Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Electronic Road Pricing in the United Kingdom. [25]

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Electronic Road Pricing in the United Kingdom. [25]

Tutor's Note: My site will start having more and more Economics materials and interesting Economics topics from around the world, rather than just purely having material from Singapore or from pure Economic theory only. See here, as an illustration, for an example of an Economics essay on China's economy on JC Economics Essays. 

Introduction

This paper discusses the economic advantages and disadvantages of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) in the United Kingdom (the UK). First, a few definitions are in order: what is ERP? ERP is the idea of congestion charges, where a charge is imposed on cars that drive within a restricted zone during certain times of the day. This paper discusses the economic advantages and disadvantages of ERP in the United Kingdom’s context.

Advantages of Electronic Road Pricing in the UK

First, ERP raises revenue for the UK government effectively, because the demand for road trips is relatively inelastic, especially during peak hours during the day. According to economic theory, relatively inelastic demand suggests that when prices are raised, revenue will increase, ceteris paribus. If the UK government gets more tax revenue, other taxes can be decreased, the government can spend more on public transport, or the budget deficit in the UK can be reduced. Hence, this method of raising revenue can be considered a major advantage.

Second, ERP can increase social efficiency. In a free market, the consumption of car trips is heavily over-consumed. This is because when people are driving, they ignore the negative externalities of congestion and pollution, and only consider their own marginal private costs and benefits. Externalities are third party spill-over effects, and can be negative or positive. In the case of cars, they produce many negative externalities to other people who are not involved in the use of private cars. The marginal social cost of driving is thus much greater than the marginal private cost of driving. 

In fact, empirically, congestion costs the UK economy billions every single year in lost output and wasted time. Pollution from cars is also a significant contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the UK. Road charging should encourage people to look for other forms of transport which do not pollute as much. Therefore it makes sense for the government to charge a much higher price of driving in congested areas because this will make drivers internalise the externality.

Disadvantages of Electronic Road Pricing in the UK

On the other hand, there are of course certain disadvantages of ERP in the UK. First, it seems to be an intrusion on liberty. To drive one will need countless documents or be monitored by technology. The driver’s movements on the roads and whereabouts might be tracked, which could affect his freedom.

However, this point does not seem rather strong because most times when consumers use electricity or Internet access, their movements and usage are tracked as well, and hence this cannot be considered an infringement of liberty.

Secondly, the government seems to be just using ERP to raise money, which may not be politically acceptable. There could be the perception that this idea does not tackle negative externalities, but is instead a new method of raising revenue from the people.

However, that is indeed one of the reasons for the existence of income tax, Value Added Tax, and every other type of tax. Raising money from a new tax enables other taxes to be lowered or spending to be increased, and therefore this need not necessarily be negative.

Thirdly, ERP increases inequality in the UK. This is true to an extent. This is because a road pricing charge is a higher percentage of a tax for those with low incomes, relative to those with higher incomes, and as such impacts the poor more than the rich who can easily afford to drive, even with congestion charges.

However, buying a car and paying for petrol also affects inequality in the UK. If concern about the equality of income distribution is an issue, the government can alter other taxes and benefits, by taxing differently and redistributing the proceeds. A tax which increases efficiency – in this case solving the market failure of negative externalities – need not be stopped on equity grounds. It is always possible to compensate the effects to others by different redistributions of income, which is outside this paper’s arguments.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ERP clearly has both advantages and disadvantages for the UK government. First, ERP raises revenue for the UK government effectively, because the demand for road trips is relatively inelastic, especially during peak hours during the day. Second, ERP can increase social efficiency and force drivers to internalise their externalities, thus solving a market failure. On the other hand, there are of course certain disadvantages of ERP in the UK. First, it seems to be an intrusion on liberty. Secondly, there could be the perception that this idea does not tackle negative externalities, but is instead a new method of raising revenue from the people. Thirdly, ERP increases inequality in the UK by impacting the poor more than the rich.

In the final analysis, however, given that the core economic issue here seems to be the market failure of negative externalities affecting the socially efficient level of output, then ERP is indeed a good method of solving a particular market failure in the UK, and all other considerations seem to be secondary rather than primary to the core issue. 

JC Economics Essays: Tutor's Commentary - As promised, this site offers more than just topics of interest to Singapore, but also other countries and international events, situations, and much more material. Hopefully this will help you in your Economics revision, and at any rate you can get to learn more about other countries and their economies, or their economic situation, and see how general Economics concepts can be applied to different countries' contexts, and the international context as well. Observe that from a student's viewpoint (as well as an Economics tutor's viewpoint), solving congestion utilises general economic principles that apply not just to Singapore, but to other countries' contexts as well. In other words, always think of how you can APPLY Economics to DIFFERENT contexts, topics, and subjects. As usual, the usual tutor's comments apply: think of what the relevant diagrams should be; how would you improve on this answer, and how can you approach this Economics question other than using this approach? Thanks for reading, and cheers! (Acknowledgement: This Economics essay was written by a student who worked with me.) 

