ECON1101 Chapter Notes - Chapter 5: Price Ceiling, Shortage, Deadweight Loss

26 views7 pages

bluebee342

22 Jul 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Chapter 5 government intervention: the cost of interfering with market forces. Definition the price ceiling represents a maximum allowable price imposed by the government. This might occur in a variety of different ways: however, a certain group of consumers that previously could acquire the good will be left unserved after the price ceiling is introduced. This is simply the result of the reduction in price that occurs after the introduction of the price ceiling, which in turn reduces the quantity that producers are willing to supply. Hence, certain consumers will now be left unserved: producers are also definitely worse off as their initial surplus is larger than the final one. The introduction of any price ceiling is doomed to decrease the total surplus in the economy. The amount by which total surplus decreases as a result of a price ceiling being imposed is called deadweight loss.

Related Questions

Under a binding price ceiling, what does the change in consumer surplus represent?
A) The gain in surplus for those buyers who can still purchase the product at the lower price.
B) The loss in surplus for those buyers who previously purchased some units of the good at the higher price, but these units are no longer produced at the lower price.
C) The loss in surplus for those buyers who would like the purchase the excess demand created by the price ceiling policy.
D) Both A and B are correct.
E) Both A and C are correct.

When the market price is held above the competitive level, the deadweight loss is composed of:

A) producer surplus losses associated with units that used to be traded on the market but are no longer exchanged.

B) consumer surplus losses associated with units that used to be traded on the market but are no longer exchanged.
C) producer and consumer surplus losses associated with units that used to be traded on the market but are no longer exchanged.
D) There is no deadweight loss if the government uses a price floor policy to increase the price.

Compared to a tariff, an import quota, which restricts imports to the same amount as the tariff, will leave the country as a whole
A) worse off than a comparable tariff.
B) not as bad off as a comparable tariff.

C) about the same as a comparable tariff.

D) Any of the above can be true.

What is the welfare impact of a subsidy policy?
A) Producer surplus increases, consumer surplus declines, and total welfare declines.
B) Producer and consumer surplus increase, and these gains are larger than the government cost.

C) Producer and consumer surplus increase, and these gains are smaller than the government cost.

D) Producer surplus increases, consumer surplus declines, and total welfare increases due to the subsidy program.

Why is there a deadweight loss associated with subsidy payments?
A) There is no deadweight loss from a subsidy.
B) Quantity supplied is less than the equilibrium amount, so consumers and producers lose surplus value on those units that are no longer produced.
C) Quantity supplied exceeds the equilibrium amount, and consumer willingness to pay for these additional units is smaller than the marginal cost of producing them.
D) The subsidy payment does not distort quantities in the market, but the government cost exceeds consumer willingness to pay for the quantity demanded.

violetmole943

Adapted from Bayer-Monsanto: the challenges of a Mega-merger. Case #9B17M182 and Teaching Note #8B17M182 Ivey Publishing

In 2016, the German multinational Bayer AG and the U.S.-based Monsanto Company agreed to merge, potentially creating the world's largest integrated pesticide and seeds company.

The agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals industries have several attributes in common. Both have large markets and high growth potential. Both industries also have strong technological roots in chemistry and biology. Too, the R&D intensity is high in both industries. Monsanto, for example, spends over 10% of its revenues on R&D whereas the average pharmaceutical firm spends 13%. Both industries are also subject to strict government regulation. For example, safety reviews of new products are commonplace in pharmaceuticals while genetically modified organisms are forbidden in Europe.

Nevertheless, there were some differences. For example, while the pharmaceutical industry is rather fragmented, agrochemicals were not - 6 companies controlled 2/3 of the seed business and 3/4 of the pesticide market. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry is characterized by long product life cycles (e.g., 12 years) and heavy up-front investments in R&D to discover new products. To compound this risk, Bayer had a relatively limited portfolio in pharmaceuticals (15 products accounted for 80% of its 2015 pharmaceutical revenues).

