Merit goods

From CEOpedia
Merit goods
See also


Merit goods - are goods and services that society, acting through its government, judges people should have (or consume more of) regardless of their ability or willingness to pay, because their private demand in a free market falls short of what is considered socially desirable[1]. Education, basic health care, vaccination and public libraries are the textbook cases.

The idea sits awkwardly inside mainstream economics. Most of public finance starts from the assumption that individuals are the best judges of their own welfare. Merit goods break that rule on purpose. A government that provides them is saying, in effect, "you would buy too little of this if left alone, so we'll make sure you get more." Sometimes that judgment rests on solid economic grounds such as externalities or missing information. Sometimes it rests on nothing more than a shared view of what a decent life requires. And the line between the two is rarely clean.

Origin of the concept

The term comes from Richard A. Musgrave (1910–2007), the German-born public finance economist who later taught at Harvard. In a short paper, "A Multiple Theory of Budget Determination", published in FinanzArchiv in 1957, he noticed that some public spending could not be described as either a private good or a public good. His examples were modest ones: free school lunches and subsidies for low-cost housing[2]. Governments financed them not because the market was unable to supply them, but because the level of consumption the market produced was regarded as too low.

Two years later Musgrave folded the idea into his major book, The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959). The book is best remembered for splitting the budget into three branches — allocation, distribution and stabilization. Merit wants were discussed next to ordinary social (public) wants, as part of the satisfaction of public wants, but with one difference that mattered. For public goods, the government tries to satisfy preferences that people already hold and cannot express through the market. For merit wants, the government deliberately overrides consumer choice[1].

A small terminological point. Musgrave originally wrote about "merit wants"; the companion phrase "merit goods" became standard in the literature during the 1960s[3]. In the same 1959 book (p.178) he also raised the mirror-image case of goods whose consumption the state might wish to restrain, such as alcohol and tobacco — what later writers call demerit goods.

Historians of economic thought have traced the intellectual roots of the concept further back. Desmarais-Tremblay (2017) links Musgrave's merit wants to the German public finance tradition he absorbed before emigrating to the United States, including Adolf Wagner's view of rising public expenditure as part of a "civilizing" mission of the state[4]. Utilitarian writers had also made room for paternalism: John Stuart Mill accepted intervention where the individual is not the best judge of his own interest.

Characteristics and reasons for underconsumption

What makes a good a "merit" good? Not its physical properties. A school place or a doctor's visit is usually rival and excludable — one pupil's desk can't be used by another at the same time, and a clinic can refuse entry. Markets can sell such things perfectly well. The problem is how much people choose to buy. Economists usually point to four reasons why private demand comes in lower than the level society wants.

Imperfect information

People often don't know how much a good is worth to them. A teenager deciding whether to stay in school can't easily estimate how the decision will affect earnings thirty years later. A healthy adult may badly underrate the value of a screening test. Where information is imperfect, choices reflect what consumers believe rather than what they would choose with full knowledge. John G. Head, in his 1966 article "On Merit Goods", made this one of the central threads of the debate: preferences for merit goods can be ill-informed in ways that harm the consumer's own interest[5].

Positive externalities

Many merit goods produce benefits for people other than the buyer. A vaccinated person lowers the chance that neighbours catch the disease. An educated worker raises the productivity of colleagues and tends to participate more in civic life. The buyer only counts private benefits, so the market quantity settles where marginal private benefit equals cost, below the point where marginal social benefit equals cost. Strictly speaking, this is an ordinary market failure argument, and some economists say that goods justified only on these grounds don't need a separate "merit" label at all.

Short-termism

Benefits of merit goods often come late; costs come now. Saving for retirement is the classic example. People discount the distant future heavily and inconsistently — they plan to start saving next year, and next year they plan the same thing. Findings on behavioral aspects of decision-making have given this old intuition firmer ground.

Paternalism versus consumer sovereignty

The fourth reason is the most controversial. Even with full information and no externalities, society may decide that certain goods deserve to be consumed — or that every citizen should have access to a minimum amount of them — simply because it values them. This is plain paternalism. It conflicts with consumer sovereignty, the principle that individual preferences, as revealed in the market, should guide the allocation of resources. Musgrave never fully resolved the tension. He rejected the image of a benevolent despot and insisted that merit-good policies must, directly or indirectly, rest on public support[3]. But the theory leaves open whose judgment counts and why.

Merit goods vs public goods vs demerit goods

The three categories are easily confused. Public goods are defined by technical properties (non-rivalry and non-excludability). Merit and demerit goods are defined by a social judgment about the right level of consumption. A good can belong to two groups at once — basic research, for instance, has public-good features and is often treated as meritorious too.

