Question:
Some economists argue that the increase in food prices, caused by the rapid rise in biofuel production, is a major cause of famine and poverty in some of the world’s economies ’ (Extract C, lines 1-2).
Using the data and your economic knowledge, evaluate the case for and against governments intervening to prevent agricultural products from being used to produce biofuel.
[25 marks]
Answer:
Government intervention is when the government intervenes in the free market due to an apparent market failure. Government failure is when government intervention leads to a worsening of resources than the original market failure.
There is an interrelationship between food and biofuel as they are in composite demand. Due to rising incomes in China and India, demand for biofuel has increased, attracting farmers to switch their production from food to more biofuel production.
The diagram demonstrates the impact of changes in inter-related goods in a market. Biofuel demand shifts outwards from D to D1 due to the increased incomes in developing countries such as China and India. As a result, output increases from Q to Q1 and price rises from P to P1. A direct effect to this is a fall in production of food from Q to Q1 due to a fall in supply from S to S1 and therefore a price rise from P to P1. clearly, there are signs of market failure. For instance, the price rise of food is lending to potential food shortages and famine which can be devastating for an economy. It can also lead to greater inequality, with the price rise being regressive, it is a greater burden to low-income families.
Furthermore, one type of government intervention to correct this market failure is to subsidise farmers in the production of food. A subsidy is money given to a firm to lower their costs of production, so that they can supply more.
The subsidy shifts supply from S1 to S2 where food output increases from Q to Q1 and prices fall from P to P2. This means that prices are cheaper for consumers to buy food, it would eventually lead to a fall in biofuel due to the direct relationship to food. However, a subsidy is costly and the costs may outweigh the benefits of the subsidy. This in turn can cause government failure as the revenue budget could have been spent better elsewhere e.g. healthcare and education and therefore, there is an opportunity cost. In addition a subsidy may not be used for its intended purpose and a firm may use the subsidy to pay shareholders higher dividends, meaning that the subsidy will have little or no overall effect on increasing food production.
Another type of government intervention may be regulation. One regulation might be a limit on the production of biofuel, tackling the problem directly. A limit would restrict output, resulting in an increase in the price and therefore, we will see a contraction in demand for biofuel. However, this may or may not be effective if enforcement and punishment is not strict enough. For instance, if enforcement is not strong enough then it won’t be effective in restricting output and farmers may not comply, especially if the punishment is not as severe. There will also be the need for policing which would incur costs for the government and the high costs could lead to possible government failure.
On balance, I would argue that goods such as food, so necessary for the global economy should not be limited, especially as there is a global food shortage. Government intervention is important, especially where it could lead to food shortages and famine. However, government intervention should be kept to a minimum, as the free market may be able to self-correct itself, as it could lead to potential government failure and cause unintended consequences.