(b) How far would the knowledge of demand elasticities be useful to a govt in devising policies that discourage the use of private cars? [15]

(b) How far would the knowledge of demand elasticities (PED, YED, XED) be useful to a government in devising policies that discourage the use of private cars? [15]

To discourage the use of private cars, there are a few policies that the government can implement. The government can implement policies to curb car ownership, curb car usage, or encourage the use of public transport. This paper argues that the knowledge of demand elasticities is useful to help governments in terms of car ownership, car usage, and public transport strategies, and to a large extent this knowledge is quite useful for helping the government make good decisions to tackle road congestion.

Firstly, car ownership can be reduced through a variety of measures. Car ownership can be discouraged by taxing the purchases of new cars, thus making them more expensive, thereby reducing the quantity demanded. Taxes shift the supply curve of cars to the left, thus reducing the equilibrium quantity demanded. Alternatively, an equivalent policy is to set a quota below the free market equilibrium quantity. A quota is a mandatory number of cars that limits the car population. By controlling car ownership, the population growth of cars is curbed and with a smaller car population, there will indirectly be fewer cars on the road.

Alternatively, car usage can be controlled directly using road pricing whereby motorists are charged for using congested roads. For example, in Singapore we have ERP. Electronic Road Pricing is a road toll system that reduces the usage of cars. This reduces the number of cars on that road, hence lowering the extent of traffic congestion.

Finally, lowering the fares or improving the quality and accessibility of public transport, for instance, lowering the fares of SMRT trains or raising the quality of SBS buses, encourages people to switch away from driving private cars to using public transport, hence reducing the usage of cars and traffic congestion in the process.

The knowledge of PED, YED, and XED are quite useful in helping governments devise policies to discourage the use of private cars. PED can be applied here. If demand is price elastic, a low tax rate is able to significantly reduce the quantity demanded. Hence an indirect tax is a suitable policy to curb car usage or ownership. However, if the demand is price inelastic, a very high tax rate is required to significantly reduce the quantity demanded. Hence indirect taxes are likely to be politically unpopular because the imposition of a very high tax rate can result in the government being perceived as being more interested in raising revenue rather than in curbing car usage. Hence a quota is probably politically more acceptable because the government is perceived to be controlling the quantity directly rather than trying to raise revenue. However if the government were to auction off the quota permits, they might again be accused of trying to raise revenue rather than fight traffic congestion.

YED can also be applied here. Knowing the income elasticity of demand enables the government to estimate the extent of the change in demand in response to a change in income. So as income rises with economic growth, the government is then be able to better determine how much car taxes should be raised so as to prevent car population and usage from rising. If the demand for cars is income elastic (i.e. normal luxury), car ownership and usage taxes have to be raised frequently and/or substantially as the country experiences economic growth. Again, the government might be seen as being more interested in raising revenue than in curbing traffic congestion so indirect taxes are likely to be politically unpopular while a quota is likely to be politically more acceptable.

Cross elasticity of demand (XED) measures responsiveness of the demand for a good to a change in the price of another good. It is calculated by taking the percentage change in the demand for the good over the percentage change in the price of the other good. XED can be applied here as well. Since public transport are substitutes to private cars, knowing the cross elasticity of demand for cars with respect to the price of a public transport enables the government to know whether cutting public transport fares is an effective way of curbing car usage. Alternatively, by improving the quality and accessibility of public transport, this makes it a closer substitute to private cars, hence raising the cross elasticity of demand between the two goods. Hence, for a given reduction in the price of public transport, there is a greater impact in curbing the demand for car usage.

In conclusion, knowing the various demand elasticities is to a certain extent quite useful in helping a government decide on which policy to choose. However, it is probably less useful in helping the government decide how much to tax or what fares to charge for public transport. This is because elasticity figures are estimated based on pass data, so they are not fully applicable to the current context as economic conditions tend to change over time. Hence, all elasticity figures should be considered carefully.

JC Economics Essays - Tutor's Commentary: This essay paper was written under exam conditions, and is still well structured, much like the companion complementary part (a). However, as usual, the usual questions apply: how can I make this essay better? How can I use an economics diagram to make this paper better? It has a good structure and is well crafted, yes. May I use this approach in my other Economics essays, or is this only applicable to this type of questions or only to elasticities? A quick word of advice here: please do not swot/ mug/ memorise Economics essays - try to understand the underlying structure, pattern, and system of writing, and always think to yourself - how can I make this essay better and more structured? Why do I prioritise the points this way? Why do I write like this? And how can I be better than I am already? Think hard and you will succeed.

(b) Evaluate the possible policies a government might adopt to deal with the above market failure.