Feature Public goods Merit goods Demerit goods
Rivalry in consumption Non-rival Usually rival Rival
Excludability Non-excludable Excludable Excludable
Market outcome Little or no private supply (free-rider problem) Supplied, but consumed too little Supplied, but consumed too much
Basis of intervention Technical market failure Social judgment, often backed by externalities or information gaps Social judgment, often backed by negative externalities
Typical policy Tax-financed provision Free provision, subsidies, mandates Taxes, bans, age limits, warnings
Examples National defence, street lighting, lighthouses Education, health care, vaccination, libraries Tobacco, alcohol, gambling

Quasi-public goods, such as toll roads or uncrowded parks, fall between the first two columns. They're partly non-rival but can be made excludable.

Examples of merit goods

  • Education — the most widely cited merit good. Primary and secondary schooling is free at the point of use and compulsory in most countries. The arguments combine all four reasons: children cannot judge long-term returns, parents may underinvest, an educated population benefits everyone, and literacy is seen as a right. See also education and training.
  • Health care — especially preventive and primary care. Patients often lack the knowledge to judge what treatment they need, and illness can strike when income is lowest.
  • Vaccination — perhaps the cleanest case, since the external benefit (herd protection) is large and easy to explain.
  • Public libraries — cheap to run per user, they spread reading, information and study space to people who would not buy books or internet access themselves.
  • Museums, galleries and heritage protection — Musgrave himself mentioned funding for the arts and the protection of natural and cultural heritage[3].
  • Pension saving — governments push citizens to put money aside through mandatory contributions, automatic enrolment or tax relief for a savings plan, because many people would otherwise save too little for old age.
  • School meals, social housing, school milk — the examples that originally started the debate.

Government intervention tools

Governments have a wide menu of tools. They differ mostly in how strongly they override individual choice and in how much they cost the budget.

  • Direct provision — the state produces the good and gives it away or charges a token fee (state schools, public hospitals, national immunisation programmes). It guarantees access but takes a large share of government expenditure.
  • Subsidies — the good stays in private hands, but its price to consumers is lowered. Subsidies preserve choice of supplier and work well where private providers already exist.
  • Vouchers — households receive a voucher that can be spent only on the merit good (for example, childcare or school places). They combine targeted support with competition among providers.
  • Mandates — the law requires consumption. Compulsory schooling up to a certain age and mandatory pension contributions are the strongest form of merit-good policy, because nobody can opt out.
  • Information campaigns — the state tries to close the information gap directly, through social marketing campaigns on screening, healthy eating or saving.
  • Regulation — quality standards, licensing of teachers and doctors, or rules requiring employers to offer pension schemes.
  • Nudges — default options such as automatic enrolment in a pension plan. Sunstein and Thaler's "libertarian paternalism" (2003) brought a new life to the merit goods debate; White (2019) argues that nudges can be seen as delivery mechanisms for merit goods[3].

Stiglitz and Rosengard, in their widely used public sector textbook, treat paternalism and merit goods as a ground for government intervention that is separate from classic market failures — a reason to act even where markets work efficiently[6].

Example of merit goods: a vaccination subsidy

The following numbers are hypothetical and serve only to show the logic.

A town has a market for a seasonal vaccine. Clinics will supply any number of doses at a constant cost of 50 per dose, so the supply curve is flat at a price of 50. Private demand — what residents themselves are willing to pay, i.e. their marginal private benefit (MPB) — is linear:

\[P = 110 - 0.1Q\]

where P is the price and Q the number of vaccinations.

Market outcome. Setting P = 50 gives 110 − 0.1Q = 50, so Q = 600. Left alone, the market equilibrium is 600 vaccinations at a price of 50.

Social benefit. Each vaccination also protects other people. Suppose this external benefit is worth 20 per dose. The marginal social benefit (MSB) curve lies 20 above private demand:

\[MSB = 130 - 0.1Q\]

The socially optimal quantity is where MSB equals cost: 130 − 0.1Q = 50, so Q = 800.

The gap. The market stops 200 vaccinations short of the optimum. Each of those 200 doses is worth more to society than it costs, but the person deciding to get vaccinated only sees part of that value.

Subsidy. The government pays clinics 20 per dose, so the price paid by residents falls from 50 to 30. Read off the demand curve: 110 − 0.1Q = 30, so Q = 800. The subsidy exactly equal to the external benefit closes the gap.

What does it cost, and what does it buy?

  • Subsidy bill: 20 × 800 = 16,000.
  • Consumer surplus rises from ½ × 600 × (110 − 50) = 18,000 to ½ × 800 × (110 − 30) = 32,000, a gain of 14,000.
  • Extra external benefit from the additional 200 doses: 20 × 200 = 4,000.
  • Net gain to society: 14,000 + 4,000 − 16,000 = 2,000.