Table 1: Revenue Distribution of Pharmaceutical companies in 2015, millions of Euros
Company	Pharmaceutical Revenues	Other Revenues
GlaxoSmithKline	21.4	14.6
AstraZeneca	34.0	0.0
Sanofi	29.8	4.7
Merck	32.2	3.4
Pfizer	44.0	0.0
Novartis	27.4	17.1
Roche	35.3	9.8
Bayer	12.6	29.8*
Johnson & Johnson	28.3	34.8
*9.1M Consumer health, 10.4M Crop Science, 12.0M Polymers, Coatings, and Adhesives. Source: Bayer 2015 annual report

Other factors favored the merger. For example, while Monsanto had a strong presence in America (53% of its sales), Bayer's geographical presence was stronger in Europe. Too, it was anticipated that knowledge from Bayer's pharmaceuticals and crop science research could be shared across Monsanto's animal health business. Both sides also anticipated additional benefits from the overlap in customers farmers - and from bundling seeds and pesticides in an exclusive package. Also, though Bayer had traditionally been weak in seeds they represented only 12% of crop science division sales - Monsanto's expertise in this area was thought to be a good complement. In fact, Monsanto's seeds had been engineered to be resistant to its Roundup herbicide. Furthermore, Bayer's new CEO, Werner Baumann, had previously managed the strategy and portfolio department at Bayer and, consequently, had a good deal of M&A experience. And finally, both companies were focusing on big dataâ to provide new services and more precision for farmers. The possibility of a huge data bank created by the convergence of the data from both sides promised further productivity improvements.

Nevertheless, although agrochemicals could be considered an oligarchic industry dominated by firms such as DuPont, Syngenta, Monsanto, and Bayer, even the leading players had been struggling recently with a new wave of mergers and acquisitions. For example, after Monsanto had made three unsuccessful attempts to acquire Syngenta in 2014-2015, Dow and Dupont merged in December 2015 and Syngenta merged with ChemChina in February 2016.

Table 2: 2015 Revenues by business segment, $B
	Crop protection & seeds	Other	Other divisions
DuPont	9.8	15.2	Electronics (2.1B), Ind'l. Biosciences (1.1B), Nutrition & Health (3.2B), Perf. Materials (5.3B), Safety & Protection (3.5B)
Dow	7.3	50.5	Perf. Plastics (22.4B), Perf. Mat'ls and Chem. (15.1), Infrastructure Solns. (8.4), Customer Solutions (4.6)
Syngenta	13.0	0.0
Chem China	n.a	n.a.	Agrochemicals, Basic Chemicals, Specialty Chemicals, Tire & Rubber, Chemical Equipment, Oil Processing
Monsanto	15.0	0.0
Sources: 2015 Annual Reports

Furthermore, Bayer and Monsanto would need to obtain approval from regulators in over 30 countries to close the deal. U.S. regulators had opposed the merger but the ascension of Donald Trump to the presidency (he argued that agriculture had needed more innovation) boded well for approval of the combination in the U.S. The European Union, on the other hand, had opposed Monsanto, especially its genetically-modified organisms (GMO).

Diana L. Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, also pointed out that

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) notes that the price of farm inputs, led by crop seed, generally have risen faster over the last twenty years than the prices farmers have received for their commodities. Moreover, seed prices have outpaced yield increases over time. And finally, the USDA has determined that increasing levels of concentration in agricultural input markets (including crop seeds) are no longer generally associated with higher R&D or a permanent rise in R&D intensity.

Therefore, we might conclude that this consolidation would negatively pressure consumers and farmers.

Questions:

The preceding discussion documents Bayer's attempt to further diversify its portfolio of businesses.

1. What weaknesses were Bayer trying to address via its diversification strategy?

2. What opportunities in its environment (e.g., synergies created by merging with Monsanto) is Bayer trying to exploit via its diversification strategy? Is this a case of related or unrelated product/market diversification?

3. Finally, according to the resource-based view, firms may differ in the number of synergies they possess vis-a-vis target firms. Those with greater synergies may be able to profit more from the acquisition than their competitors. They may either (1) win the bid at a lower price, thereby earning above-normal profits, or (2) withdraw from the bidding if the target price becomes too high, allowing the winning bidder to earn below-normal profits.

What attributes does Bayer bring to the bidding for Monsanto that suggests it might have had different (possibly more) synergies with Monsanto than other potential bidders (e.g., Dow or ChemChina)?

chocolatepug721

ECON1101 Chapter Notes - Chapter 5: Price Ceiling, Shortage, Deadweight Loss

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON1101 Chapter 5: ECON1101 Chapter 5

ECON1101 Chapter Notes - Chapter 5: Price Ceiling, Deadweight Loss, Economic Equilibrium

ECON1101 Lecture 5: Chapter 5

Related Questions