Illegal Harvesting and Government Interventions

1. Imposition of tax takes place by the government when it intends to curb demand or supply by procuring more money from either consumer or producer or both. In this context govt. wants to decrease the mahogany harvesting y taxing the producers or suppliers of such goods. Incidence of tax on producer shifts the supply curve upward or to left (to S₁) increasing equilibrium price (to P₁) and decreasing equilibrium quantity (to Q₁) in the mahogany harvesting market compared to the without tax scenario.Tax reduces the mutual exchange between buyers and suppliers that further leads to forgone producer as well as consumer surplus dropping the social welfare down and generating deadweight loss by the area of triangle E₁AE₀.
2. Limiting the harvesting of mahogany by imposing quota on the amount harvested (suppose at Q₁) through government intervention, the supply curve becomes vertical at Q₁ as the producer can’t supply more than the amount whatever be the price. Compared to equilibrium E₀ scenario, now the equilibrium price level reached at P₁which is pretty higher than before quota. The deadweight loss is being shown by the area of triangle ABCc)
3. i) Due to fear of punishment the producer will reduce its supply shifting the supply curve toward left to S Since the mahogany products are undesirable to consumers they cut back the demand too. The fall is demand not due to changes in price but due to changes in the taste and preference by them. As a result demand falls.Now what happens to equilibrium price and quantity depends on the amount o which demand falls. If demand falls by the same amount of fall in supply the price remains same though equilibrium quantity falls. If demand falls less than the supply falls then price drives up to P₁ and quantity is also at low than Q₀. If demand falls more than the fall in supply then the equilibrium price and quantity fall to P₃and Q_3.
4. ii) Due to disincentive to produce caused by punishment fear, the producers drops harvest which shifts supply curve to S₁. Taste and preference for mahogany harvest has increased by the consumers as a result demand shifts outward. What happens to equilibrium price and quantity is determined by the quantum of shift in the demand curve. Post shift equilibrium price will be higher in any cases but quantity supplied can fall, rise or stay constant at Q_{0 .}If demand rise more than fall in the supply then quantity rises and falls when the rise in demand is less than the fall in supply which is presented.

iii) Due to enforced law and monitoring against illegal harvesting, the producers drops harvest which shifts supply curve to S₁. No change in the desirability leads to no shift in demand and it remains constant at previous level. As a result equilibrium quantity falls to Q₁ and price rises to P_1.

1. Imposition of tax leads to higher price of the harvest in the market that affects both the supplier and consumer depending on the elasticity of their supply and demand. Coming to demand, if the mahogany harvest faces an inelastic demand in the market the even though tax is imposed, the higher price can’t successfully curb the equilibrium quantity in the market because for 1 unit increase in the price the demand will for less than 1 unit.According to the economist if consumers somehow can be manipulated to demand less then both the equilibrium quantity and price of mahogany harvest in the market will drop down that would further meet the government motive quite easily. 
2. i) The profit maximizing production decision regarding the mahogany harvest depends on what kind of market it is operating in. Almost for all kind of market structure, producer chooses to produce till the level of output where the profit it derives becomes maximum.For competitive market the production takes place P=MC=MR. In case of monopoly and monopolistic market the producer produce where marginal revenue gets equal to marginal cost and price is always higher than MR
3. ii) Pre 1999, the market for mahogany was legal but post that year, the harvesting and marketing of that became illegal. Still the market operation buying and selling them were active. These methods were able to avoid imposed tax, lower production cost and drive up the selling price than market price all of which lead to profitable supply. Considering the supplier to be a monopolist the short run production decision would be where MC=MR. Due to operating outside of the market and govt. regulation, the ATC as well as MC of the firm reduces that incentivizes the producer to supply more as a result illegal market supply rises to Q_B with fall in the highest level of price being charged.

iii) If illegal market now falls under government monitoring subject to strictly enforced laws then the producer won’t be able to supply at previous cost. Either the cost level would go higher creating disincentive to supply or the production would be restricted by the govt. itself. In such case the operating cost difference in the legal and illegal market would vanish and both the market would face same kind of restrictions and conditions imposed with regards to supply.

