To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Allocative efficiency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allocative efficiency is a state of the economy in which production is aligned with the preferences of consumers and producers; in particular, the set of outputs is chosen so as to maximize the social welfare of society.[1] This is achieved if every produced good or service has a marginal benefit equal to the marginal cost of production.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    459 952
    62 875
    34 025
  • Allocative efficiency and marginal benefit | Microeconomics | Khan Academy
  • Allocative efficiency
  • Allocative Efficiency

Transcription

We've already spent a lot of time thinking about these six different scenarios, all of which sit on the production possibilities frontier, which means that in any of these scenarios, we have achieved productive efficiency. And it's true not just of these scenarios. It's true of any of the points on this curve. So you have achieved, any point on that curve, productive-- let me give ourselves some real estate on the right-- efficiency. Which means, another way to think about it, is that as soon as you're at any point on that curve, if you want any more of one of these things you have to give up some of the other. So for example, if you're at point C, and if you want more rabbits, if you want 1 more rabbit, you're going to have to give up some berries. Or if you're at point C and you want more berries, you're going to have to give up some rabbits. And that's true of any point on the production possibilities frontier. A point over here-- let me do this in a different color. So let's say at this point right over here, you have not achieved productive efficiency here because you can get more rabbits without having to give up any berries. And you could get to Scenario B. Or you could get more berries and not have to give up any rabbits, and you would get to Scenario D. So this right over here is inefficient. Now, all of these, that's all good. All of these five or six scenarios, we've achieved productive efficiency. But which of these do we pick? How do we decide to allocate our time? So what I want to talk about in this video is allocative efficiency. And it's somewhat subjective, based on the preferences of, if we are the hunter gatherer, based on our preferences. But at least it gives us a framework for thinking, which of these meets our preferences the best. And to do that, I will review a little bit from the last video. In the last video, we talked about the marginal cost of each incremental rabbit. Or we said the opportunity cost of each incremental rabbit, and the opportunity cost of one incremental unit, that really is just the marginal cost. So let's just write these different scenarios. So let's write the scenarios, scenario for short, scene for short. And then let's think about the marginal cost of 1 incremental rabbit. I'll just draw a rabbit here. And it's going to be given in berries. All right. Let's start with Scenario F. And this is all review from the last video. Sitting in Scenario F, if we want to get 1 extra rabbit, we are going to have to give up 20 berries. In Scenario E, if we're sitting in Scenario E, and we want even 1 more rabbit we now have to give up 40 berries. So the marginal cost at that point of 1 more, I keep wanting to say squirrel, 1 more rabbit is 40 berries. Now let's go to Scenario D. And I encourage you to pause and do this yourself. It'll help if you kind of work it out. Scenario D, the cost of 1 extra rabbit is now 60 berries. You go to Scenario C. The cost is now 80 berries. So in Scenario C the cost is now 80 berries. Finally you got to Scenario B and the cost of, sitting in Scenario B, of getting 1 extra rabbit-- you're going to have to give up 100 berries. And I won't even go into Scenario A, because it will be impossible for you to have any more rabbits and you have no more berries to give up. So these are all the possible scenarios and the marginal costs of them. And we can actually plot them on a line. So let me do that right over here. This will be useful. So let me draw one axis right over here, one axis over here. And this is, let's call this the different scenarios. So this-- let me do in the same order. Let's call this Scenario F, Scenario E. I'll just do it in one color right now. Scenario E, Scenario D, Scenario C and Scenario B. Actually, let me-- instead of doing it that way, let me just talk about it in terms of the number of squirrels I have. So the number of squirrels that I have. So in Scenario F, if you remember, in Scenario F-- oh, not squirrels, rabbits. In Scenario F you have 0 rabbits. Scenario F you have 0 rabbits. So let's say 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And so this is the number of rabbits, not squirrels, the number of rabbits that you right now are able to catch, on average, each day. And then in the vertical axis, right now, I want to put the marginal cost in berries. And let's see, it goes from 20 up to 100. So let's say that this is 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100. So Scenario F, that's when we had 0 rabbits. And the marginal cost of trying to get another rabbit, you would have to give up 20 berries. So that is Scenario F right over there. Scenario E, that's one where we had 1, where we already had 1 rabbit and we are thinking about the marginal cost of getting another one. So that's scenario E, is right over there. This is scenario D. Marginal cost is 60. We already have 2 rabbits and we are thinking about getting a third. That's Scenario D. And then Scenario C, we already have 3 rabbits, thinking about getting a fourth. That's Scenario C. And then finally, we have Scenario B where we already have 4 rabbits and we're thinking about getting a fifth. And we would have to give up 100 berries to get that fifth rabbit. So that's Scenario B right over there. So what I've just done is plotted the marginal cost along-- these are points on, essentially, our marginal cost curve, our marginal cost as a function of the number of rabbits we have. So let me connect all the dots. And then this scenario just happened to be a line. Doesn't always have to be a line but in many introductory economics courses, it's often a line for simplicity. So let me make this a line right over here. This is our marginal cost as a function of the number