When there is no incentive to cut pollution because it will make domestic firms less competitive, world welfare will improve if:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: When there is no incentive to cut pollution because it will make domestic firms less competitive, world welfare will improve if:

First, consider the core idea: if each country acts unilaterally to reduce pollution, domestic firms may bear higher costs relative to foreign competitors with lax pollution standards. This can lead to a race to the bottom or to a loss of global welfare due to distorted trade and higher overall pollution levels.

Option analysis (even though no multiple choices are provided, we will reason about the given answer):
- The provided answer states: there is an international agreement so that every nation regulates global pollutants and no firms have competitive advantages because of lax pollution laws.
  Why this would improve world welfare: An international agreement that sets uniform pollution standards eliminates the competitive disadvantage that domestic firms face when others pollute more cheaply. It levels the playing field, preventing pollution-based cost distortions from distorting comparative advantage. With uniform regulations, firms compete on efficiency and innovation rather than on exploiting laxer environmental rules elsewhere. This can reduce overall pollution and improve social welfare globally, assuming the agreement is effectively enforced and parts of the agreement balance cost burdens appropriately.

Why this logic makes sense in economics:
- It mitigates transboundary externalities by ensuring that pollution control is not selectively advantaged by jurisdiction.
- It reduces the incentives for pollution havens, where firms relocate or source production to countries with weaker standards.
- It can create a stable environment for international trade, as firms face predictable regulatory costs rather than shifting costs across borders.

Potential issues or caveats to consider:
- The effectiveness of world welfare gains depends on the design of the agreement, including enforcement mechanisms, safe-completion timelines, and adaptation assistance for firms or countries with higher abatement costs.
- If the agreement is too stringent or poorly financed, it could impose compliance costs that reduce welfare in the short term or for less-capitalized economies.
- Political economy factors, such as free-riding or unequal burden-sharing, can undermine the gains if not properly addressed through compensation or transfer mechanisms.

Why the other implicit alternatives (if any) would be less favorable:
- If there is no international agreement, firms in countries with lax pollution standards could gain a competitive edge, potentially shifting production and pollution to those jurisdictions and worsening global welfare.
- If only some countries regulate, while others do not, distortions persist, and the gains from uniform regulation are not fully realized.
- If regulation is not credible or enforceable, firms may expect future relaxations or exemptions, reducing the incentive to innovate toward cleaner production and undermining welfare gains.

In summary, the mechanism by which world welfare improves in this scenario hinges on eliminating competitive distortions caused by asymmetric pollution regulation through a credible international agreement that ensures uniform standards and prevents competitive advantages from lax pollution laws.

01:220:300:01 INTERNATIONAL ECON Externalities and market failure practice questions (not for credit)

When there is no incentive to cut pollution because it will make domestic firms less competitive, world welfare will improve if:

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler