U.S.
ECONOMY > An
Overview of the U.S. Economy > What is a Market Economy?
What is a Market Economy?
By Michael Watts
Introduction
Command and Market Economies
Consumers in a Market
Economy
Business in a Market Economy
Workers in a Market Economy
A System of Markets
Finances in a Market Economy
Government in a Market
Economy
GOVERNMENT IN A MARKET ECONOMY
If markets and market systems are so efficient,
why let the government tamper with their workings
at all? Why not adopt a strict policy of what
is called laissez-faire and allow private markets
to operate without any government interference
whatsoever? There are several reasons that
economists and other social observers have
identified, which can all be illustrated with
some familiar examples. In most cases, however,
the role of government is not to take the place
of the marketplace, but to improve the functioning
of the market economy. Further, any decision
to regulate or intervene in the play of market
forces must carefully balance the costs of
such regulation against the benefits that such
intervention will bring.
National Defense and the Public Good
National defense is one example where the role
of government is indispensable. Why? Because
the defense of a nation is a type of good
that is completely different from oranges,
computers, or housing: people do not pay
for each unit they use, but purchase it collectively
for the entire nation. Providing defense
services to one individual doesn't mean there
is less defense for others, because all the
people, in effect, consume those defense
services together. In fact, national defense
services are even provided to people in a
country who don't want them, because there
really isn't an effective way not to. Nations
can afford to build jet fighters; neighborhoods
or individuals cannot.
This type of good is called a public good,
because no private business could sell national
defense to the citizens of a nation and stay
in business. It simply doesn't work to sell
defense services to those who want them and
then not protect the people who refuse to help
pay for them. And if they can get the protection
without paying for it, why would they choose
to pay? That is known as the "free rider" problem,
and it is the key reason why national defense
must be administered by the government and
paid for through taxes.
There aren't many true public goods -- goods
that can be jointly consumed and that are subject
to extensive free-rider problems -- which is
why most goods and services in market economies
can be produced and sold by private firms in
private markets. Other examples of public goods
include flood- and insect-control programs,
and even radio and television signals broadcast
over the airwaves. Each of those products can
be jointly consumed by many consumers at the
same time and is subject to free-rider problems,
at least to some degree. With television and
radio broadcasts, however, programs can be
privately and profitably produced by selling
broadcast time for advertising. Or in some
cases, broadcast signals are now electronically
scrambled, so private firms can make money
by renting out decoding machines to people
who want to see these broadcasts.
Pollution and External Costs
Let's take the example of a company that manufactures
paper products -- from writing paper to cardboard
boxes -- at a factory location on a river.
The problem is that, as a by-product of its
manufacturing operations, the factory dumps
chemical pollutants into the river. But no
single person or entity owns the river water,
so there is no one to force the company to
stop polluting. Moreover, since cleaning
up the river would cost money, the company
can sell its paper products more cheaply
than if it had to absorb such pollution-control
costs. As a result, the paper company can
further increase its output, responding to
the relatively higher demand at its lower
prices, leading to more waste and pollution
from its factory. By polluting without penalties,
the company may also have an unfair advantage
over competitors whose paper products do
reflect the cost of installing pollution
control equipment.
This is a classic example of a so-called external
cost that is not reflected in the price through
normal workings of the marketplace. Neither
the paper company nor its customers are bearing
the actual cost of paper production; instead,
a portion of the cost -- the pollution factor
-- has been shifted to the people who live
or work along the river and those taxpayers
who eventually are stuck with the cleanup bill.
Like other externalities, pollution often
occurs where the ownership of a resource --
in this case the river -- is not held by individuals
or private organizations. Public lands and
roadsides, for example, are more often littered
than the lawns in front of people's homes,
because no one person owns these public lands
and takes the responsibility for keeping them
clean, and prosecuting those who despoil them.
Most pollution is, in fact, released into the
air, oceans, and rivers precisely because there
are no individual owners of those resources
who have strong personal incentives to hold
polluters liable for the damage they do. While
some people do take the time and trouble to
prosecute such polluters, there are few economic
incentives for most people to do so.
Government's role in this situation is to
try to rectify this imbalance. By intervening,
government can force the producers and consumers
of the product to pay these cleanup costs.
In essence, this economic role of government
is simply to make those who enjoy the benefits
of selling and consuming a product pay all
of the costs of producing and consuming it.
Unfortunately, it is rarely easy for the government
to determine just how much it should do in
these cases. For one thing, it is usually difficult
and costly to determine the precise source
of pollution or exactly how much the pollution
is actually costing society. Because of these
difficulties, the government must be sure that
it doesn't impose more costs to reduce pollution
than the pollution is costing society in the
first place. To do so would clearly be inefficient
and a waste of valuable resources.
