Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

MARKET EFFICIENCY IS ONE of the most problematic concepts in all of economics. In the model of general equilibrium, markets operate efficiently if all the assumptions of so-called perfect competition are fulfilled. One of them, omniscience, or perfect knowledge regarding the past, present, and future, ensures that people never err and hence follow only the optimal, efficient paths. As this is never true in reality, it often makes people believe that market efficiency is impossible, hence real markets are considered to fail, and therefore some remedy through the operation of the public sector is needed. Examples of textbook market failures include: monopoly power, externalities, public goods, and free-rider problems.

Critics of this approach argue that efficiency is not dependent on omniscience—which is an unattainable goal, indeed—but is built into every activity of every single market participant. Everyone bases his decisions on the market upon the comparison of perceived benefits and perceived costs and chooses only those activities where the benefits outweigh the costs. Since only the individual in question knows his subjective costs and benefits, every individual action of every individual must be considered (at least ex-ante) efficient, and hence the sum of individual actions, that is, market, must be considered efficient as well. So rather than “efficient never” as in the first approach, we have the “efficient always” approach.

Efficient Arrangements

Another group of economists building on Armen Alchian's pioneering article argues that a crucial point in the consideration of efficiency is relative efficiency, one's aggregate position relative to actual competitors, and not some hypothetically perfect competitors. In the real economy, as in a race, success is reached by the relatively fastest, regardless of the quality of his competitors. Hence efficient arrangements can be differentiated from inefficient arrangements over time on the basis of whether firms are making positive economic profits or not.

Douglass North, a Nobel Prize winner, challenges the criterion of survival of efficient arrangements over time, as many obvious inefficient structures have prevailed over very long periods of time. He consequently has come up with a concept of adaptive efficiency—a move of a market toward being more efficient if such an “inefficient” arrangement is dismantled.

Another attempt to rehabilitate the concept of efficiency has been made by James Buchanan, another Nobel Prize winner. His arguments for an alternative concept of efficiency are rooted in subjectivist-contractarian (Austrian-Wicksellian) tradition. From this intellectual background comes his focus on the process through which changes take place and on identification of obstacles to this process. He claims that some constraints to economic development are of an artificial nature, for example, imposed by governmental decree and political authority.

In the presence of such observed artificial constraints, the market can be labeled as “presumably inefficient” because profit-seeking entrepreneurs cannot freely operate to overcome the obstacle. Thus the space opens for a solution to this problem through compensation.

If those harmed by the existence of the barrier to efficiency improvement can compensate those who benefit, the efficiency-inhibiting barrier will be removed. If no such arrangement seems to be possible, the hypothesis of presumed inefficiency is falsified.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading