“As the global economic crisis forces everyone to downsize, the self-sufficient worker once again has a chance, whether as a farmer growing vegetables for local consumption or as an open-source software developer who makes a living in his basement office.” So argues the first article linked to below. Does this mean that economies of scale are over-exaggerated? Should developing countries provide more support to small-scale production as a growth and development strategy? And does small-scale production provide benefits beyond those of production and profit? Does it meet broader human and social needs? The articles explore the issues: the first two in the context of the developed world and the other four in the context of developing countries.
The Return to Yeomanry New America Foundation (22/6/09)
Entrée: Small-scale farmers on the forefront of a greens revolution The Vancouver Sun (19/6/09)
Extracts – the future of small-scale farming Oxfam International
Malawi’s fertile plan Mail & Guardian Online (25/6/09)
Development: Investment in small farmers crucial in Africa Bizcommunity.com (24/6/09)
Toward Agricultural Sustainability Philippines Business Mirror (24/6/09)
Questions
- What are the benefits of ‘a return to yeomanry’ (a) to the individuals themselves; (b) to society and the environment?
- Why might it prove a risky strategy for those embarking on small-scale production? How could governments help to reduce the risks for the producers? Should they?
- Discuss whether fostering small-scale farming is an appropriate development strategy for developing countries. What specific policy measures should governments adopt?
- Is land reform (a) a necessary condition; (b) a sufficient condition if small-scale farming is to flourish in developing countries? What pitfalls are there from a policy of land reform?
Competition authorities in the USA and Europe tend to have a different approach to firms that have a dominant market position by virtue of their ownership of specific intellectual property, such as software codes. Thus companies such as Microsoft can exploit network economies, thereby making it hard for rival firms to compete. After all, if most people use Windows, there is an incentive to keep using it so as to be compatible with other users. Similar arguments apply to the ownership of physical property, such as ports, airports, railways and power lines, where the owners may choose to deny access to competitors.
So should companies such as Microsoft grant rivals access to their intellectual property? Would such access increase competition, or would it be a disincentive for rivals to innovate? The following article from The Economist considers the issue and refers to a recent paper by Sir John Vickers, former head of the Office of Fair Trading and now Warden of All Souls College, Oxford and President of the Royal Economic Society. He argues for a mid-way course between Europe and America – more interventionist than in the USA, but less rigidly regulated than in the EU.
What’s mine is yours The Economist (28/5/09)
Competition Policy and Property Rights, John Vickers Oxford University , Department of Economics, Discussion Paper Series (26/5/09)
See also
‘Intel inside’ could be outside the law
Questions
- Explain what is meant by ‘network economies’ and give some examples.
- What are the arguments for and against requiring companies to give rivals access to their intellectual property?
- If companies are required by the competition authorities to give others access to their intellectual property, should they be allowed to charge their rivals for using such property, and, if so, how would the authorities determine the appropriate amount?
The ‘tragedy of the commons’ refers to the overuse of common land. If people can freely graze their animals on such land and have no responsibility for maintaining it, then the land will be overused and everyone will suffer. The problem is that the benefit of using the land occurs to the individual whereas the cost is collectively incurred.
There are many modern examples of the tragedy of the commons and the articles below look at some of them. Perhaps surprisingly, not all cases of the use of common resources end in tragedy; some common resources are used sustainably. A more thorough analysis must involve deeper questions of human motivation and behaviour.
IT’s tragedy of the commons Datamation (IT Management) (8/4/09)
The Tragedy of the Commons TechFlash (7/4/09)
Encarta’s failure is no tragedy Guardian (7/4/09)
How Self-Interest Destroyed The Economy The Huffington Post (23/3/09)
What does The Pirate Bay ruling mean for the web? Telegraph (17/4/09)
Tragedy of the Commons The Manila Times (23/3/09)
Questions
- Explain how the tragedy of the commons arises and give some examples other than common grazing land.
- How and why does the tragedy of the commons occur in information technology? Consider the benefits and costs of the ‘fix’ to the problem advocated in the first linked article.
- Does the case of Wikipedia (see the third linked article) disprove the proposition that common resources will be overused?
- To what extent is free access to content (music, newspapers, videos, books, etc.) a tragedy of the commons? Is the only solution to devise an effective charging model that rewards content creators?
There has been much discussion recently on the use of fiscal policy to combat recession. What measures should be used? How effective will they be? How will the resulting large budget deficit be brought back into balance in the future?
But what are the microeconomic implications of all the tax changes? Are the changes fair? What implications do they have for incentives? Perhaps it’s time for a completely fresh look at the structure of our tax system – a system that has been changed piecemeal over the past years to meet short-term macroeconomic and political goals. Can it be redesigned to meet the two microeconomic goals of efficiency and equity? The following article looks at what form a redesigned tax structure might take.
Our tax system is a mess. But Darling has a chance to fix it. (Peter Wilby) Guardian (11/4/09)
Questions
- In what ways does the present tax system fail to meet the goals of (a) fairness through redistribution and (b) creating appropriate incentives?
- Explain what is meant by “The whole system has been framed by Tory thinking to assist social engineering, Tory style”.
- Provide a justification and critique of the reforms proposed in the article.
Public choice theory is an area of economics that uses standard economic tools to consider the decisions made by politicians and others within the public sector. In essence the theory applies economic principles to politics. In the article below Simon Caulkin argues that public sector reform and the application of public choice theory has failed and likens the public sector reforms that have been implemented to Soviet central planning.
Labour’s public sector is a Soviet tractor factory Observer (4/5/08)
Questions
| 1. |
Explain what is meant by public choice theory. |
| 2. |
Describe the principal public-sector reforms that were implemented under the Blair government. |
| 3. |
Discuss the extent to which recent public-sector reforms have succeeded in delivering a more responsive and efficient public sector. |