The 2012 London Olympics opened on 27 July. This has been the result of years of planning and investment in infrastructure since London won the bid in 2005.
It is estimated that hosting the Games will have cost over £9bn. It is therefore interesting to consider the long-run impact on a host city years after the last medal has been won. We might expect host cities to achieve increased growth due to the benefits from the improved infrastructure and the impact of increased publicity and exposure on trade, capital and population.
This has recently been investigated in a paper published in the Economic Inquiry by Stephen Billings and James Holladay which looks at the impact hosting the Games has on GDP and trade (working paper available here). One difficulty with trying to identify the impact of hosting the Games, is that only certain cities will have a chance of being chosen as hosts and these may be cities that are more likely to experience future growth. If this is the case, it would appear that the future growth was due to hosting the Games when it would in fact have been likely to occur anyway. In order to control for this, the above paper compares the winners with losing finalists in the selection process for host cities. For example under this approach London would be compared with Singapore, Moscow, New York and Madrid. In addition, subsequent matching processes are also used to select appropriate cities for comparison.
They find that larger cities in wealthier countries are more likely to be chosen to host the Games. However, once comparisons with other appropriate cities are made, overall, they find that hosting the Games has no effect on a cities population, growth or trade. One explanation provided is that the intense competition to host the Games means the potential gains are competed away via escalated promises in order to increase a cities chances of being selected. In addition, they note that there may well still be considerable specific benefits from the investments made to host the Games.
It is also clear that there are both positive and negative externalities from hosting the Games that, whilst difficult to measure, ideally should be taken into account. On the negative side, these include the extra hassle anybody travelling to work in London during the Games will face. On the other hand, on the positive side, it is hoped that part of the long-run legacy of the Games will be increased interest and participation in sport which would result in substantial health benefits.
David Cameron claims London 2012 will bring £13bn ‘gold for Britain’ The Guardian, Hélène Mulholland (05/07/12)
Olympic legacy: how the six Olympic boroughs compare for children The Guardian, Simon Rodgers (19/07/12)
London 2012: Olympics legacy hard to define BBC News, David Bond (13/07/12)
Questions
- Explain how intense competition to host the Games might result in benefits being competed away.
- Can you think of any other externalities resulting from the Olympic Games?
- Why are the impact of externalities difficult to measure?
- What other factors should be taken into account when assessing the costs and benefits of hosting the Games?
- Do you think the decision to bid to host the Games should be purely based on a cost-benefit analysis?
A recent article on this blog discussed the likelihood that we will soon move to a cashless society. It is therefore interesting to consider the implications that this might have for consumer behaviour. We might expect the form of payment to make no difference to a rational consumer. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this is not the case.
One reason why people appear to spend more freely on credit cards is payment decoupling – you get utility from the item purchased before you pay the cost. However, more recent evidence suggests that this is not the only relevant factor. It appears that the degree of transparency of the payment method also has an effect. Psychologists quoted in the above article conclude from their experimental evidence that:
Payment modes differ in the transparency with which individuals can feel the outflow of money. ….with cash being the most transparent payment mode.
This effect also appears to make people spend cash less freely.
The author of the above article spent some time experimenting with trying to make all his purchases using cash. He found that by doing so, he was able to reduce his spending by about 10%. However, this seems likely to become harder to do in the future and, as the article concludes, it is already difficult to purchase some items with cash.
Article
Why does foreign money seem like play money? Science Codex (04/06/07)
Questions
- What type of products is it already difficult to purchase with cash?
- How did the psychologists test the transparency of payment methods?
- Do you think the consumer behaviour described above is likely to persist in the long-run?
- Might firms be able to take advantage of the consumers behave described above?
- Do you think the transparency of foreign currencies is the main reason why people spend more when they are abroad?
In oligopoly markets, because there are a small number of firms, each firm is affected by its rivals’ decisions. This interdependence results in a tension between cooperation and competition. On the one hand, firms collectively benefit from cooperating and keeping prices high.
On the other hand, an individual firm then has an incentive to undercut its rivals to steal a larger share of the market. This incentive to undercut can potentially result in price wars between firms. This is exactly what has recently occurred between pizza sellers on the Avenue of Americas in Midtown New York. Here, until recently the 6th Ave. Pizza company was selling pizza for $1.50 per slice. However, the entry of two competitors nearby sparked an intense and bitter price war.
First, an outlet called Joey Pepperoni’s Pizza opened nearby and charged $1 per slice. This price was then matched by the 6th Avenue Pizza company. Then, the 2 Bros. pizza chain opened an outlet almost next door to the 6th Avenue Pizza company. Initially, they also charged $1 per slice.
However, this did not last for too long. First 6th Avenue cut its price to 79 cents and then 2 Bros. responded by cutting its price to 75 cents, which 6th Avenue quickly matched.
Which company started this price war has been subject to some debate. The owners of the 6th Avenue Pizza company were angry, alleging that 2 Bros. was trying to force them out of business. However, the owners of 2 Bros. claimed that they were simply responding to the 6th Avenue Pizza company’s decision to start charging 79 cents per slice and they even have evidence from their security cameras confirming this! When asked why they cut their price the owners of the 6th Avenue company said that:
He was taking away our customers. How were we going to pay our rent?
So what will happen next in this market? One of the owners of the 2 Bros. company has said that they will go back to $1 per slice if the 6th Avenue Pizza company does the same, as they can’t make any profit at the current price. However, the tension between cooperation and competition suggests this may be difficult to sustain.
In the meantime, both are quoted suggesting that they may be tempted to reduce prices even further. 6th Avenue Pizza company stated:
We may go to 50 cents. I want to hit him. I want to beat him.
2 Bros. said:
We might go to free pizza soon.
