The first Microeconomics
concept that students study is that of the demand curve and supply curve. When
the two curves meet, the market is in equilibrium. Consumers (the buyers) know
how much they want and the price they are ready to pay. Producers (the sellers)
know how much the consumer wants and the price they can get for it. And hence
everyone ends up happy!
And how exactly do
the consumers know the optimum quantity needed and the associated price? That
is where the magic of the invisible hand comes. According to the founding
father of modern economics, Adam Smith, the market forces make sure that the equilibrium
point is achieved, whether through a series of iterations or trials-and-errors.
For example, if the producer prices something too high, people will stop consuming
it in the same quantities. Then the price would automatically come down. The opposite
is also true. Market forces can be exerted by both consumers and producers.
We all know this
does not work well in practice. Microeconomic theory has different explanations
like imperfect markets, externalities, etc. Let us talk about one of them- information
asymmetry. One side has more information than the other. More often, it is the
seller who knows what exactly the product is, while the buyer does not. George Akerlof,
who won the Economics Nobel Prize in 2001, gave the concept of Adverse
Selection in his famous paper called ‘The Market For Lemons’. He described how
not properly communicating the product quality to the consumers will make them suspicious
that the product being sold is inferior. This leads to a vicious circle when
they are not ready to pay a premium price because they suspect the product is
inferior. Hence, the producer would only be ready to supply an inferior product
from the range that can be offered.
Akerlof suggested that
the two ways to counter this are Signalling and Screening. The producer can
signal (or communicate) that the product is of superior standard through procedures
like quality certificates, product reviews, and more. The consumers can screen
the product for quality and find out what it really is. The problem comes when buyers
do not have the knowledge or skills for screening, and the sellers are adept at
sending false signals- catchy advertisements, misleading claims, and the other
tools in their paraphernalia.
That is why free
markets are a disaster in many cases like financial markets. No invisible hand
works to ensure that the buyers get the right loan or insurance product. A free
market is like traffic without traffic police. A strong regulatory framework is
absolutely necessary to ensure that order is maintained. And we need bodies
with authoritative powers to enforce them. So who will watch the watchmen? The
same regulatory bodies can be selectively biased, which sets up conditions for institutionalized
corruption. The best solution is to make the bodies autonomous, without any
political interference. The appointments and promotions in the regulatory
bodies should be done after ‘screening’ the candidates for integrity.
Of course, nothing
in the world is perfect. But something is better than nothing. The markets
cannot be left open at the mercy of sellers with ulterior motives. It is not
always about wisdom- the public often does have complete information.
Regulation, to some extent, is desirable. Institutions are the authorities for the same, it is a good idea to keep the members in them, from various walks of life. Not with beauraucratic tags, which generally is the case. It should be ensured that the product description is complete, and accessible to the user/ buyer.
ReplyDeleteGood food for thought. Sharing some of my views. You'll agree that appointments to regulatory bodies should primarily based on competence. Now such experienced candidates are likely to have been part of industry at some time or desire to go there. The Japanese concept of Amakudari is very much seen in many of India's top companies. Equally we have well funded lobbyists influencing regulatory decisions. Both these issues are intrinsically linked to human behavior and I believe they will remain even with closely scrutinised selection of regulators.
ReplyDelete