IB Diploma Programme Economics HL, Unit 2 Microeconomics (first assessment
2022). This topic covers syllabus sections 2.8 (market failure —
externalities and common pool or common access resources), 2.9 (public
goods) and 2.12 (the market's inability to achieve equity) in full. The
externality model reuses the shared curves in inverse form — demand
(marginal private benefit) $P = 70 - Q/2$, supply (marginal private cost)
$P = Q/4 - 5$, market equilibrium $(100, 20)$ — with an external cost or
benefit of 6 per unit, so every welfare area cross-checks against the
earlier drives.
Must-know for this topic:
Family
Relationship
welfare
MSC $=$ MPC $+$ EC; MSB $=$ MPB $+$ EB; social optimum where MSB $=$ MSC
market outcomes carry no guarantee of fairness; Lorenz/Gini measure it
3.2
Externalities and common pool resources
An externality 外部性 is a cost or benefit falling on a THIRD PARTY not
involved in the transaction (2.8). Negative production externalities —
pollution, congestion — put the marginal social cost 边际社会成本 MSC above
MPC; positive consumption externalities — vaccination, education — put the
marginal social benefit 边际社会效益 MSB above MPB. The market trades at
$(100, 20)$ where MPB $=$ MPC; with an external cost of 6 per unit, MSC $=$
MPC $+ 6$ crosses MSB at $(92, 24)$ — the market OVER-produces by 8 units
and the deadweight welfare loss is $\tfrac12 \times 8 \times 6 = 24$ per
day. With an external benefit of 6 on consumption, the social optimum moves
to $(108, 16)$ — the market UNDER-consumes by 8, again sacrificing 24 of
welfare. HL diagrams label MPB/MSB and MPC/MSC and shade the welfare-loss
triangle between the curves over the gap.
Policy responses follow the diagnosis: a Pigouvian TAX equal to the marginal
external cost (6 here) shifts MPC to the social optimum; a SUBSIDY equal to
the marginal external benefit does the reverse; regulation caps the
quantity; tradable permits fix the total and let the market find the price.
Common pool or common access resources 公共资源 (also 2.8) — fisheries,
groundwater, the atmosphere — are RIVAL but NON-EXCLUDABLE: each user
imposes costs on the others, so without property rights or quotas the
resource is over-used (the tragedy of the commons), and sustainability — a
Unit-1 key concept — frames the long-run evaluation.
marginal social benefit/ˈmɑːdʒɪnl ˈsəʊʃl ˈbenɪfɪt/
3.3
Public goods
A public good 公共物品 (2.9) is NON-RIVAL (one person's consumption does
not reduce another's) and NON-EXCLUDABLE (no one can be stopped from using
it): street lighting, national defence, flood control. Non-excludability
creates the free-rider problem 搭便车问题 — everyone can benefit without
paying, so no private firm can collect revenue, so the market UNDER-provides
or does not provide at all. The state provides public goods from taxation,
valuing them at society's willingness to pay. The contrast pair: common pool
resources are non-excludable but RIVAL (each fish caught is gone); public
goods are non-excludable AND non-rival — the two exam cases travel together.
Markets reward scarcity of resources, not need (2.12): the price mechanism
answers "for whom?" by willingness and ability to pay, so market outcomes
can be efficient yet grossly UNEQUAL — the equity 公平 half of the efficiency-equity key-concept pair. IB measures: the LORENZ CURVE plots
cumulative income against cumulative population (from the poorest); the GINI
COEFFICIENT — area between the equality line and the Lorenz curve over the
whole triangle — runs from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (one person takes all).
Original example: quintile shares $5, 10, 15, 20, 50$ percent give a Lorenz
curve through $(20,5), (40,15), (60,30), (80,50)$; the area under it is
$3000$ of the $10000$ square, so Gini $= 1 - 2 \times 0.30 = 0.40$.
Poverty 贫困 may be ABSOLUTE (basic needs unmet) or RELATIVE (deprivation
against the social norm). Responses: progressive taxation, transfer
payments, and access to education and health — each weighing equity gains
against incentive and efficiency costs, the trade-off every Paper-1 essay
must evaluate.
Externality definition; MSC/MSB with the $(100,20) \to (92,24)$ negative-production and $(108,16)$ positive-consumption optima; welfare loss 24 in each direction (2.8).
Pigouvian tax and subsidy at the marginal external cost/benefit; regulation; tradable permits (2.8 policy, HL diagrams).
Common pool or common access resources: rival + non-excludable, tragedy of the commons, sustainability (2.8).
Public goods: non-rival + non-excludable; the free-rider problem and non-provision; state provision (2.9).
The market's "for whom" answer and its equity failure; Lorenz curve and Gini with the 0.40 calculation; absolute vs relative poverty; the three redistribution instruments and their trade-offs (2.12).
Boundary notes: HL Paper 1 25-mark essays on market failure want the
labelled diagram (MPB/MSB/MPC/MSC, both optima, the shaded triangle), a
policy with its mechanism, and evaluation of government failure against the
market failure it corrects. The key concepts sustainability, equity,
efficiency and intervention frame this whole topic. All worked numbers are
original on the shared model.
Supported preparation: Externalities, public goods and fairness
Scope and prerequisites
IB economics first assessment 2022. Three supervised news commentaries cover microeconomics, macroeconomics and the global economy through distinct key concepts. School checks source recency and commentary requirements against the full guide.
Mapped preparation outcomes: ib_economics_hl.3.1, ib_economics_hl.3.2. Read the matching native lesson first. Actual approved choices, evidence and final learner work remain separate.
Source vocabulary
common-access resource 公共资源; equity 公平.
Explanation and worked method
A negative production externality makes marginal social cost exceed marginal private cost. Unregulated private choice can exceed the socially efficient quantity. A public good is non-rival and non-excludable; a common-access resource is rival and difficult to exclude. These properties create different problems. Efficiency and fairness are distinct criteria.
Task: a shared fishery is depleted, while a warning signal is available to everyone. Compare the problems and evaluate one fishery policy.
Catch removes fish available to others, so the resource is rival; weak exclusion can encourage overuse. A broadcast warning can be non-rival and hard to exclude, creating financing/free-rider issues. A monitored catch limit can reduce depletion but requires enforceability and affects livelihoods. Assess ecological evidence, compliance and distribution; a price or quantity instrument is not automatically fair.
Independent transfer
A fishing subsidy lowers private costs without catch controls. Predict a risk and evaluate a condition for use.
Attempt independently before reading the model.
Checked original model
Lower private costs can increase effort and catch, worsening common-resource depletion. Sustainable stock evidence, enforceable limits and livelihood effects are relevant conditions. Do not infer that every subsidy has the same effect; specify its mechanism and design.
These are authored formative expectations, not official IB descriptors. Accept other justified arguments with evidence and material limits.
Source and task holds
This supplement teaches the method for this part of the course. The full assessment criteria and any texts your school chooses come from your teacher.
Interactive lessons on this topic
Work through it step by step, with instant-check exercises.