Once the government has established an acceptable,
or at least tolerable, level of pollution,
it can use laws, regulations, fines, jail sentences,
even special taxes to reduce the pollution.
Or even more fundamentally, it can try to establish
clearer ownership rights for the resources
that are being polluted, which will result
in market-based prices being charged for the
use of those resources and force polluters
to pay those costs. Amid these many options,
the key point is to understand the government's
basic role -- to correct for the overproduction
and overconsumption of goods and services that
lead to external costs.
Education and External Benefits
When Robert returned to school to become a
computer programmer, he was seeking to better
himself and his family, not necessarily improve
the community at large. But as a result of
his advanced education, Robert became a more
highly trained and productive member of his
society. He now possesses new skills and
has founded a new business that, in turn,
provides jobs and opportunities for others.
Here, Robert's education has benefits that
are enjoyed by people other than the producers
and consumers of some good or service. Education
is often claimed to offer external benefits
in a nation, because educated workers are more
flexible and productive, and less likely to
become unemployed. That means spending more
for education today may ultimately lead to
savings in public and private spending to fight
crime, poverty, and other social problems,
as well as increasing the skill level, flexibility,
and productivity of the work force.
To the extent that any product does generate
significant external or spillover benefits,
governments may consider subsidizing or otherwise
encouraging its consumption, production, or
both, so that the value of the external benefits
are included in the market price and output
level of these products. Just as external or
spillover costs lead to overproduction of certain
goods, the existence of external benefits will
lead to underproduction of other products and
services.
Public education is perhaps the largest and
most significant example of government expenditures
and support for a service regarded as having
significant external benefits. There are, however,
relatively few situations where government
intervenes to set prices, whether through subsidies
or taxes, to encourage such external benefits.
In general, the extension of property rights
and a system of market-based prices can often
be the most effective means whereby government
can right the imbalances caused by external
costs and benefits.
A Legal and Social Framework
Market economies, despite the obvious examples
of abuse, are not licenses for exploitation
or theft. In fact, very little trading in
markets takes place in societies when the
legal rights of consumers and producers to
own and trade economic resources aren't clearly
recognized and protected. That is why governments
in market economies keep records of deeds
to land and houses, and enforce contracts
between buyers and sellers of virtually all
kinds of products. Buyers want to know that
the things they buy from sellers are really
theirs to sell; and both buyers and sellers
want to know that when they agree to exchange
something, that agreement will be carried
out. The same holds true for workers who,
either individually or collectively in unions,
agree to wages and working conditions with
their employers. If those assurances aren't
provided routinely and effectively, and if
a fair and impartial criminal justice system
isn't in place, market dealings become more
expensive and difficult to complete.
Governments in market economies must establish
and protect the right to private property and
to the economic gains derived from the use
of that property. Without such assurances,
few people are going to risk their time and
money in enterprises whose rewards may possibly
go to the state or some other group. When Robert
and Maria contemplated starting R&M Educational
Software, for example, they knew that they
ran the risk of economic failure; but they
also knew that if they succeeded, the laws
protecting private property would enable them
to reap the economic rewards of that success.
The government's protection of private property
obviously extends to land, factories, stores,
and other tangible goods, but it also extends
to so-called intellectual property: the products
of people's minds as expressed in books and
other writings, the visual arts, films, scientific
inventions, engineering designs, pharmaceuticals,
and computer software programs. Few entrepreneurs
or companies will invest in the often expensive
and time-consuming research into new drugs
to fight disease, new computer programs, or
even publish new novels if rival companies
can simply appropriate and market their work
without paying royalties or other fees that
reflect their production costs.
To protect and encourage scientists and artists,
governments issue exclusive rights, called
copyrights, to protect certain kinds of intellectual
properties such as books, music, films, and
computer software programs; or called patents
when they protect other types of inventions,
designs, products, and manufacturing processes.
These exclusive rights give the holders, whether
individuals or corporations, exclusive rights
to sell or otherwise market their products
and creations for a specified period of time.
As President Abraham Lincoln said, they add "the
fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
In defining and enforcing property rights
and maintaining an effective legal system,
governments can build a social environment
that allows private markets for most goods
and services to function effectively and with
widespread popular support.
Competition
Each month, Robert and Maria, regularly pay
bills to the local water utility and local
telephone company. Unlike most of the other
enterprises in a market economy, neither
the water utility nor the telephone company
compete with rival enterprises who also provide
water and telephone service.
