Market failures

As background, Garrod and Whitmarsh describe market failure with respect to protecting the marine environment. Particular difficulties arise because of the diverse and perhaps conflicting exploitation of the sea and its resources. Thus, pollutants may be released into the marine environment by one sector or industry... 

Levine, M. D. Hirst, E. Koomey,]. G. McMahon,]. E. and Sanstad, A. H. (1994) Energy Eff deucy, Market Failures, and Government Policy. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBL-35376. 

Ballonoff, P. (1999). On the Failure of Market Failures. Regulation The Cato Review of Business and... 

There are major problems with this individualistic approach to energy policy, however. The ideal market of economic theoiy exists nowhere in reality. Further, even market defenders acknowledge cases in v hich markets fail. Significantly, some paradigmatic examples of market failure, such as the externality of pollution and monopolistic control of production, are associated with the production of energy. More importantly, perhaps, crucial ethical questions can be missed if we only consider the perspective of individual values and choice. 

Economists differ widely in their views on the practical importance of these market failures, on what remedies are appropriate, and whether governments can satisfactorily remedy the problem. One clear principle is that the problem be identified as precisely as possible and the assistance be targeted as closely as possible to the problem. For example, if information is inadequate, providing knowledge about options would be preferable to aiding a specific option. The three justifications for subsidies set a minimum test of aid that many programs fail to pass. 

Further problems arise in moving from principles to practice. To implement an assistance program, quantitative estimates of the magnitude of market failure must exist. Accurate measurement is a formidable problem. Determination of impacts is often... 

Others, however, suggest reorientation to more appropriate realms. The valid point is that uncorrected market failure may prevail. However, often the arguments for subsidies are misstated. Some suggest that the existence of inappropriate subsidies elsewhere justifies aid to those excluded. The preferable reaction to bad existing subsidies is their removal. Past waste cannot be recovered. 

Market failure arguments exist for government aid to some forms of research. Since the results of research are so broadly disseminated, it may be prohibitively expensive for private investors to charge the users of their discoveries. Thus the inventors are undercompensated, and underexpenditure arises unless the government provides aid. In addition, some theorists contend (and others deny) that governments are more farsighted than private firms. 

It is widely agreed among economists that market failures in energy exist. However, the record m practice has produced widespread criticism ofimplemen-taion of energy subsidies. 

Bator, F. (1958). The Anatomy of Market Failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics 72(3) 351-79. 

Koomey, J. (1990). Energy Efficiency Choices in New Office Buildings An Investigation of Market Failures and Corrective Policies. PhD thesis. Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley. . 

Following an EAL approach, traditionally regulatory systems originate from the presence of market failure in our specific case, the environment appears as a "public good" that may not be appropriated and has no market price the damage to the environment is a case of "externality," in that it is fully or partly a social cost that is not internalized into the accounts of the parties causing it.2 So the comparison of different instruments can consider how they may play a role in correcting malfunction and subsequent inefficiencies [7]. 

Damages to human health and the environment are by economists most often considered as market failures since they are external costs not included in the price when a transaction is taking place on the market. If the damage were to be fully financially compensated in the transaction, the damage would not be an external cost and the market would function properly. A properly functioning market implies that there is no problem to be solved (from the point of view of an economist). Externalities is the term used by economists when exploring non-priced effects of transactions [6]. 

All of the conditions for an efficient market are being studied in different subbranches of economics. Environmental and health impacts are examples of the violation of the condition no external effects which is an area studied mainly by environmental economists. In other words, environmental problems are to an economist considered as a market failure, or more precisely a negative externality. 

As a repetition, environmental degradation is usually a negative externality from, for example, the use of chemical additives, which cause a market failure, which in turn lead to welfare losses. If this is the case, and welfare loss is a bad thing, then something should be done about it. We have earlier presented the PPP as one way of correcting the market failure and we here present two other theoretical constructions to how market failures can be counteracted or avoided. 

There is a long-standing habit in the health economics literature of supporting the need to regulate health care services in market failures such as information asymmetries, complexity and uncertainty, indivisibilities and externalities. These imperfections are also present in the market of a resource that is very important in the health service production process pharmaceutical products. However, the pharmaceutical market also presents certain specific characteristics that are of particular importance and have been used as arguments in favour of the need to adopt public policies of price intervention and regulation. 

First, the pharmaceutical market failures mentioned above may be empirically inconsequential, which may either render their regulation unnecessary or make it advisable to use more flexible price control policies. For example, justifications for regulation that are based on the virtual absence of competition seem weak when one observes markets with products whose patent has expired. When a patent expires barriers to entry should disappear, since the composition of the active ingredient becomes public, and other companies should not have too many problems to reproduce the production process. The reasons brandished for price regulation when any company can manufacture a generic to compete with the brand product find no justification in theory. 

The first of these situations consists of what is known as market failures in other words, cases in which the market does not give an efficient response public goods, externalities, information asymmetry and so on. In these cases, there is widespread consensus in the discipline that public intervention is necessary to reach an efficient solution. However, this does not mean that just any sort of intervention is justified, as there may be problems or failures in the public regulation, causing the result to be worse than if there had been no intervention. As the saying goes, in terms that are curiously relevant to the matter in hand, sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease. 

None of the solutions mentioned in the above lines will be forthcoming from any invisible hand , nor can it be decided by one state as a corrective measure against market failures, because national authorities lack the capacity to impose regulations beyond their national borders. The way forward should be along the lines of an international agreement between countries, promoted and guaranteed by international bodies such as the WHO and the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

With such exemptions, innovative chemicals can be produced to explore the commercial market and to test product viability. Knowledge of their economics and potential for different applications can be expanded. These exemptions will lessen the cost of market failures. Successful chemicals will not have to bear the additional PMN cost of unsuccessful market tests. As new substances demonstrate their value to society and find a secure place in the market, they can then begin to absorb some of the costs associated with the PMN requirements. There would indeed be a chance for regaining much of the strength of an innovative chemical industry with all of its attendant benefits to society within the context of TSCA and the intent of Congress expression of the will of the American public when it it was passed with the support of the chemical industry in 1976. 

The purpose of this book is to investigate public policy issues in pharmaceutical innovation. In Section II we first describe the important characteristics of prescription drugs. We emphasize that these characteristics deviate from the standard conditions in a competitive market. In Section III we discuss the current performance of the pharmaceutical market. In Section IV we investigate market failures that persist in allocating research and development (R D) resources and in the utilization of prescription drugs. In Section V we analyze the policy conflict between the economic and health sectors arising from pharmaceutical innovation. The final section discusses the structure of the book and the major content of the chapters. 

IV. The Performance of Pharmaceutical Markets Market Failure in Pharmaceutical Markets ... 

As we have already documented, a major market failure is the absence of incentives to develop some drugs that potentially have important social benefits, but that are not currently being developed, in large part because pharmaceutical manufacturers lack an adequate incentive to engage in R D to develop such socially beneficial products. Several types of vaccines are a case in point. Clearly the patent system has proven to be inadequate in providing a sufficient incentive. Perhaps other incentive plans can either replace or supplement existing incentives to correct this market failure. 

In the second part of the book, we include four chapters to address issues arising from the market failure in allocating R D resources in the... 

In Chapter 4 Aidan Hollis examines three proposals in considerable detail. The first is an Advanced Purchase Commitment by sponsors, who offer an explicit subsidy in advance for innovative products. The subsidy offer includes a fixed-dollar amount per unit as well as a commitment to purchase a specific number of units at that price. The second proposal is that sponsors pay annual rewards based on the therapeutic effectiveness of innovative drugs. The third approach is to offer a patent extension on patented products to pharmaceutical companies if they successfully developed a vaccine for a disease such as HIV/AIDS that is highly prevalent, particularly in some low-income countries. Hollis concludes that the third approach is an extremely inefficient way to reward innovation. By contrast, the second approach could correct the market failure directly by rewarding innovative drugs according to their therapeutic effectiveness, which is measurable by cost-effectiveness analysis, a topic discussed later in greater detail in Chapters 10 and 11. 

Conceptually and administratively, the most substantial problems are with setting the public subsidy. We have discussed a limited subsidy plan not mentioned in the lOM report, which would be set only at the level of estimated medical and financial externalities. Such a subsidy would address the main market failure attributable to individuals not taking account of the benefit to others when they are vaccinated, which is likely to be reflected in insufficient demand for vaccinations as a covered private health insurance benefit. 

---