of rabbits we have. And actually, I should probably draw this axis, I should probably draw-- let me copy and paste this. So let me cut this. Let me cut that and then let me paste it, because it really should sit on the 0 point right over there. And ignore that little line right over there. So there you have marginal cost as a function of berries. But we still don't know which scenario to pick. And to think about that, I want to introduce something called the marginal benefit. And I'll write it as MB, the marginal benefit of an incremental rabbit. And once again, we're going to write it in berries. And the way to think about the marginal benefit is, if we are the hunter-gatherer we're saying, if we're sitting in one of these scenarios, how much would we paid to some hypothetical convenience store in berries-- maybe that convenience store only sells bunnies and they only accept berries-- how much would we pay to them in berries for an extra rabbit? And let's not even look at this thing right over here. So if we're sitting in Scenario F, we're sitting in Scenario F. And you remember Scenario F is right over here. We have no rabbits. How much would we be willing to pay? We have no rabbits and we actually have a ton of berries. So in Scenario F right here, we have no rabbits and we have 300 berries. If we have no rabbits and a lot of berries, let's say, we'll say, we have a lot of berries. We might be in the mood for a rabbit. We would be willing to pay a lot in berries for a rabbit. So let's say we would pay 100. We would pay 100 berries to that hypothetical convenience store for a rabbit. Now let's say that we're in Scenario E. We're in Scenario E, how much would we pay to that hypothetical convenience store? Well, in Scenario E we already have 1 rabbit and we have fewer berries. So we need a rabbit less and we have fewer berries to give, so we're not willing to give quite as many berries for another rabbit. So maybe we'll only give 80 berries. Then you go to Scenario D. We already have 2 rabbits and we have even fewer berries so we're willing to give even fewer berries for another rabbit. This is what we would pay to a convenience store, just based on thinking about it, our current preferences. Then we can go all the way to Scenario C. And it is subjective. It's not like a measurable thing. It's just based on this person's preferences, this hunter-gatherer's preferences. Scenario C, well, they already have more rabbits, even fewer berries. So they'll pay even less. And then finally Scenario B. They have a good number of rabbits and even fewer berries. They would be willing to pay very little for an incremental rabbit. So let's plot the marginal benefit as a function of the number of rabbits that they already have. So if we go to Scenario F, the marginal benefit, doing that little thought experiment is 100. In Scenario E, the marginal benefit, how much you would hypothetically be willing to pay in berries, is now 80 berries. In Scenario D it is 60 berries. In Scenario C it is 40 berries. So Scenario C is right over here. So in Scenario C it's 40 berries. And then in Scenario B it is 20 berries. So in Scenario B it is 20 various, just like that. So now we're not just plotting the marginal cost. We're plotting the marginal cost and the marginal benefit in berries. And the marginal benefit curve-- and it's really a line here, once again, for simplicity-- looks like that. Now, given this-- so this is the marginal benefit curve. Marginal benefit is a function of the number of rabbits that we already have. And this is the marginal cost as a function of the number of rabbits we already have. And so when I say E, this is actually Situation E. That's Situation D. This is also Situation C and this is also-- this is the marginal benefit at Situation B. So given this, what would I rationally do? If these really are my preferences, what would I rationally do? So if I'm sitting here in Situation F, I have no rabbits. I already know that it would cost me 20 rabbits to try to get an incremental one. But I've already said that I'd be willing to pay 100. Sorry, it would cost me 20 berries to get an incremental rabbit. But I've already said that I'm willing to pay 100 berries to get an incremental rabbit. So I would want to move along the curve. So I would definitely want to get more rabbits. I said that I'm willing to pay 100 berries for a rabbit and it would only cost me 20 berries for a rabbit. So I'm saying that I want to get more rabbits. And another way to look at this visually, marginal benefit is much higher than marginal cost here. So I'm willing to go forth and try to get more rabbits. That's even true in Scenario E. The marginal benefit of an incremental rabbit is worth much more to me than the marginal cost, so I'm willing to try to get more rabbits. So in Scenario E I'm still trying to get more rabbits. I still want to move along the production possibilities frontier in this general direction. Now what happens as I get closer to D? So if I'm in this scenario right over here, and this isn't one of our labeled scenarios, but if I'm right over there-- still, my marginal cost is lower than my marginal benefit. So I'll still want to get more rabbits, all the way until I'm Scenario D. In Scenario D I'm a little bit neutral. I'm willing to pay 60 berries for a rabbit, but that's exactly how much I'd have to give up to get that extra rabbit. So let's just think about Scenario D for a little bit. I'll just circle it right over here. Because it looks kind of interesting. Now, let's go-- now would we want to do anything beyond Scenario D? So if I'm at this point right over here, if I'm working enough on average, to say get 2 and 1/2 rabbits a day, would I-- does this make sense for me to try to get any more rabbits? Well, at that point the benefit of getting an incremental rabbit is smaller than the cost of getting a rabbit. At that point, if I try to get another rabbit, I'm getting less benefit from it than the cost associated with it. So I definitely don't want to move past D. So I achieve allocative efficiency where my marginal cost and my marginal benefit is equal. So based on the way that I've rigged the numbers in this example right over here, you want to settle on Scenario D. We have achieved allocated efficiency over there. The marginal cost as a function of our rabbits and the marginal benefit of our function of rabbits is equal.