The reason is that both services are so-called "natural
monopolies," whose services are provided
most economically by only one firm. Permitting
two sets of water pipes or entirely separate
telephone or electrical lines would be wasteful
and inefficient in the extreme. Instead of
controlling costs and maximizing efficiency
through competition, government agencies regulate
the prices and services of these companies
to ensure that they offer the best possible
prices to their customers and still receive
a satisfactory rate of return on their investments.
The number of such "natural monopolies" is
actually quite small and accounts for only
a small proportion of the economic activity
in most market economies. A more common, and
in many ways more complex, problem arises when
one industry is dominated by a few large firms.
There is a real danger that these firms may
collude to set higher prices and to limit entry
by new, competing firms. To prohibit such monopolies
and collusive behavior, and to maintain a more
effective degree of competition in the economic
system, so-called antitrust laws have been
passed in most market economies, including
the United States.
Limited competition may occur in some industries,
such as aviation, because the level of market
demand is only sufficient to support a few
large companies -- given the most efficient
production technologies for such products.
Policymakers must therefore decide whether
the competition between the small number of
large companies that produce such products
is adequate to keep prices and profits down
to reasonable levels and product quality high.
If not, they can again turn to some kind of
price and service regulation, or legally break
up some of the large companies into smaller
companies, if that can be done without driving
up production costs substantially. Failing
that, the policymakers can at least make it
illegal for these few large companies to collude
with one another and enforce those laws to
ensure that there is as much direct competition
between these companies as possible.
Unfortunately, many government regulations
and antitrust policies actually reduce competition
rather than increase it. These policies include
exclusive licenses to produce a good or service,
taxes, quotas that limit imports of foreign
goods and services, and occupational licensing
requirements and fees for professional and
skilled workers. Some of these policies, such
as offering patents and copyrights, can be
justified on other economic grounds. Other
restrictions are not so sensible, however,
and are adopted only because they provide large
benefits to members of narrow special interest
groups. Because the costs of those restrictions
are spread so widely among the rest of the
population, they attract little or no public
disfavor.
On balance, despite these frequent shortcomings,
the consensus position of economists in market
economics is that the potential costs of allowing
large firms (or a group of colluding firms)
to achieve monopoly positions in key industries
are very high. They are sufficiently high,
in fact, to justify a limited government role
in developing laws and regulations to maintain
competition.
Income and Social Welfare
Some people do not have the skills or other
resources to earn a living in a market economy.
Others benefit greatly from inherited wealth
and talents, or from the business, social,
and political connections of their families
and friends.
Governments in market economies inevitably
engage in programs that redistribute income,
and they often do so with the explicit intention
of making tax policies and the after-tax distribution
of income more fair.
Proponents of extensive redistribution argue
that this role of government limits the concentration
of wealth and maintains a wider diffusion of
economic power among households, just as antitrust
laws are designed to maintain competition and
a wider diffusion of power and resources among
producers. Those who oppose major redistribution
programs counter that additional taxes on high-income
families decrease the incentives of these groups
to work, save, and invest, to the eventual
detriment of the overall economy.
The debate over income redistribution comes
down to people's basic ideas about what is
equitable and fair. And in that area, neither
economists nor other experts who study the
issue have any special standing.
All they can do is document what has happened
to the distribution of income and wealth over
time in different kinds of economic systems,
and use that information to try to identify
how different policies affect such variables
as national levels of production, savings,
and investment.
A social consensus has developed during this
century that governments in most market economies
should, out of compassion and fairness, play
a role in providing for the neediest families
in the nation and help them try to escape a
life of poverty. Governments in virtually all
market economies provide support for the unemployed,
medical care for the poor, and pension benefits
for retired persons. Taken together, these
programs provide what is sometimes called a "social
safety net."
Over the last 40 years these social programs
have been rapidly growing parts of government
spending and taxation programs in most industrialized
economies. So the current debate over these
programs is not really about whether they should
exist, but rather about how extensive they
should be and how such income redistribution
programs can be administered while still preserving
individual incentives to work and save.
Government Fiscal and Monetary Policies
Governments in market economies play critical
roles in providing the economic conditions
in which the marketplace of private enterprise
can function most effectively.
One such role is to provide a widely accepted,
stable currency that eliminates the need for
cumbersome and inefficient systems of barter,
and to maintain the value of that currency
through policies that limit inflation (an increase
in the overall level of prices of goods and
services).
Historically, market economies have been periodically
afflicted by periods of rapidly rising price
levels, at other times with high levels of
unemployment, or occasionally by periods with
both high rates of inflation and unemployment.
Many of these episodes were, fortunately,
relatively mild and short-lived, lasting a
year or less. A few were more persistent and
far more serious, such as the German hyperinflation
of the 1920s and the worldwide unemployment
of the 1930s known simply as the Great Depression.
