The theme of private and merit goods is sometimes tested in ‘A’ Level Economics examinations.
It is also an economics topic that offers ‘A’ level students many opportunities to demonstrate their strong economic reasoning.
When
approached carefully, an essay on private and merit goods allows you to explain
market outcomes, analyse the role of positive and negative externalities, imperfect
information and incentives, and evaluate government intervention in a
structured and evaluative way.
First, private goods are goods that are both rival (or rivalrous) and excludable. Rivalry means that one person’s consumption reduces the amount available for others, while excludability means that consumers can be prevented from consuming the good if they do not pay for it. Most goods traded in markets, such as food, clothing, and private healthcare services, fall into this category.
Because
private goods can usually be priced accurately in a perfectly competitive
market, the price mechanism can often allocate these goods efficiently,
aligning marginal private benefits with marginal private costs (MPB = MPC).
Merit goods,
however, raise a different economic issue. Merit goods are goods that tend to
be under consumed if left entirely to the free market (and demerit goods are
goods that tend to be overconsumed if left entirely to the workings of the free
market).
This is because
consumers may not fully take into account the full benefits of their consumption.
Education, healthcare, and vaccinations are commonly cited examples. In
economic terms, merit goods are associated with information gaps, where
consumers underestimate either the long term private benefits or the wider
social benefits of consumption.
This idea is
closely linked to positive externalities of consumption. When an individual
consumes a merit good, benefits often spill over to third parties. For example,
when an individual receives education, society benefits from a more productive
workforce and lower crime rates. When an individual gets vaccinated, others
benefit from reduced risk of disease transmission. These spillover benefits
mean that the marginal social benefit (MSB) exceeds marginal private benefit
(MPB). As a result, when decisions are based only on private benefit, the free
market outcome leads to under consumption relative to the socially optimal
level.
This results
in allocative inefficiency and a potential welfare loss. (Diagrams are useful
in illustrating this outcome, provided they are clearly labelled and supported
by careful explanation and relevant, appropriate examples.)
Government
intervention is often discussed in response to this outcome. If merit goods are
under consumed, policies may be introduced to encourage higher consumption and
move the market outcome closer to the socially optimal level.
Common
approaches include subsidies, direct provision, regulation, and information
campaigns. A subsidy reduces the price paid by consumers and raises quantity
demanded. Direct provision ensures access regardless of income. Information
campaigns aim to improve decision making by raising awareness of benefits.
Subsidies
can successfully increase consumption and reduce welfare loss, especially when
price sensitivity is high. At the same time, subsidies involve opportunity
cost, as public funds could have been used elsewhere. The effectiveness of
subsidies also depends on how well they are targeted. If higher income
households benefit disproportionately, equity objectives may not be fully
achieved.
Direct
provision plays an important role in many economies. It can promote equity by
ensuring universal access to essential services such as basic education and
primary healthcare. It can also support long term economic development by
improving human capital. At the same time, outcomes depend on administrative
efficiency, funding, and service quality. Where management is effective and
accountability is strong, direct provision can be highly effective in improving
welfare.
Information
campaigns are particularly relevant for merit goods because they address one of
the root causes of the issue, which is imperfect information. Public health
campaigns encouraging vaccination or healthy lifestyles can raise perceived
benefits and shift demand. Their effectiveness depends on factors such as
trust, education levels, and accessibility of services. As a result, information
policies often work best when combined with other measures, such as subsidies
or regulation.
While merit goods are closely associated with positive externalities of consumption, a well rounded argument should also recognise the role of externalities in production too.
Some merit goods generate positive externalities during production as
well. For instance, investment in research, training, and healthcare
infrastructure can raise productivity across the economy. Firms that invest in
worker training may improve skills that benefit other employers in the future.
In such cases, marginal social cost may be lower than marginal private cost,
leading to under provision by the private sector. This further strengthens the
case for government support or at least coordination.
In
Singapore, merit goods such as education and healthcare are supported through a
combination of subsidies, copayment schemes, and direct provision. This
reflects a policy approach that balances efficiency and equity. Market
mechanisms are used to encourage cost awareness, while government involvement
ensures affordability and access. Singapore’s emphasis on human capital
development also reflects recognition of both positive consumption
externalities and positive production externalities associated with education
and skills development.
It is also
helpful to recognise that private goods and merit goods exist along a spectrum
rather than as rigid categories. Many goods have private characteristics but
also generate wider social benefits. Healthcare is a good example. While it is
privately consumed, it also produces positive spillover effects, such as a
healthier workforce and reduced public health risks.
While intervention can improve outcomes where market signals are incomplete, policy design matters. Well targeted intervention can enhance welfare, while poorly designed policies may create inefficiencies or unintended consequences. For example, poorly targeted subsidies may lead to over consumption or fiscal strain, while excessive regulation may reduce incentives for private provision.
It may be
useful to contrast merit goods with demerit goods, such as cases involving negative
externalities, even though they are conceptually different. Negative
externalities of consumption, such as smoking or excessive alcohol consumption,
lead to over consumption relative to the socially optimal level. Negative
externalities of production, such as pollution from factories, lead to over
production. These cases justify different forms of intervention, such as taxes
or regulation, rather than subsidies.
In the final
analysis, private goods are often efficiently allocated through markets, while
merit goods tend to require some degree of policy support due to imperfect information
and positive externalities in consumption and production. Government
intervention can go a long way towards improving economic welfare by
encouraging consumption of merit goods, but outcomes depend on policy design,
targeting, and implementation.
Thank you
for reading and cheers.
*** ***
JC Economics Essays is my popular economics blog where I write about how to write better economics essays for the ‘A’ levels, as well as other academic levels. A former educator and economics tutor, I have around 20 years of deep experience in teaching and learning about economics. From 2007 to Dec 2025, more than 120,000 readers have visited my economics essays blog. Thank you for reading, and I hope these useful economics materials help you.
