government failure in microeconomic intervention: definition of government failure

Resources → Subject Notes → Economics → Lesson Plan

Government Failure – Definition & Evaluation (Cambridge A‑Level Economics 9708)

Learning Objective

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

  • Define government failure and distinguish it from market failure.
  • Identify the full range of micro‑ and macro‑economic interventions covered in the syllabus.
  • Explain why government interventions can go wrong (causes, measurement and consequences).
  • Apply AO1–AO3 skills: recall facts, analyse welfare effects, and evaluate policies using efficiency, equity, scarcity, equilibrium, time and decision‑making concepts.

1. Definition of Government Failure

Government failure occurs when a government intervention that is intended to improve economic efficiency (or equity, stability, etc.) either leaves total surplus unchanged or reduces it – i.e. the outcome is **worse** than the outcome that would have arisen without the intervention.

Key Features

  • Intervention is usually aimed at correcting a market failure (externalities, public goods, information asymmetry, etc.).
  • The result is a net loss in total surplus (consumer + producer surplus) or a mis‑allocation of resources.
  • Failure can arise from the design, implementation, or unintended side‑effects of the policy.

2. Government Intervention – Syllabus Scope

Topic (Syllabus Code) Intervention Type Typical Aim Common Failure Mechanisms
8.1.1 – Taxes Pigouvian tax, excise duty, carbon tax, “sin” taxes Internalise negative externalities, raise revenue Information error, over‑/under‑taxation, reg‑capture
8.1.2 – Subsidies Production subsidies, consumption subsidies, R&D grants Encourage positive externalities, support industries Cost‑overruns, moral hazard, fiscal burden
8.1.3 – Price Controls Maximum (price ceiling) and minimum (price floor) prices Protect consumers/producers, curb inflation Shortages/surpluses, black markets, enforcement costs
8.1.4 – Quotas & Licences Import quotas, fishing licences, emission permits Limit quantity of a good, protect resources Rent‑seeking, allocation inefficiency, trading‑scheme design
8.1.5 – Regulation Health & safety standards, environmental regulations Correct information asymmetry, protect welfare Compliance cost, regulatory capture, over‑regulation
8.1.6 – “Nudge” Policies Behavioural interventions (default options, labelling) Shift choices without changing prices Limited behavioural impact, paternalism concerns
8.1.7 – Direct Provision Public provision of health, education, transport Ensure access to merit goods Cost overruns, bureaucratic inefficiency
8.2 – Macro‑economic Intervention (Fiscal) Government spending, taxation, budget deficits/surpluses Stabilise output, manage demand Timing lag, crowding‑out, political bias
8.3 – Macro‑economic Intervention (Monetary) Interest‑rate policy, quantitative easing, reserve requirements Control inflation, influence investment Transmission‑mechanism uncertainty, policy credibility
10.1 – Supply‑side Policies Tax cuts, deregulation, training programmes Increase productive capacity Distributional effects, time lag
10.2 – Exchange‑rate Policies Fixed vs. floating rates, interventions Improve trade balance, control inflation Speculative attacks, loss of reserves
10.3 – Macro‑policy Coordination Fiscal‑monetary coordination, EU‑wide rules Avoid policy conflict, enhance stability Policy‑mix complexity, institutional capture

3. Common Causes of Government Failure

  1. Information problems: Incomplete, inaccurate or outdated data lead to wrong policy parameters (e.g., tax set too high).
  2. Political motives & rent‑seeking: Lobbying, electoral cycles or elite interests distort the agenda.
  3. Administrative & enforcement costs: High bureaucracy or weak enforcement can outweigh benefits.
  4. Regulatory capture: Regulators act in the interest of the industry they oversee.
  5. Unintended consequences: New externalities, incentive distortions, market power creation.
  6. Time lags & dynamic effects: Short‑run implementation may mis‑align with long‑run equilibrium.
  7. Scarcity & choice: Limited fiscal or institutional resources force trade‑offs; poor prioritisation causes failure.