The first part of the question: (a) Explain why pollution and congestion caused by cars may cause market failure. [10]

(b) Evaluate the possible policies a government might adopt to deal with the above market failure. [15]

(in this case, externalities, as can be seen in the part (a) answer above) (15)

There are many policies that a government can utilize to overcome externalities in terms of congestion and pollution. This paper suggests policies and highlights their pros and cons. The government can impose congestion charges, such as the Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore (ERP), impose quotas or taxes to control the vehicle population, such as Certificates of Entitlement in Singapore (COE), improve the public transport system, build more roads, and other miscellaneous policies. All these will be explained and then evaluated in this paper.

First, would congestion charges work? They might work as the government is forcing drivers to internalize the externality. In this case, drivers will internalize the negative externality. What does this mean? Internalizing externalities means that the drivers are forced, by the use of the congestion charge, to factor this additional cost into their calculations, hence reducing the number of trips they take and raising the private cost of driving to the drivers. This suggests that congestion charges are an excellent government policy that would have a high chance of working precisely because they makes drivers consider social costs as private costs.

Insert economics diagram. What diagram goes here?

The diagram above demonstrates the core idea of congestion charges, which is to shift q1 to q2 and p1 to p2, which shifts the private cost curve to the social cost curve.

Yet, the problem is that the government may further distort the market instead of getting a desired outcome because of imperfect information. The government may want to know but it cannot. There is no way for the government to know exactly what and where the socially optimum level of driving is because in reality, such data is impossible to find. How much congestion charge should the government charge?

In addition, the government might find it hard to adjust congestion charges because of political reasons. Should the congestion charge be high, possibly solving congestion and pollution, but endangering political success at elections; or should the congestion charge be low, possibly not solving congestion and pollution, but being more acceptable? It seems that theoretically congestion charges tackle the core issue of the overconsumption of car journeys by making drivers internalize the externality, but in practice there are many unaddressed and difficult issues.

Controlling the population of vehicles is another possible solution, where governments target the supply of cars and not the demand for cars. The Singapore government, for instance, uses COEs to control the supply of cars, as whoever wants to drive needs this licence to own a car. The total number of cars can be thus controlled with this kind of quota, which limits the total number to a cap. In comparison with congestion charges, COE does not restrict the use of the car, but reduces car ownership, with the central idea being that there would be less congestion and less pollution with fewer cars around.

Yet controlling the population reduces the total amount of pollution, yet may not reduce congestion. The reason is that congestion depends primarily on usage, which can be thought of as how many cars are out on the road at any given time. During peak hours there would automatically be congestion, even if governments were to reduce the total number of cars. This is because the cars are on the road at the same time. Hence, controlling the vehicle population is a good idea but should be done in conjunction with reducing usage as well.

Improving the public transportation system is yet another solution. This would provide an alternative to using cars as a means of transport, or as we say in economics terms, a substitute. By subsidizing public buses and trains, and making them more affordable and convenient, the use of cars would be lessened, and congestion and pollution would be reduced. For instance, people who would drive will decide to take the bus, and there would be fewer cars on the road.

However, with the exception of trains, buses produce pollution as well, and while reducing congestion would not necessarily reduce pollution if more buses are put on the roads. Also, the cost of improving public transport might be prohibitive, where governments face the opportunity cost of the money forgone for other more pressing uses, and there might also be strong opposition from people who prefer their own cars. All considered, however, improving public transport would still prove to be a good method of reducing congestion and pollution.

Another solution by governments is usually to build more roads, as by building roads, there would be less congestion. However, the issue is that road building does not solve the underlying problem, which is the externality. There would still be many cars on the road, and the decisions made by private individuals would still conflict with the social good. Unlike the other methods discussed earlier, road building does not reduce the usage of cars, and does not reduce car ownership. Hence building roads helps win elections more than it does actually solve congestion or pollution, which are market failures by nature.

Moral suasion and other non economic methods could also be used, but they are short term and still do not address the underlying negative externality. For example, posters and public education are not that effective in reducing overall car usage in Singapore. Therefore, they are also not heavily used in most other countries as well as compared to the methods of reducing car usage and ownership.

In conclusion, a government has many ways of dealing with congestion and pollution, but each policy chosen has pros and cons which must be carefully evaluated. Controlling car usage by the use of congestion charges like ERP make consumers internalize the negative externality because they consider their private costs and not social costs, yet there are political repercussions and informational challenges. Reducing the total number of cars will bring about less congestion and pollution overall but does not solve the problem that car usage is concentrated at certain times. Improving transportation systems would be a good idea if the cost were not too oppressive, as there would be an opportunity cost in terms of other more pressing governmental projects. Building roads and moral suasion might not be sustainable. Therefore, all considered, a mixture of various policies should be used rather than a one size fits all policy that pretends to be a panacea but is not.

JC ECONOMICS ESSAYS Tutor's Comments: This Economics essay is very well written and addresses the question fully. How and why? Think about it. How would you improve this essay, or how could you approach this question slightly differently or alternatively? This Economics paper was also professionally written, jointly with part (a).