Discuss the extent to which government policies are successful in encouraging more consumers to adopt electric vehicles to maximise social welfare in the electric vehicle market.
The Economics Essence Workshop, happening on 22 October 2024 from 10am to 5pm via Zoom, is an intensive full-day event designed to help A-Level students master essay writing. Led by Mr. Eugene Toh, a renowned Economics tutor, the workshop covers 20 carefully selected Prelim Questions from the 2024 exams, giving students essential practice and exposure to both micro and macro topics. Key areas include question dissection, essay structure, critical thinking, and crafting evaluations to hit higher-level marks. Students will benefit from guided coverage of questions, comprehensive answers, and expert advice on time management and writing strategies. A PDF of answers will be provided after the session. For $320, participants get access to the live Zoom session and recorded lessons, with bundle options available for previous years' workshops and materials. The workshop is designed to boost confidence and competence in tackling A-Level Economics essays, providing students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Register now to secure your spot!
(b) Discuss the extent to which government policies are successful in encouraging more consumers to adopt electric vehicles to maximise social welfare in the electric vehicle market. [15]
NYJC 2024
Governments often aim to maximise social welfare by implementing policies that correct market failures, especially in industries like the electric vehicle (EV) market, where positive externalities exist. Social welfare is maximised when the Marginal Social Cost (MSC) of a product equals the Marginal Social Benefit (MSB). In the case of electric vehicles, the consumption of EVs generates positive externalities, which include reduced emissions and cleaner roads, ultimately leading to better public health outcomes for society. These external benefits are not captured in the private decision-making of consumers and producers, resulting in under-consumption of EVs in a free market. Governments, therefore, intervene to align consumption with the socially optimal level, where MSC = MSB, through various policies such as subsidies and infrastructure development.
One of the primary reasons that electric vehicles generate positive externalities is their role in reducing pollution. Conventional vehicles powered by petrol or diesel emit significant amounts of harmful gases, contributing to air pollution, which negatively affects public health, particularly in urban areas. In contrast, electric vehicles produce lower emissions, reducing the number of harmful particles in the air, thereby improving the health of individuals in surrounding communities. This creates what is as third-party benefits (positive externalities), where people not directly involved in the production or consumption of EVs still benefit from cleaner air and improved public health. However, because consumers do not typically account for these third-party benefits when making their purchasing decisions, the market fails to reach the socially optimal level of consumption.
Policy 1: Subsidies on Electric Vehicles
A common government policy to correct this market failure is the provision of subsidies for electric vehicles. Subsidies reduce the Marginal Private Cost (MPC) of producing and selling EVs, shifting the supply curve to the right. By lowering the price of EVs, subsidies make them more affordable for consumers, thereby increasing the quantity demanded. This policy helps move consumption closer to the socially optimal level Qs, where the marginal social benefits of EV adoption are fully realised. The increased affordability encourages more consumers to switch from conventional vehicles to electric alternatives, leading to a reduction in pollution and an improvement in public health, which enhances social welfare.
For example, a government might provide a subsidy of $5,000 for each EV purchased, which directly lowers the price paid by consumers. This price reduction leads to an increase in the quantity of EVs demanded, pushing the market closer to the socially optimal output. In theory, the subsidy ensures that more consumers consider the external benefits of reduced pollution when deciding whether to purchase an electric vehicle.
However, subsidies are not without challenges. One key issue is the potential strain on the government budget, as EVs are costly to produce and therefore expensive to subsidise. Governments may face difficulty sustaining these subsidies over the long term, especially if they need to allocate funds to other pressing areas like healthcare or education. A potential solution to this challenge is for governments to simultaneously tax petrol and diesel-powered vehicles. By imposing higher taxes on more polluting cars, the government can not only discourage the use of these vehicles but also generate revenue to finance EV subsidies.
It is also important to note that electric vehicles are not entirely free from environmental harm. Although EVs emit no exhaust gases, the electricity used to power them may come from power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. This means that while EVs reduce emissions on the roads, the overall environmental benefits may be less than anticipated if the energy required to charge them is not produced through renewable sources. Moreover, the adoption of EVs could contribute to increased congestion if more people who previously relied on public transportation or did not drive at all enter the car market. This could offset some of the environmental gains by creating additional traffic on the roads.
Policy 2: Government Spending on Infrastructure
Another significant government policy to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles is investment in infrastructure, particularly in the development of EV charging stations. One of the major barriers to EV adoption is range anxiety, where consumers worry that the limited availability of charging stations will leave them stranded without power. By investing in a widespread and reliable charging network, the government can reduce range anxiety and make EVs a more convenient and appealing option for consumers. This policy works by shifting consumer preferences in favour of electric vehicles, thereby increasing demand.
Currently, many consumers do not value electric vehicles as highly as traditional petrol or diesel cars because of the inconvenience associated with charging. Charging an EV takes considerably more time than refuelling a conventional vehicle, and charging stations are far less widespread than petrol stations. Government infrastructure spending can address this issue by ensuring that EV charging stations are widely available and that the time required to charge an EV is reduced. By making EVs more convenient to use, the government can change consumer tastes and preferences, leading to increased demand and a higher level of EV consumption. If this policy is successful, the quantity of electric vehicles demanded will increase, bringing the market closer to the socially optimal level.
However, infrastructure development is expensive and time-consuming. Governments must allocate large sums of money to build the necessary infrastructure, and these projects often take several years to complete. This means that the benefits of infrastructure spending may not be immediately apparent, and there may be opportunity costs involved in diverting funds from other areas such as education, healthcare, or housing. Moreover, as infrastructure projects take time to complete, the immediate impact on EV adoption may be limited, especially if consumers are waiting for the infrastructure to be in place before committing to buying an electric vehicle.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both subsidies and government spending on infrastructure are important policies that can encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and help maximise social welfare. Subsidies offer a more immediate boost to EV adoption by lowering prices and making them more affordable, but they come with significant costs to the government and may not address long-term barriers to EV use, such as range anxiety. On the other hand, government investment in infrastructure can create lasting changes in consumer preferences and remove key obstacles to EV adoption, but this policy is expensive and may take time to deliver results.
Overall, a combination of both policies may be the most effective approach. In the short term, subsidies can increase EV demand, while in the long term, infrastructure improvements can ensure the sustainability of EV adoption by addressing convenience and accessibility issues. Together, these policies can move the market closer to the socially optimal level, maximising social welfare through reduced pollution and improved public health.