4. Measuring Government Failure

4.1 Cost‑Benefit Analysis (CBA) – Step‑by‑Step

  1. Identify the *status‑quo* welfare (total surplus) without intervention.
  2. Estimate the *direct* welfare change from the policy (ΔCS + ΔPS).
  3. Quantify *administrative* and *enforcement* costs (Cadmin).
  4. Include *distributional* effects (e.g., tax burden on low‑income groups).
  5. Calculate **Net Welfare Change**: \[ \Delta W = (\Delta CS + \Delta PS) - C_{\text{admin}} \pm \text{distributional adjustments} \]
  6. If \(\Delta W < 0\) the policy has produced a government failure.

4.2 Welfare‑Change Formula for a Tax Example

For a linear demand \(P = a - bQ\) and supply \(P = c + dQ\), a Pigouvian tax \(t\) moves the supply curve upward by \(t\). If the tax is set at \(t' > t\) (over‑correction), the net welfare loss is:

\[ DW_{\text{gov}} = \frac{1}{2}\,(Q_{S}-Q_{G})\,(P_{G}-P_{S}) \] where \(Q_{S}\) and \(P_{S}\) are the socially optimal quantity and price, and \(Q_{G}, P_{G}\) are the quantities and prices after the excessive tax.

4.3 Real‑World Data Prompt

Use the latest UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) data on the sugar‑sweetened‑drink levy (2023‑24):

  • Revenue collected: £ £ ?? million
  • Estimated reduction in sugar consumption: 20 %
  • Administrative cost (HMRC): 2 % of revenue

Students should calculate the net welfare effect and comment on whether the policy represents a government failure.

5. Consequences of Government Failure

  • Creation of a **new or larger dead‑weight loss** (loss of total surplus).
  • **Distributional impacts** – certain groups bear a disproportionate burden (e.g., low‑income households under a high excise tax).
  • Increased **fiscal burden** – higher taxes, subsidies, or spending on enforcement.
  • Distortion of **market signals** (prices, quantities) leading to further inefficiencies.
  • Erosion of **public confidence** in government intervention.
  • Potential **dynamic effects**: long‑run under‑investment or over‑reliance on subsidies.

Quick‑Recall Checklist – Consequences

  • ► New dead‑weight loss
  • ► Inequitable distribution of costs/benefits
  • ► Higher fiscal cost
  • ► Additional market distortions
  • ► Reduced credibility of policy makers
  • ► Time‑lag effects

6. Linking to Cambridge Key Concepts

Efficiency: Government failure moves the economy away from the allocatively efficient point, increasing dead‑weight loss.
Equity: Unintended distributional effects may worsen income/wealth gaps.
Scarcity & Choice: Limited fiscal resources force trade‑offs; poor prioritisation can cause failure.
Equilibrium & Disequilibrium: Failed policies shift supply or demand, creating new disequilibrium (e.g., excess supply after a price floor).
Margin: Failure often stems from setting a tax/subsidy at the wrong marginal level.
Time: Short‑run vs. long‑run effects – a policy may look successful initially but cause long‑run inefficiency.
Decision‑making: Information gaps, political pressure and capture lead to sub‑optimal choices.

7. Market Failure vs. Government Failure – Comparison Table

Aspect Market Failure Government Failure
Root cause Missing or imperfect market mechanisms (externalities, public goods, information asymmetry) Flawed policy design, implementation, or political interference
Typical outcome Allocative inefficiency – dead‑weight loss Additional dead‑weight loss or new inefficiencies (often larger than the original)
Goal of intervention Improve efficiency, equity, or stability Same goal, but the policy may be compromised or counter‑productive
Measurement Changes in total surplus, price/quantity adjustments Net change in total surplus after accounting for administrative cost, distributional effects and fiscal impact

8. Simple Economic Illustration – Over‑Correcting a Negative Externality

Assume a linear market for a polluting good:

  • Demand: \(P = 30 - Q\)
  • Supply (private cost): \(P = 10 + Q\)
  • Marginal external cost (MEC): constant at £ 5 per unit.

