Economic Efficiency

Uwe Reinhart has been explaining what economists mean by efficiency:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/is-more-efficient-always-better/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/when-value-judgments-masquerade-as-science/

Steve Landsburg is quoted and responds:

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/08/30/efficiency-experts/

How do economists judge efficiency? A popular method is the so-called Kaldor-Hicks criterion.

Consider the following scenario due to SL: a rich man likes to play loud music and his poorer neighbor likes his peace and quiet. If the poorer guy would be willing to give up his quiet for $1000 and the rich guy would be willing to pay $10,000 to pollute the world with noise, KH says that an ordinance prohibiting noise is inefficient, and in fact produces a dead-weight loss (a favorite term for SL) of $9000 since the rich guy loses a benefit he values at $10 k and the poor guy only gains something he values at $1 k. More efficient, say the believers, would be letting the rich guy pay the poor guy say $3 k, so that the rich guy gets $10 k of value for $3 k and the poor guy nets $2 k after allowing for the $1 k loss of his quiet.

I have a version that I like to consider more pointed. Suppose there is a supply of nutritious grain which can be made into a nutritious gruel capable of sustaining 10 poor families for a year. They can only afford to pay $1000 each family for the grain. Suppose further, that there is a rich man who can afford $20,000 buy the same grain to keep and feed his herd of truffle hunting pigs that supply the truffles for his Sunday night dinner. There would be a $10 k dead weight loss if we let the grain go to the hungry people, so the efficient thing is for them to starve.

Cheers!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Call it Soccer

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The Poverty Paradox: Review