Of course, while the price war continues, the clear winners are the consumers. In the article one is quoted as saying:
I think it’s beautiful. We need 75-cent hamburgers next.
Articles
Questions
- Why is it difficult for firms to maintain high prices in oligopolistic markets?
- What are the key features of competition in the pizza market?
- Is this the type of market where you would expect price wars to be likely?
- How might firms in this market try to differentiate their product?
- Do you think prices will ever return to $1.50 per slice in this market? Explain.
A key economic principle is that rational decision making requires thinking at the margin. This involves a comparison of the additional (or marginal) benefits and costs of an activity.
An example of such rational behaviour would be deciding to drink one more beer or spending one more hour studying only if the additional benefits were greater than the additional costs. The optimum is where marginal benefit equals marginal cost.
And this applies to firms too. A firm maximises its profits by producing the output at which marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost.
However, a recent book by the American business guru Clayton Christensen argues that thinking in this way can be a problem. A recent article in the Guardian describes a story he tells of the time he refused to play for his university basketball team in a national final which took place on a Sunday and therefore conflicted with his religious beliefs. His decision involved sticking to his principles rather than thinking at the margin. For him, whilst the marginal cost of sacrificing these principles just once may well have been small compared to the resulting benefits, the eventual cost would be much higher.
Christensen also suggests that similar arguments can apply to firm decision making. The above article provides an example he uses of decisions made by executives at the Blockbuster video chain. When smaller rivals started offering movies by mail, Blockbuster instead continued to invest in its existing video store business model. This eventually proved disastrous for the company. The explanation given for this is that building on previous investments made more sense than setting up a mail-order arm which would cannibalise their existing business. On the other hand, an alternative explanation may be that executives at Blockbuster were irrationally allowing sunk costs to affect their decision making.
Articles
Clayton Christensen’s “How Will You Measure Your Life?” Harvard Business School, Clayton Christensen (9/5/12)
Clay Christensen’s life lessons BloombergBusinessweek, Bradford Wieners (3/5/12)
Bust Blockbuster goes on the block Guardian, Ben Child (4/4/11)
Questions
- Can you think of a situation where you have decided to stick to your principles rather than think at the margin?
- Why does a firm maximise profit by producing the output at which marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost?
- What do you think are the main costs of setting up a mail-order business?
- Are these costs mainly fixed or variable costs?
- Why is it irrational to take sunk costs into account when making a decision?
- Can you think of a situation where you have been influenced by sunk costs?
A recent post on this blog referred to what sounds a fascinating new book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits Of Markets, by Michael Sandel. The Guardian also recently featured an extract from this book.
As the earlier blog post discussed, our lives are now dominated by markets. Economists typically believe markets are the best way to allocate resources as, if the market mechanism works correctly, the resulting equilibrium maximizes economic welfare as measured by the sum of consumer and producer surplus. In particular, all consumers that are willing to pay a price above the market price are able to buy the product.
Fundamental to the measurement of consumer welfare is the notion that consumers will be prepared to buy a product as long as their willingness to pay exceeds the price. It therefore follows that consumers are more likely to buy the product as the price falls and, if they do so, gain increasing surplus. However, the extract from Michael Sandel’s book provides a number of interesting examples which suggest that in some situations this might not be the case.
One example concerns the storage of nuclear waste in Switzerland. When surveyed, 51% of the residents of the small Swiss village of Wolfenschiessen, said that they would be prepared to accept the waste being stored nearby. However, somewhat surprisingly, this figure fell to 25% when the residents were told that they would be compensated for the inconvenience. Furthermore, the figure remained at this low level even when the proposed compensation was increased to over £5000 per person.
Sandel argues that this is because, once compensation is introduced, financial incentives crowd out public spirit. He suggests that:
putting a price on the good things in life can corrupt them.
For economists, this potentially has important implications for how we evaluate market outcomes and our belief that the market equilibrium is always the optimal outcome. Furthermore, it suggests that in some circumstances allowing the market mechanism to allocate resources may not be the ideal solution.
Articles
What money can’t buy – review The Guardian, John Lanchester (17/05/12)
Michael Sandel: ‘We need to reason about how to value our bodies, human dignity, teaching and learning’ The Guardian, Decca Aitkenhead (27/5/12)
We must decide on the way we want to live now London Evening Standard, Matthew d’Ancona (23/05/12)
Questions
- How is consumer surplus calculated?
- How does the market mechanism allocate resources?
- How would you explain the responses of the residents in the Swiss village?
- Do you think the Swiss residents would respond in the same way if the compensation offered was increased even further?
- What type of products and services do you think might be less well suited to being provided by markets?
The 2012 London Olympics opened on 27 July. This has been the result of years of planning and investment in infrastructure since London won the bid in 2005.
This has recently been investigated in a paper published in the Economic Inquiry by Stephen Billings and James Holladay which looks at the impact hosting the Games has on GDP and trade (working paper available here). One difficulty with trying to identify the impact of hosting the Games, is that only certain cities will have a chance of being chosen as hosts and these may be cities that are more likely to experience future growth. If this is the case, it would appear that the future growth was due to hosting the Games when it would in fact have been likely to occur anyway. In order to control for this, the above paper compares the winners with losing finalists in the selection process for host cities. For example under this approach London would be compared with Singapore, Moscow, New York and Madrid. In addition, subsequent matching processes are also used to select appropriate cities for comparison.
They find that larger cities in wealthier countries are more likely to be chosen to host the Games. However, once comparisons with other appropriate cities are made, overall, they find that hosting the Games has no effect on a cities population, growth or trade. One explanation provided is that the intense competition to host the Games means the potential gains are competed away via escalated promises in order to increase a cities chances of being selected. In addition, they note that there may well still be considerable specific benefits from the investments made to host the Games.
