Disease inevitable
Albrecht 22 (Brian C. Albrecht – has a PhD. Brian Albrecht is Chief Economist of the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE). Brian’s research focuses on price theory, information economics, competition and innovation, and political economy. & Shruti Rajagopalan, 23 October 2022, “Inframarginal externalities: COVID-19, vaccines, and universal mandates”, https://link-springer-com.dartmouth.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s11127-022-01006-z)
This paper started from the widely accepted premise by economists writing on vaccines, that vaccines generate a positive externality. The private and social marginal benefts of vaccines do not perfectly align creating room for policy interventions to improve outcomes for everyone involved. However, we argue that vaccine mandates, which are a common policy approach to the externality are weaker than commonly acknowledged in the case of COVID-19 vaccine. We fnd that the presence of a positive externality does not automatically imply freeriding. In fact, most of the benefts for the vaccines developed to battle COVID-19 are internalized. This is because vaccinated individuals are protected from the most severe consequences of the infection, but they can transmit the infection, especially in the case Public Choice (2023) 195:55–72 69 1 3 of newer variants of the novel corona virus. In this sense, the externality is also partially excludable since asymptomatic vaccinated individuals may transmit to the unvaccinated. Given the strong private incentives to vaccinate, the externality may be inframarginal, as defned by Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962); that is, the externalities exist, but they are irrelevant to the policy. Second, even when the efects are not completely internalized, the external benefts are more local than global. Family members infect each other. Coworkers infect each other. The policy response should refect the level of the externality. Therefore, the case for universal vaccine mandates is weaker than often acknowledged within the economics literature. Local public goods allow for more sorting and local “production,” which, in this case, means local incentives to take the vaccine. Finally, if the non-universal adoption of a COVID-19 vaccine is due to preferences and beliefs about the nature/existence of the virus, vaccine, the healthcare system, and government, then the argument is not based on free-riding. Policymakers must their argument in favor of mandates rooted in explanations other than free-riding.