Economic efficiency

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Economic efficiency describes a situation where nothing can be improved for one person without making someone else worse off. That single idea sits at the center of nearly every debate in modern economics. It sounds simple, almost self-evident. But ask two economists how to achieve it and you will likely get two very different answers. One will tell you government is the problem. The other will tell you government is the solution. Both of them are working from the same concept.

  The concept actually contains two distinct definitions that are not equivalent. Allocative efficiency, also called Pareto efficiency, holds that any change helping one person must harm another. Productive efficiency means no additional output of one good can be obtained without cutting the output of another, and that production happens at the lowest possible average total cost. A market can satisfy one of these conditions without satisfying the other. Understanding why that gap exists is where the real arguments begin.

• 2. Two Definitions, One Concept

  ›

  Allocative efficiency comes into focus when the price of a product equals the marginal value consumers place on it, and also equals the marginal cost of making it. Every good or service is produced up to the point where one more unit would cost more to produce than the benefit it provides. When drawing business diagrams, allocative efficiency is satisfied when output is produced where marginal cost equals average revenue.

  Productive efficiency has its own condition: goods must be supplied at the lowest possible average total cost. On a business diagram, this means the equilibrium sits at the minimum point of the average total cost curve. Both allocative and productive efficiency hold in the long-run equilibrium of perfect competition, which is part of why that market structure carries so much weight in textbook economics.

  The broader engineering concept underlying both is that a system is efficient when it maximizes desired outputs, such as utility, given the available inputs. That framing connects economic efficiency to a much older family of ideas about optimizing constrained systems.

• 3. The Great Debate

  ›

  Two major standards of thought shape how economists approach efficiency, and they pull in opposite directions. One tradition emphasizes distortions created by governments, arguing that reducing government involvement brings the economy closer to efficiency. The other emphasizes distortions created by markets, arguing that increasing government involvement corrects those failures.

  The dialog between these camps takes place broadly within the context of economic liberalism and neoliberalism, though those terms are also used more narrowly to describe particular positions, especially those advocating laissez-faire. There are also differences in views on microeconomic versus macroeconomic efficiency, with some analysts advocating a greater government role in one sphere but not the other.

  This is not simply an academic dispute. It shapes tax policy, regulation, welfare programs, and the structure of entire economies. The same underlying commitment to efficiency produces genuinely opposing policy prescriptions depending on which distortions a thinker believes are most severe.

• 4. Schools and Their Roots

  ›

  Advocates of laissez-faire, meaning little or no government role in the economy, draw on the 19th century philosophical tradition of classical liberalism. They are particularly associated with classical economics through the 1870s, neoclassical economics from the 1870s onward, and the heterodox Austrian school.

  Those who favor an expanded government role trace their lineage through alternative streams of progressivism. In the Anglosphere, which includes the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, this tradition connects to institutional economics and, at the macroeconomic level, to Keynesian economics. Germany has its own guiding philosophy: Ordoliberalism, rooted in the Freiburg School of economics.

  The mainstream view today holds that market economies are generally closer to efficient than other known alternatives, while also accepting that government involvement is necessary at the macroeconomic level via fiscal policy and monetary policy to counteract the economic cycle, following Keynesian economics.

• 5. Pareto's Limits

  ›

  The first fundamental welfare theorem gives formal grounding to the belief in market efficiency. It states that any perfectly competitive market equilibrium is Pareto efficient. That result, however, rests on the assumption of perfect competition, which means it only holds in the absence of market imperfections. Real markets have those imperfections in significant quantities.

  Pareto efficiency is also a minimal notion of optimality. It says nothing about equality or the overall well-being of a society. A distribution of resources can be Pareto efficient and deeply unequal at the same time. One person could hold nearly everything, and if no reassignment could help someone without hurting that person, the arrangement still qualifies as Pareto efficient.

  At the microeconomic level, those who favor regulation argue the goal is to reduce market failures and imperfections, particularly by internalizing externalities, which are costs or benefits that fall on parties outside a transaction and are therefore ignored by private actors.

• 6. Reform and the Second Best

  ›

  Microeconomic reform refers to policies that aim to reduce economic distortions through deregulation and move the economy toward efficiency. Countries pursuing such reforms expect that removing a market distortion will increase overall efficiency. There is a complication, however, that the theory of the second best makes plain.

  The theory of the second best states that if some unavoidable market distortion exists in one sector, a move toward greater market perfection in another sector may actually decrease efficiency. In other words, fixing one problem when other problems remain uncorrected can make the overall situation worse, not better. There is no clear theoretical basis for assuming otherwise.

  This result has a practical consequence for policy. It means that piecemeal deregulation, applied sector by sector without regard to distortions elsewhere, carries no guarantee of improvement. The full accounting of interactions across sectors matters, and that accounting is rarely straightforward.