scholarly journals Explainer: Bad housing supply assumptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron Murray

Glaeser and Gyourko (2003) (G&G) famously argued that if the marginal cost of a square metre of housing lot land is less than the average cost, this is evidence of a price effect from “artificial” supply constraints. They call this price gap a “regulatory tax”, but it is also known as a “zoning effect” or “zoning tax”. Their logic has been relied upon by hundreds of other studies and in numerous replications of their approach, including by economists from the Reserve Bank of Australia, whose results were widely publicised (Kendall and Tulip, 2018). However, the economic assumptions behind G&G’s approach are implausible. Although popular, their method should not be relied upon to infer anything about the nature of housing supply. This note explains why.

1985 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Freixas ◽  
Jean-Jacques Laffont

1969 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darrel Kletke

Little research has focused on developing a model which farmers can use to make yearly machinery replacement decisions. This paper contains an optimizing replacement criterion and then demonstrates the results of alternative rules of thumb used to implement the criterion in a real world situation.The economic life of a machine is here defined as the interval of time during which that machine reaches its minimum average yearly cost. If a machine is replaced by an exact duplicate with the same annual costs, replacement occurs when the currently owned machine attains its economic life. When average cost reaches its minimum, marginal cost and average cost are equal. This is the same as saying that when economic life is reached, the actual yearly cost (marginal cost) is equal to the average yearly cost of the machine. Theoretically, replacement should occur when marginal cost first crosses average cost from below.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Li

In market economy, there are four types of markets: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly. The main differences among them are the ability to set price, barrier to enter and exit the market, numbers of companies. To study innovation’s efficiency in these markets, it is necessary to understand their special characteristics. To simplify the problem, when patent is employed, only the innovation company has the access to this new technology. When it does not exist, every company in the market can use the new technology. In perfect competition market, there are no barrier to enter or exit and lots of companies producing identical products, so no company can set the price. Because there is no barrier, companies that can earn profit will enter the market, which decreases the price. Eventually, all companies’ marginal cost, average cost and marginal benefit is equal to the price, average benefit. In other words, companies in perfect competition market earn zero economic profit. Social welfare is always maximum in this type of markets. In this case, when one company discovers new production technology, other companies will follow immediately. Lower cost causes higher supply, which makes the price decrease and equal to the average cost eventually, leaving every company having zero economic profit, including the first company discovered the new technology, so there is no incentive for any company to spend resource on innovation. However, consumers’ welfare would increase because of lower price. When patent is employed, one company can produce products in a lower price and earn certain economic profit, but can hardly make an influence on the market because there are too many suppliers. Thus, in perfect competition market, patent is a good way to provide incentives for innovations. In monopolistic competition market, there are lots of companies selling slightly different products. The difference among products enables one company to increase the price over in a limited range, so monopolistic competition market is inefficient. In this type of markets, there are two types of innovations: technology and product. The former one reduces the cost and has the same consequence as that in perfect competition market. The latter one, product innovation, makes the product more special, giving the company more market power. However, without patent, product innovation will be copied easily, making the original product less special and canceling out the market power gained by the original company. Since there is no economic benefit, there is no incentive for any company in the market to innovate. When patent is employed, products’ difference is kept and gives the company more market power since there is consumer preference in monopolistic competition market. This increase of market power is not as negligible as that in perfect competition market, so the market becomes less efficient when the company with patent increases the price. In oligopoly market, there are only a few companies with great market power, so all of them can set the price. In this market, companies make decision based on both output and price effects. Output effect means when price is higher than marginal cost, companies can increase profit by increase its output. Price effect means when a company increases its output, the market price goes down, causing less profit for the company. When output effect is more impactful than price effect, companies will increase sales. When price effect is more impactful than output effect, companies will decrease sales. Oligopoly market can be inefficient without restrictions. Regarding innovations, there is still no incentives without the presence of patents. With patent, innovation company will gain market power that is huge enough to cause inefficiency and even to force other companies to exit the market. Thus, patent in oligopoly market will cause negative impact on society, which should be limited. The last type of markets if monopoly. In monopoly market, there is only one company, so patent is necessary. When this company innovates and decreases its production cost, it will tend to increase its output to maximize profit, which enlarges consumers’ welfare. However, this increase is not as much as that in perfect competition market, so innovation in monopoly market is still inefficient.


Author(s):  
Dipayan Singh ◽  
Amit Majumdar

Marginal cost of fund based lending rate (MCLR) is referred as an internal benchmark rate at which the banks can lend to its customers, introduced by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) with effect from 1st April, 2016, charging different rates on the basis of different factors relating to a loan such as marginal cost of funds, Negative carry on account of Cash reserve ratio, operating cost, tenor premium. Banks shall publish internal benchmarks for time period from overnight to one year. Banks shall have the advantage to decide the external benchmark rate related to market determined external factors. Existing loan customers based on BPLR system will be provided the option to switch their loans on the basis of their will and no switching charge is to be applied. MCLR may be considered a double edged sword as referred to the base rate system which was a single edge sword to harm customers as the banks were slowly adopting decreases in base rate and quickly transmitting high interest rate to the customer. MCLR is more of a competitive rate in respect to previous rates as it considers marginal cost of procurement of funds as the banks reach efficiency rates are to be diminished keeping base rate in mind.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-55
Author(s):  
Mohammed Touitou ◽  
Yacine Laib ◽  
Ahmed Boudeghdegh

AbstractClimate change is a major global issue, which is becoming increasingly important on the international scene. As it has a direct impact on ecosystems and societies. Water is at the heart of these changes. The aim of this article was to capture all the microeconomic and macroeconomic effects of resource availability, and to propose a sequential dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model that takes into account long-term changes in the availability of the primary resource (water supply) with regard to population growth (demand). The results show that the very negative effects on the economy of water shortages could be counteracted by the introduction of a marginal cost demand management policy. This makes it possible to better manage the scarcity of this resource. In fact, the model shows that when Algeria is facing water deficits, the marginal cost tariff policy reverses the trends of an economy that would maintain a tariff policy at average cost. Total investment increases, and total welfare deteriorates less. The drop in the price of water (input and final good), generated by the transition from an average cost pricing to a marginal cost pricing, generates an expansion of many sectors, and stimulates economic activity which reduces the rate of unemployment.


Transport ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Andrejszki ◽  
Árpád Török

In the paper, possible pricing structures of flexible transport systems have been investigated. After a brief introduction into demand responsive systems, the currently used pricing systems have been analysed. Having reviewed the conventional pricing methodologies – in line with the average cost and marginal cost based methods – the advantages and the disadvantages of particular systems are presented. What is more, that traditional pricing theory enabled to order costs of flexible transportation systems only approximately to passengers in proportion to their demanded transportation performance, thus traditional pricing framework is not able to fully meet the principle of fairness. For reaching the highest level of fairness loops a fictive unit of individual trips is introduced as the base of pricing. When applying individual loops is gives a unique approach to describe unit cost of the operators especially considering that empty runs are taken into account in a fair way. Beside fairness, it is also an essential objective to represent economies of scale and the preference of early bookings in the pricing methodology. Accordingly, the below presented ‘mixed price system’ had good results in the reduction of average fares related to new travellers and also in the improvement of attraction related to ‘early birds’. Therefore, the goal of this research was to define the direction and the aspects of the development process related to the pricing methods of flexible transportation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document