/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 7 A columnist for bloomberg.com of... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

A columnist for bloomberg.com offered the following observation about economic legislation: "History shows that concentrated opposition beats diffuse support every time." a. Briefly explain what this columnist means. b. Does his observation apply to tariffs? Briefly explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
The columnist's statement that 'concentrated opposition beats diffuse support every time' refers to the power of a focused and passionate small group versus a larger but indifferent group. When applied to tariffs, domestic producers who benefit from tariffs can be seen as the 'concentrated opposition' who often lobby strongly for these tariffs. Consumers, who face higher prices due to tariffs, can be seen as the 'diffuse support' - harmed by the tariffs but typically less organized in their opposition.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Statement

The first step is about deciphering the meaning of the statement. Here, the term 'concentrated opposition' refers to a small, focused group that is strongly against a particular issue, while 'diffuse support' refers to a large but not particularly passionate or focused group. The columnist is expressing that a small, focused group that is strongly against an issue usually overpowers a larger, but indifferent group.
02

Application to Tariffs

The next step is to apply this understanding to the concept of tariffs. In the case of tariffs, a small group of people - the domestic producers, who benefit from tariffs because they reduce foreign competition, comprises the 'concentrated opposition'. They often lobby strongly for maintaining tariffs. On the other hand, the 'diffuse support' can be associated with consumers, who are harmed by tariffs due to higher prices, but who are typically less organized and passionate about this issue. So, the columnist's observation can be applied to tariffs.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Understanding Tariffs
When we discuss tariffs, we're talking about the taxes imposed on imported goods. These taxes are usually set by a country to protect its own industries by making foreign products more expensive, hence less appealing, than local ones.

For instance, if a country sets a high tariff on imported cheese, local cheese producers are at an advantage as their cheese would be relatively cheaper than that from overseas. This concept ties into the exercise when considering who benefits from these policies – domestic producers often lobby for tariffs because it helps them compete against foreign imports.

The impact of tariffs can be multifaceted: while protecting local jobs in targeted industries, they can also lead to higher prices for consumers, possibly reducing their purchasing power. Economists often debate this trade-off when discussing the overall utility of tariffs in modern economies.
Concentrated Opposition Versus Diffuse Support
The phrase 'concentrated opposition beats diffuse support' refers to the dynamics of group interests and how they influence policy. 'Concentrated opposition' means a small, energized, and well-organized group that is intensely affected by an issue and will mobilize to oppose or support policy changes. In contrast, 'diffuse support' represents a large group that is mildly affected or less passionate about the issue, thus less likely to mobilize.

For example, a piece of legislation that could close a factory might ignite fierce resistance from the workers and the town that depend on it (concentrated opposition) despite potential benefits for the broader economy or environment (diffuse support). This concept is crucial for understanding how certain economic policies, like tariffs, can be maintained despite having widespread but less organized effects on the general populace.
Lobbying in Economics
Lobbying involves stakeholders attempting to influence decisions made by lawmakers or government officials. In the context of economics, business groups, labor unions, advocacy groups, or individuals engage in lobbying to push for legislative changes that would benefit them financially or strategically.

Lobbyists can provide information, make campaign contributions, or promise political support to persuade lawmakers. Often, industries or sectors like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, or manufacturing that stand to gain or lose significantly from policy changes will have the most vested interest in lobbying efforts.

In the context of the textbook exercise, domestic producers would lobby for tariffs because they limit competition from abroad, benefiting their business. This lobbying shapes economic legislation, potentially leading to tariff policies that persist due to the concentrated efforts of a small but influential group.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

If the United States were to stop trading goods and services with other countries, which U.S. industries would be likely to see their sales decline the most? Briefly explain.

Briefly explain whether you agree with the following statement: "International trade is more important to the U.S. economy than it is to most other economies."

Political commentator B. Bruce-Briggs once wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal: "This is not to say that the case for international free trade is invalid; it is just irrelevant. It is an 'if only everybody' ... argument .... In the real world almost everybody sees benefits in economic nationalism." What do you think he means by "economic nationalism"? Do you agree that a country benefits from free trade only if every other country also practices free trade? Briefly explain.

Why might a smaller country, such as the Netherlands, be more likely to import and export larger fractions of its GDP than would a larger country, such as China or the United States?

At one time, Eastman Kodak was the world's largest producer of photographic film, employing nearly 145,000 workers worldwide, including thousands at its headquarters in Rochester, New York. The firm eventually laid off most of those workers because its sales declined as it failed to adjust to digital photography as quickly as many of its foreign competitors. A member of Congress from Rochester described the many new firms that were now located in buildings that were formerly owned by Kodak. A New York Times columnist concluded, "which, of course, is precisely the way globalization is supposed to work." Briefly explain what the columnist meant. Do you agree with his conclusion?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.