considered through economic lenses, this NY Times article and this Huffington Post article on airline preferential seating bring to mind many third party costs. Here, here and here, econlife looks at airline fees.

Please note that this post has been edited.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

lightbulb

In a 1964 TV commercial, during a pouring contest between 2 young boys, Heinz ketchup was “…too thick and rich to run.” In another ad, Heinz lost an OK Coral duel because it was the “slowest ketchup in the west…east, north and south.”

Now though, Heinz might have a problem.

Trying to develop a super slippery coating that would prevent deep sea oil pipes from clogging, scientists in an MIT lab created LiquiGlide. Used on the surface of a Heinz plastic container, LiquiGlide makes ketchup slide right out.

I suspect Heinz might not want its ketchup to pour more quickly.

However, even if the private cost to Heinz is considerable, citing the time millions of people would save, an economist would look at how the social benefit–the positive externality–is much greater. And that is why this story is about a lot more than ketchup.

Here you can see fast flowing Heinz Ketchup and here, a 1964 Heinz Ketchup race. And, if you are interested in reading about super slippery surfaces, this article describes the work of a Harvard lab.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16506_7.22_000004859317XSmall

Let’s try to make one federal budget decision. Who should receive the meningococcal vaccine?

Debating the issue, we should be sure to remember pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine’s recipients, the cost of each shot, who gets the disease, the federal budget.

Pharmaceutical companies need profits. Then they have more money for R&D for new drugs that can save lives, they can pay dividends to elderly shareholders who need the money and to younger families for their college savings. The research for the vaccine might have been very expensive. So, they might decide to charge $189 per dose.

Through programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, government pays for vaccinations. Stockholder owned insurance companies also pay for vaccinations. With millions of people getting the vaccine, it could cost $1 billion. Consequently, people might say the $189 for the meningococcal vaccine is too expensive.

Statisticians tell us that several thousand people get the disease annually. However, a headline about a meningitis outbreak generates considerable fear.

Finally, the national debt is soaring. More spent in one area means less elsewhere. Or it could eventually mean bond defaults that would place the U.S. financial system in disarray.

So, how to decide?

In the Department of Health and Human Services, at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) decides. Typically, whatever they recommend, the government and private insurers pay for.

In 2005, the ACIP placed the meningococcal vaccine on their recommended list for adolescents. They knew, though, that the cost was $189 a shot, and the yearly government expense, $387 million. The benefit? Preventing 23 deaths and illness for several thousand. Then, during 2010, when they concluded a booster shot, doubling cost, would also be needed for most recipients, they decided again to recommend it. They said it was a tough decision.

Looking at the ACIP website, you will see all of the vaccines they recommend for every age group.

The Economic Lesson

A positive externality is the benefit enjoyed by a third party who has not participated in a contract or agreement between others. It could be called a spillover.

Vaccines create positive externalities because their recipients do not spread the disease against which they have immunized.

An Economic Question: If you were a member of the ACIP, explain why you would have been for or against recommending the meningococcal vaccine.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment