原理课程中的市场失灵和效率。

IF 1.7 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Education Pub Date : 1999-01-01 DOI:10.1080/00220489909596098
J. Mrózek
{"title":"原理课程中的市场失灵和效率。","authors":"J. Mrózek","doi":"10.1080/00220489909596098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many policy debates revolve around the appropriate extent and form of government intervention in specific markets, or, more accurately, government alteration of the incentives or institutional rules in those mar kets, including the provision of certain goods. 1 To make sense of these debates, economics students must understand what “free” markets do well and, in particular, where they fail, and how governments may be able to improve their behavior. Toward this end, authors of principles textbooks generally discuss concepts including gains from trade, efficiency, the invisible hand, and various causes of market failures such as market power, externalities, and public goods. The current pedagogy fails to emphasize fully the common principles under lying the various categories of market failure. The examination of principles text books below demonstrates that each category of market failure is typically dis cussed separately. Furthermore, the textbooks do not always clearly show how an economist identifies the alternati ve, preferred outcome, nor do they emphasize that economists often apply an efficiency criterion in considering alternati ves. I argue instead for a unified consider ation of how markets fail, based on how an ef ficiency rule is violated . All market transactions can be characterized as “ef ficient”or “inefficient,”according to whether they satisfy the ef ficiency rule that marginal benefits to society equal or exceed marginal costs to society. Then, all explanations of individual market failures can refer to this rule and show ho w private-decision rules may sometimes deviate from it. Finally, one can show how government, by making alterations to individual markets (by changing rules or incentives or by providing goods directly), may be a ble to impr ove the efficiency of the economy. This unified consideration does not require rear rangement of topics within the course, other than introduction of the ef ficiency rule at some point before the first type of mar ket failure is taught. A unified treatment of mar ket failures and efficiency has two key benefits. First, consolidation enables reinforcement of the basic concepts through r epetition of the same analytical constructions and may also lessen the class time required to cover market failures. Second , consolidation conveys to students that economists often reference a common normative foundation, based on the con","PeriodicalId":51564,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Education","volume":"58 1","pages":"411-419"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Market Failures and Efficiency in the Principles Course.\",\"authors\":\"J. Mrózek\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00220489909596098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many policy debates revolve around the appropriate extent and form of government intervention in specific markets, or, more accurately, government alteration of the incentives or institutional rules in those mar kets, including the provision of certain goods. 1 To make sense of these debates, economics students must understand what “free” markets do well and, in particular, where they fail, and how governments may be able to improve their behavior. Toward this end, authors of principles textbooks generally discuss concepts including gains from trade, efficiency, the invisible hand, and various causes of market failures such as market power, externalities, and public goods. The current pedagogy fails to emphasize fully the common principles under lying the various categories of market failure. The examination of principles text books below demonstrates that each category of market failure is typically dis cussed separately. Furthermore, the textbooks do not always clearly show how an economist identifies the alternati ve, preferred outcome, nor do they emphasize that economists often apply an efficiency criterion in considering alternati ves. I argue instead for a unified consider ation of how markets fail, based on how an ef ficiency rule is violated . All market transactions can be characterized as “ef ficient”or “inefficient,”according to whether they satisfy the ef ficiency rule that marginal benefits to society equal or exceed marginal costs to society. Then, all explanations of individual market failures can refer to this rule and show ho w private-decision rules may sometimes deviate from it. Finally, one can show how government, by making alterations to individual markets (by changing rules or incentives or by providing goods directly), may be a ble to impr ove the efficiency of the economy. This unified consideration does not require rear rangement of topics within the course, other than introduction of the ef ficiency rule at some point before the first type of mar ket failure is taught. A unified treatment of mar ket failures and efficiency has two key benefits. First, consolidation enables reinforcement of the basic concepts through r epetition of the same analytical constructions and may also lessen the class time required to cover market failures. Second , consolidation conveys to students that economists often reference a common normative foundation, based on the con\",\"PeriodicalId\":51564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Education\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"411-419\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220489909596098\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Education","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220489909596098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

许多政策辩论围绕着政府干预特定市场的适当程度和形式,或者更准确地说,政府改变这些市场中的激励措施或制度规则,包括提供某些商品。为了让这些争论有意义,经济学专业的学生必须了解“自由”市场在哪些方面做得好,尤其是在哪些方面失败了,以及政府如何能够改善它们的行为。为此,原理教科书的作者通常会讨论贸易收益、效率、看不见的手以及市场力量、外部性和公共产品等市场失灵的各种原因等概念。当前的教育学未能充分强调市场失灵各种类别背后的共同原则。下面对原理教科书的考察表明,市场失灵的每个类别通常是单独讨论的。此外,教科书并不总是清楚地显示经济学家如何识别替代方案,首选结果,也没有强调经济学家在考虑替代方案时经常应用效率标准。相反,我主张基于效率规则如何被违反,对市场如何失灵进行统一考虑。所有的市场交易都可以被划分为“高效”或“低效”,这取决于它们是否满足社会边际收益等于或超过社会边际成本的效率规则。然后,所有对个别市场失灵的解释都可以参考这一规则,并表明私人决策规则有时可能会偏离这一规则。最后,我们可以展示政府如何通过改变个别市场(通过改变规则或激励措施,或通过直接提供商品)来提高经济效率。这种统一的考虑不需要在课程中安排更多的主题,只需要在教授第一种市场失灵之前的某个时间点引入效率规则即可。对市场失灵和效率的统一处理有两个关键好处。首先,整合可以通过重复相同的分析结构来加强基本概念,也可以减少涉及市场失败所需的课堂时间。第二,整合向学生传达经济学家经常参考一个共同的规范基础,以欺诈为基础
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Market Failures and Efficiency in the Principles Course.
Many policy debates revolve around the appropriate extent and form of government intervention in specific markets, or, more accurately, government alteration of the incentives or institutional rules in those mar kets, including the provision of certain goods. 1 To make sense of these debates, economics students must understand what “free” markets do well and, in particular, where they fail, and how governments may be able to improve their behavior. Toward this end, authors of principles textbooks generally discuss concepts including gains from trade, efficiency, the invisible hand, and various causes of market failures such as market power, externalities, and public goods. The current pedagogy fails to emphasize fully the common principles under lying the various categories of market failure. The examination of principles text books below demonstrates that each category of market failure is typically dis cussed separately. Furthermore, the textbooks do not always clearly show how an economist identifies the alternati ve, preferred outcome, nor do they emphasize that economists often apply an efficiency criterion in considering alternati ves. I argue instead for a unified consider ation of how markets fail, based on how an ef ficiency rule is violated . All market transactions can be characterized as “ef ficient”or “inefficient,”according to whether they satisfy the ef ficiency rule that marginal benefits to society equal or exceed marginal costs to society. Then, all explanations of individual market failures can refer to this rule and show ho w private-decision rules may sometimes deviate from it. Finally, one can show how government, by making alterations to individual markets (by changing rules or incentives or by providing goods directly), may be a ble to impr ove the efficiency of the economy. This unified consideration does not require rear rangement of topics within the course, other than introduction of the ef ficiency rule at some point before the first type of mar ket failure is taught. A unified treatment of mar ket failures and efficiency has two key benefits. First, consolidation enables reinforcement of the basic concepts through r epetition of the same analytical constructions and may also lessen the class time required to cover market failures. Second , consolidation conveys to students that economists often reference a common normative foundation, based on the con
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Education offers original articles on teaching economics. In its pages, leading scholars evaluate innovations in teaching techniques, materials, and programs. Instructors of introductory through graduate level economics will find the journal an indispensable resource for content and pedagogy in a variety of media. The Journal of Economic Education is published quarterly in cooperation with the National Council on Economic Education and the Advisory Committee on Economic Education of the American Economic Association.
期刊最新文献
Who does (and does not) take introductory economics? Educational technology for teaching economics–where to start and how to grow? Student engagement and interaction in the economics classroom: Essentials for the novice economic educator Designing effective assessments in economics courses: Guiding principles The study of economics at HBCUs and PWIs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1