That 2,000 equals the triangle between the MSB curve and the cost line from Q = 600 to Q = 800: ½ × 200 × 20 = 2,000. The arithmetic shows two things at once. The subsidy pays for itself in social terms. But most of the 16,000 goes to the 600 people who would have been vaccinated anyway — a reminder that subsidies are a blunt and expensive instrument, and why some governments prefer targeted vouchers or free provision only for at-risk groups. The opportunity cost of the money, and the efficiency loss from raising it through taxes, would also have to be weighed.

Note that the example justifies the subsidy entirely through an externality. A "pure" merit-good argument would go further: even if the external benefit were zero, the government might still want 800 doses because it judges residents' private valuation to be wrong. Then the welfare arithmetic above no longer holds, since there's no agreed curve for "true" benefit to measure against.

Criticism

The concept has drawn fire almost from the start.

  • Paternalism. Charles McLure, a former student of Musgrave, called merit wants "a normatively empty box" in 1968, arguing that they could describe what governments do but could not be justified within a normative theory of the public sector based on individual preferences[7]. Liberal critics add that adults have the right to make choices others think unwise.
  • Defining "merit" is value-laden. Who decides that opera deserves subsidy and video games don't? Any list of merit goods reflects the values of whoever draws it up, and those values shift between countries and decades.
  • Government failure. Officials may lack the information to know the right quantity, and interest groups lobby to have their product declared meritorious. Public providers, protected from competition, may become inefficient.
  • Cost. Free provision means tax-financed provision. Every unit of revenue raised through income or indirect taxes has its own efficiency cost.
  • Crowding out. Public supply can displace private provision and private effort — free state services can reduce private saving, charitable giving or family support that would have happened anyway.
  • Analytical vagueness. Many supposed merit goods can be explained by externalities, imperfect information or redistribution, so critics ask what is left for the concept to do. Head later (1969) argued that, properly understood, merit-good provision need not interfere with consumer sovereignty at all[3]. If so, the separate category adds little.

Defenders reply in several ways. Brennan and Lomasky (1983) suggested that people hold different preferences as voters and as shoppers, so a democratic decision to fund schools reflects citizens' own "political" preferences rather than an alien standard. Pazner (1972) modelled merit goods as entering a non-individualistic social welfare function directly[3]. Musgrave, in his 1987 entry for The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, kept insisting that there may be legitimate reasons for overriding preferences beyond the standard market-failure arguments[8].

Advantages of merit goods provision

  • Guarantees a minimum level of access to education, health care and similar services regardless of income.
  • Corrects underconsumption caused by externalities, so that output moves closer to the socially efficient level.
  • Compensates for information gaps and short-sighted choices, especially among children and low-income households.
  • Supports equality of opportunity and long-run growth through a healthier, better-educated workforce, contributing to social welfare.
  • Spreads costs across taxpayers, so that a sudden illness or a child's schooling does not ruin a family's finances.
  • Can be delivered through a range of tools, from mild (information) to strong (mandates), which lets policy match the strength of the case.

Limitations of merit goods provision

  • Rests on value judgments that are hard to test and easy to dispute.
  • Overrides individual choice, which conflicts with the neoclassical principle of consumer sovereignty.
  • Expensive: much of the spending goes to people who would have bought the good anyway.
  • Exposed to inefficiency, bureaucracy and lobbying by producers.
  • Free provision can lead to over-use and queues, since price no longer rations demand.
  • Externality-based justifications need estimates of external benefits, which are usually rough.
  • Can crowd out private supply, charity and personal responsibility.

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Musgrave R.A., The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959
  2. ↑ Musgrave R.A., A Multiple Theory of Budget Determination, FinanzArchiv, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1957, pp.333-343
  3. ↑ Cserne P., Desmarais-Tremblay M., Merit Goods, Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Springer, 2021
  4. ↑ Desmarais-Tremblay M., A genealogy of the concept of merit wants, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.409-440
  5. ↑ Head J.G., On Merit Goods, FinanzArchiv, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1966, pp.1-29
  6. ↑ Stiglitz J.E., Rosengard J.K., Economics of the Public Sector, 4th edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 2015
  7. ↑ McLure C.E., Merit Wants: A Normatively Empty Box, FinanzArchiv, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1968, pp.474-483
  8. ↑ Musgrave R.A., Merit goods, in: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (eds), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave, 1987, pp.452-453
Merit goods — recommended articles
Demerit good — Quasi public goods — Market failure — Government intervention — Social benefit — Imperfect information — Public finances — Functions of public finance — Common good
Retrieved from CEOpedia