Description

In economics, allocative efficiency entails production at the point on the production possibilities frontier that is optimal for society.

In contract theory, allocative efficiency is achieved in a contract in which the skill demanded by the offering party and the skill of the agreeing party are the same.

Resource allocation efficiency includes two aspects:

  1. At the macro aspect, it is the allocation efficiency of social resources, which is achieved through the economic system arrangements of the entire society.
  2. The micro aspect is the efficient use of resources, which can be understood as the production efficiency of the organization, which can be improved through innovation and progress within the organizations.

Although there are different standards of evaluation for the concept of allocative efficiency, the basic principle asserts that in any economic system, choices in resource allocation produce both "winners" and "losers" relative to the choice being evaluated. The principles of rational choice, individual maximization, utilitarianism and market theory further suppose that the outcomes for winners and losers can be identified, compared, and measured. Under these basic premises, the goal of attaining allocative efficiency can be defined according to some principles where some allocations are subjectively better than others. For example, an economist might say that a policy change is an allocative improvement as long as those who benefit from the change (winners) gain more than the losers lose (see Kaldor–Hicks efficiency).

An allocatively efficient economy produces an "optimal mix" of commodities.[2]: 9  A firm is allocatively efficient when its price is equal to its marginal costs (that is, P = MC) in a perfect market. The demand curve coincides with the marginal utility curve, which measures the (private) benefit of the additional unit, while the supply curve coincides with the marginal cost curve, which measures the (private) cost of the additional unit. In a perfect market, there are no externalities, implying that the demand curve is also equal to the social benefit of the additional unit, while the supply curve measures the social cost of the additional unit. Therefore, the market equilibrium, where demand meets supply, is also where the marginal social benefit equals the marginal social costs. At this point, the net social benefit is maximized, meaning this is the allocative efficient outcome. When a market fails to allocate resources efficiently, there is said to be market failure. Market failure may occur because of imperfect knowledge, differentiated goods, concentrated market power (e.g., monopoly or oligopoly), or externalities.

In the single-price model, at the point of allocative efficiency price is equal to marginal cost.[3][4] At this point the social surplus is maximized with no deadweight loss (the latter being the value society puts on that level of output produced minus the value of resources used to achieve that level). Allocative efficiency is the main tool of welfare analysis to measure the impact of markets and public policy upon society and subgroups being made better or worse off.

It is possible to have Pareto efficiency without allocative efficiency: in such a situation, it is impossible to reallocate resources in such a way that someone gains and no one loses (hence we have Pareto efficiency), yet it would be possible to reallocate in such a way that gainers gain more than losers lose (hence with such a reallocation, we do not have allocative efficiency).[5]: 397 

Also, for an extensive discussion of various types of allocative efficiency in a production context and their estimations see Sickles and Zelenyuk (2019, Chapter 3, etc).[6] In view of the Pareto efficiency measurement method, it is difficult to use in actual operation, including the use of human and material resources, which is hard to achieve a full range of efficiency allocation, and it is mainly to make judgments from the allocation of funds; therefore, analyzing the funds in the stock market. Allocation efficiency is used to determine the efficiency of resource allocation in the capital market.

In a perfectly competitive market, capital market resources should be allocated among capital markets under the principle of the highest marginal benefit. Therefore, the most important measurement standard in the capital market is to observe whether capital flows into the enterprise with the best operating efficiency. The most efficient companies should also get a large amount of capital investment, and the less efficient companies should get less capital investment. There are three conditions that come with Pareto efficiency

Best trade outcome
Even if you trade again, individuals cannot get greater benefits from it. At this time, for any two consumers, the marginal substitution rate of any two commodities is the same, and the utility of the two consumers is maximized at the same time.
Optimal production
This economy must be on the boundary of its own production possibilities. At this time, for any two producers who produce different products, the marginal technology substitution rate of the two production factors that need to be input is the same, and the output of the two consumers is maximized at the same time.
Optimal product mix
The combination of products produced by the economy must reflect consumer preferences. At this time, the marginal rate of substitution between any two commodities must be the same as the marginal product conversion rate of any producer between these two commodities.

Examples

A numerical example of allocative efficiency

Allocation efficiency occurs when there is an optimal distribution of goods and services, considering consumer’s preference. When the price equals marginal cost of production, the allocation efficiency is at the output level. This is because the optimal distribution is achieved when the marginal utility of good equals the marginal cost. The price that consumer is willing to pay is same as the marginal utility of the consumer.

Allocative Efficiency example

From the graph we can see that at the output of 40, the marginal cost of good is $6 while the price that consumer is willing to pay is $15. It means the marginal utility of the consumer is higher than the marginal cost. The optimal level of the output is 70, where the marginal cost equals to marginal utility. At the output of 40, this product or service is under-consumed by the society. By increasing the output to 70, the price will fall to $11. Meanwhile, the society would benefit from consuming more of the good or service.

An example of allocation inefficiency

With the market power, the monopoly can increase the price to gain the super normal profit. The monopolies can set the price above the marginal cost of the production. In this case, the allocation is not efficient. It results in the dead weight welfare loss to the society as a whole. In real life, the government's intervention policy to monopoly enterprises will affect the allocation efficiency. Large-scale downstream companies with more efficient or better products are generally more competitive than other companies. The wholesale prices they get are much lower than those of their competitors. It is conducive to improving the efficiency of allocation. Ind erst and Shaffer (2009) found that banning prices would reduce allocation efficiency and lead to higher wholesale prices for all enterprises. More importantly, social welfare, industry profits, and consumer surplus will all be reduced.

See also

References

  1. ^ Anderson, D. (2019). Environmental Economics and Natural Resource Management, [1] Routledge, New York.
  2. ^ Kim, A., Decentralization and the Provision of Public Services: Framework and Implementation (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2008), p. 9.
  3. ^ Markovits, Richard (1998). Matters of Principle. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5513-6.
  4. ^ Markovits, Richard (2008). Truth or Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11459-1.
  5. ^ Beardshaw, J., Economics: A Student's Guide (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 1984), p. 397.
  6. ^ Sickles, R., & Zelenyuk, V. (2019). Measurement of Productivity and Efficiency: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139565981

6. Inderst, Roman, and Greg Shaffer. "Market Power, Price Discrimination, and Allocative Efficiency in Intermediate-Goods Markets." The RAND Journal of Economics 40, no. 4 (2009): 658-72. Accessed April 27, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25593732

This page was last edited on 21 December 2023, at 22:50
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.