According to the data provided, there is adequate of evidence in Extract E and Extract D to support the theory that speed cameras can be seen as a merit good. The evidence from Extract E is published by the HSCP which may be seen as a reliable source as they have statistics to back up their statements. Also, in Extract D, it states how even though the fines from cameras are less than their operation, in actual fact they reduce accidents by as much as 3 times their cost. This therefore improves the reliability of the evidence from the data as it is directly from the Police and it is not conflicting with other data provided. Yet, it does state in Extract E how motoring groups are against this theory however some people may argue that it is there job to make driving easier without hazards. Therefore, the government information provided by the Police, is sufficient compared to the statements made by the motoring groups which do not have any data to back them up and are just opinionated statements.
On the other hand, one may argue that accidents have actually increased due to the widespread use of the cameras. Therefore, if the provision of speed cameras by the government actually increases the number of accidents on the road, this could be argued as a form of government failure (perhaps through ‘policy myopia’ for short term fixes on problems with speeding) through the use of them being a demerit good. It states in Extract E how some motoring groups say that ‘motorist behaviour’ and not speed is the cause of accidents. Extract E states how speed cameras ‘artificially change driver behaviour into something they would not normally do’. Therefore, this results in accidents by the driver as a result of the government placing speed cameras and the use of speed cameras actually results in the misallocation of resources causing government failure. This is shown in the negative externalities diagram, where the social cost exceeds the private cost. This shows that socially, the optimum level of production is at Q2 yet is the market fails to include the external costs created from speed cameras (slowing down and speeding up causing accidents) than output will be Q1. Therefore, from a social welfare point, there are too may speed cameras being produced and causing accidents, so they are considered as a demerit good. Therefore, if government intervention has caused accidents to increase, then some people may argue this is a form of government failure.
The consequence of treating speed cameras as a demerit good may cause people to question if they are just there to raise revenue for the government. This is because, the data suggests in Extract F, that the ‘central government receives the revenue generated by the fines’ from speeding cars. Therefore, if the government is making a profit from these fines, and if they are viewed as a demerit good then people may question why there are provided in the first place. Consequently, if speed cameras cause accidents, and the government knows about it, this emphasises that perhaps governments only install them to generate revenue source and one may question the mortality of this if lives are lost to only to raise revenue for the government.
However, one may argue that they can be seen as a public good where they are non-excludable and non-rival in consumption. In turn, this means that the consumption of a speed camera does not affect the use from another person (anyone with a driver’s license can go on a road with a speed camera installed) and they are non-excludable as they cannot be just for people who have paid for them. Therefore, in a free market there would be no profit incentive for firms due to the ‘free rider’ problem and so they would not be provided in sufficient quantities. This therefore suggests that as it is a public good, the government should provide the speed camera due to a free market not providing it. So perhaps it is in the government’s best interest to provide speed cameras to prevent market failure, so as the government is providing this public good, government failure has not occurred.
The tendency to treat speed cameras, as a public good in the first place, may cause concerns when there are other cheaper alternatives to manage speeding. For example, another alternative the government can use are successful advertising campaigns to reduce speed. In the UK, there has been a successful ‘THINK’ campaign introduced with a graphic advert of a girl being hit by a car. This may enforce the idea to drivers to not speed when driving and the advert appeals to the empathy and human side of the drivers so this may be argued as more successful as this message does not portray the government finding ways to collect fines, but trying to save lives – which are irreplaceable. Even though there may be an initial cost, there will be much fewer operation costs than speed cameras. Consequently, as this is an option for the government to use, one may argue that why use speed cameras, when there are other cheaper alternatives that the government can use. Therefore, they are spending money wastefully on goods that are not needed.
In conclusion, many may argue that speed cameras generate positive externalities from reduced traffic accidents while others may argue that they cause more accidents and therefore cause negative externalities. Perhaps, the question to answer is what their main use is. If their main use is to raise revenue for the government than this may be a source of government failure as the data in extract D shows that the costs of operation for speed cameras are over £2,000 thousand greater than their fine income revenue. However, in my opinion, as stated in Extract E the speed cameras can reduce accidents by up to £30 239 000 in selected areas, so even though their economic costs of operation are greater, the benefits they bring from the lives and money they save (from the external costs with accidents) outweighs this. Extract F states how casualties have almost halved over ‘8 years due to speed cameras’, so the cost saved from not only the money from reduced police and emergency service costs but also lives – with are irreplaceable. Thus, I would argue that the provision of speed cameras is not a source of government failure.
by
alexdarcy3gmailcom (student)
