You wrote:
Suppose 50% of all people voluntarily buy low-pollution cars to "do
their part" for clean air.
Can anyone think up plausible mechanisms whereby their choice would
induce other people to pollute *more*?
No, I think the opposite would be the case. We are probably more in the
domain of "emotions" rather than (simple) economics. If half the population
CHOSE to buy low-pollution cars (presumably against their "real" wants) then
they would most likely also frown upon the people who did not. There would
thus be a stigma connected with driving high-pollution cars, which would
translate into an economic cost for the drivers, reducing their benefit -
and inducing them to change too. This could have a reinforcing effect since
"ex-high-pollution-vehicle-drivers" (who had been pressed into changing to
lower-pollution cars) would probably be among the most aggressive
anti-pollution advocates (just like ex-smokers...)
I could easily imagine that this could continue even beyond the point where
pollution (from cars) was LESS than optimal.
Jacob W Braestrup
Denmark
The main mechanism I can think of is just crowding out of altruism. The
more people contribute to solve a problem, the smaller the problem gets,
and the less other altruists want to contribute.
But let's keep the logic of collective action in mind here - If selfish
people are already polluting to the point where the MB are approximately
0, where is the elasticity, if any?
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[T]he power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in
those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."
-- Edward Gibbon, *The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire*