1. Unregulated equilibrium (EM):
\(Q_M = 10\), \(P_M = 20\). Dead‑weight loss from externality = area of triangle between MEC and supply.

2. Socially optimal equilibrium (ES) after a correctly set Pigouvian tax \(t = 5\):
Supply shifts up by £5 → new equilibrium \(Q_S = 7.5\), \(P_S = 22.5\). Dead‑weight loss eliminated.

3. Government failure – tax set too high (\(t' = 8\)):
New equilibrium \(Q_G = 6\), \(P_G = 24\). The dead‑weight loss now consists of:

  • Original externality loss (still present for units 6‑7.5).
  • Additional loss from over‑taxation (triangle between original supply and the higher tax).

Graphical representation (to be drawn in class):

Supply‑demand diagram showing:
  1. Market equilibrium (EM) – QM, PM
  2. Social optimum (ES) – QS, PS
  3. Equilibrium after excessive tax (EG) – QG, PG
  4. Original externality dead‑weight loss (triangle A) and additional government‑failure loss (triangle B).

9. Case‑Study Prompt – UK Sugar‑Sweetened‑Drink (SSD) Levy (2023‑24)

Background: Introduced in 2018 to reduce sugar consumption. Two tiers: £0.24/L for drinks ≥ 8 g sugar/100 mL, £0.18/L for drinks 5‑8 g sugar/100 mL.

Task for students:

  1. Identify the market failure the levy aims to correct (negative health externality).
  2. Using the latest ONS data, calculate:
    • Revenue collected (R).
    • Estimated reduction in sugar intake (ΔS) and its monetary benefit (use a given health‑cost estimate, e.g., £0.05 per gram of sugar avoided).
    • Administrative cost (assume 2 % of R).
  3. Compute the net welfare change \(\Delta W\) and state whether the policy represents a government failure.
  4. Discuss distributional effects (e.g., impact on low‑income consumers vs. manufacturers) and suggest an alternative instrument (e.g., tradable sugar permits) that could reduce the risk of failure.

10. Evaluation Framework – AO3 Checklist

When evaluating any government intervention, consider the following criteria (aligned with the syllabus):

  • Efficiency: Net change in total surplus (including administrative costs).
  • Equity: Who gains and who loses? Impact on income distribution.
  • Scarcity & Choice: Is the policy the best use of limited fiscal resources?
  • Equilibrium effects: How does the policy shift supply/demand and what new disequilibrium may arise?
  • Time: Short‑run vs. long‑run outcomes; adjustment periods.
  • Political feasibility & capture: Likelihood of lobbying, regulatory capture, or policy reversal.
  • Alternative policies: Compare at least one other instrument (e.g., tax vs. tradable permits vs. subsidy) using the same criteria.

Sample Comparison Table (Tax vs. Tradable Permit for Carbon)

Criterion Carbon Tax Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Efficiency Price certainty, quantity uncertain; risk of over‑taxing. Quantity certainty, price uncertain; risk of price volatility.
Equity Regressive unless revenue recycled. Can allocate permits to vulnerable sectors at lower cost.
Administrative cost Relatively low – tax collection. Higher – monitoring, trading platform, verification.
Political feasibility Often easier to introduce. Complex design may face industry resistance.
Time horizon Immediate price signal. Gradual price discovery; may need floor/ceiling.

11. Summary

Government failure is the opposite of the intended effect of a policy – it either leaves economic efficiency unchanged or makes it worse. It can arise from information gaps, political motives, administrative costs, capture, unintended side‑effects, time lags, or poor allocation of scarce resources. Measuring failure requires a cost‑benefit approach that adds up changes in consumer and producer surplus, administrative expenses, and distributional impacts. Recognising the full suite of micro‑ and macro‑intervention tools, linking the analysis to the Cambridge key concepts (efficiency, equity, scarcity & choice, equilibrium, margin, time, decision‑making) and practising with real‑world case studies equips students to meet AO1‑AO3 requirements and to evaluate policies critically.

Create an account or Login to take a Quiz

46 views
0 improvement suggestions

Log in to suggest improvements to this note.