Only in this century have economists and government
policymakers developed a standard set of stabilization
policies -- known as fiscal and monetary policies
-- that national governments can use to try
to moderate (or ideally to eliminate) such
episodes.
Fiscal policies employ government spending
and tax programs to stimulate the national
economy in times of high unemployment and low
inflation, or to slow it down in times of high
inflation and low unemployment. To stimulate
the overall level of spending, production,
and employment, the government itself will
spend more and tax less, even if it incurs
a deficit. (It will then have to run an offsetting
surplus at some time in the future.)
To slow down an overheated economy -- one
where virtually everyone is working who wants
a job, but where spending and prices are rising
rapidly -- the government has several options
to keep prices from spiraling too high. It
can cut its own spending, raise taxes, or both,
in order to lower aggregate spending and production
levels.
Monetary policy involves changes in a nation's
supply of money and the availability of credit.
To increase spending in times of high unemployment
and low inflation, policymakers increase the
supply of money, which lowers interest rates
(that is, reduces the price of money), thereby
making it easier for banks to make more loans.
This encourages more spending on consumption
by putting additional money in people's hands.
Lower interest rates also stimulate investment
spending by businesses seeking to expand and
hire more workers.
In a period of high inflation and low unemployment,
by contrast, policymakers can cool down the
economy by raising interest rates, thereby
reducing the supply of money and the availability
of credit. Then, with less money in the economy
to spend and higher interest rates, both spending
and prices will tend to fall, or at least increase
less quickly. As a result, both output and
employment will tend to contract.
Monetary and fiscal policies were not widely
used to stabilize the ups and downs of national
business cycles before the 1960s. Today, except
in cases of major natural and human disasters
-- such as wars, floods, earthquakes, and droughts
-- these stabilization policies can be used
to avoid severe periods of unemployment and
inflation. But their effectiveness against
shorter and milder swings in national economic
performance, or in dealing with situations
where both unemployment and inflation are rising,
is much less certain.
There are several reasons for that uncertainty,
including the time required to recognize exactly
what the problem is, to design the appropriate
mix of policies to address the problem, and,
finally, to wait for those policies to take
effect. One very real risk is that by the time
the government's policies have taken effect,
the original problem will have corrected itself
or moved in another direction entirely. In
that case the stabilization policies may prove
to be unnecessary or even counterproductive.
When both unemployment and inflation rise
at the same time, however, governments can
face a dilemma. The reason is that monetary
and fiscal policies are designed to adjust
the level of total spending in a nation, but
not to cope with a relatively sudden decline
in supplies, which can trigger inflation and
unemployment simultaneously. When can such
a situation arise? One case occurred in the
1970s when embargoes on oil exports by major
oil-producing nations caused huge price rises
that rippled through the economies of the industrialized
nations. Such decreases in supply raise price
levels while lowering production and employment
levels.
To deal with such supply shocks to a national
economy, a government can try to increase people's
incentives to produce, save, and invest; increase
the effective level of competition in the nation
by reducing monopoly power; or eliminate bottlenecks
of key resources, whether a commodity such
as oil or certain kinds of skilled labor like
engineers. In the case of oil-export restrictions,
for example, the nation can stimulate domestic
oil production, provide incentives for greater
energy efficiency and conservation, and invest
in alternative energy sources. However, most
of these so-called supply-side policies tend
to work slowly, over periods of years rather
than months.
While governments can offer no panaceas in
the long-standing fight against inflation and
unemployment in market economies, they can
be effective in moderating the effects of these
problems.
Most economists now acknowledge an important
government role in fighting unemployment and
inflation with long-term stabilization policies,
including generally stable rates of growth
in the money supply, government spending programs
that automatically rise when the economy slows
down and fall when the economy picks up (such
as benefits paid to unemployed workers), and
tax schedules that reinforce those automatic
spending programs by taking less from consumers
and workers when their incomes fall and more
when their incomes rise.
Short-run monetary and fiscal policies adopted
by policymakers to deal with temporary but
sometimes sharp increases in unemployment or
inflation are also employed in many market
economies, although economists disagree much
more on both the timing and effectiveness of
these policies.
In the end, it is important to recognize that
in any type of economic system, including a
market economy, some problems exist that can
never be entirely or permanently solved. These
problems have to be studied pragmatically on
a case-by-case basis, with a careful consideration
of the economic and political forces that influence
them. And it is at this juncture that a democratic
political system -- one which encourages dissent
and open discussion of public issues -- can
contribute most effectively to the operation
of a free-market economy. (For more information
on the functioning of modern democratic societies,
see the companion volume, What Is Democracy?)