 b)-i) Since  a small elite group controls the market of mahogany locally it appears that the market structure is oligopolistic in nature where few seller are existent in the market. On the other hand export market is largely taken care of by two powerful players that indicate presence of duopoly market structure.

ii)-1) Since these two are only producers in the market, instead of supplying separately they enter into a collusion that help them set price and quantity set at level higher than the market equilibrium level. This increases the industry profit and pushes to maximized level. Without collusion firms had to share different level or profits with higher share of profit snatched by the leader compared to the follower in the duopolistic market.But collusion helps them share the profit equally and higher profit stems from higher market price than equilibrium while quantity supplied might be lower than equilibrium amount.

2) Duopolists collude in order to lower the market supply and increase the price level unnecessarily high so that they can derive chunk of the profit. This implies lower deforestation which is beneficial for the health of mahogany population.

3) Yes the collusion strategy if maintained for long time can lead to much lowered deforestation of mahogany trees. Since the colluders charge much higher price for low level of quantity supplied, the pressure on supply falls and overtime higher prices of harvest would create disincentives for the consumers. As a result in the long run the harvest would fall and that would be sustainable to the Brazilian ecology maintaining the balance.

b)

Period (1)	Areas with mahogany (2)	Areas without mahogany (3)	Homicide rate difference between municipalities (4)
Pre-1999. Pre major government intervention	12.41835	6.154223	6.264131
1999 to 2001. 85% of licenses revoked	19.43157	5.009476	14.4221
2001-2008. Harvesting banned	34.16096	10.02253	24.13843
Post-2008. The law is enforced	44.84869	21.26008	23.58861

Table 1: Comparison of average homicide rates, municipalities with and without mahogany, different periods

1. From the above graphs and calculations, it can be said that the homicide rate is much higher in the mahogany growing areas. Over time, the rate has increased. It also reflects the existence of illegal trading and the impact of government intervention on it. From the above table, the pattern of the homicide rate can be explained. Prior to 1999, there was no government intervention in the mahogany production and trading. Hence, the homicide rate was quite low in both types of the region. During 1999 to 2001, when 85% of the licenses were revoked, the homicide rate increased little in the mahogany growing areas, while in areas without mahogany the rate was lower.Since 2001, when the harvesting was banned, the homicide rate in the mahogany growing areas increased significantly, which indicates the presence of illegal trading. These traders faced a huge loss and had no hope of recovering. Hence, the homicide rate increased. The difference between the homicide rates in these two types of region has increased considerably. Finally, post 2008, when the law was enforced, the homicide rate in the mahogany growing areas increased further. This indicates that the government intervention has helped in reducing the illegal trading of mahogany in the municipalities of Brazil.

Lessons and Reflections

1. a) Brazilian mahogany forest is world famous natural resources that require to be preserved than destruction. But falling prey of the human needs, greed and profit motive the forest is harvested without any limit.The first initiative that came from the govt. was to impose tax on producers to create disincentive for them to supply. But what has been learned that due to inelastic demand the quantity demanded did not fall as much the price of mahogany timber rose which attracted the producers to operate in the shadow market or illegal market to earn profit by meeting demands of consumers. Harvesting was still legal by then. The next step govt. took was to revoke 85% of license that further increased the intensity of illegal market operation and selling mahogany woods in disguise of  other normal timbers. Thus government regulation and control failed to meet the purpose behind such intervention that was evident in the even increased activity.

b)-i) If random harvesting is not regulated then the incentivized producer will follow the self interest and keeps on producing or supplying to quench own benefit and profit motives. When self interest can’s take care of the social welfare as whole by leading the allocation toward inefficiency, market failure appears in the context.Production than the social desirable level would create inefficient and adverse social impacts. The most dangerous impact being the loss of ecological balance, species surviving in such forests and so on.

ii)

1. One of the market based solution to reduce mahogany harvest locally has been the shifting growing of mahogany in other countries. If Brazil produces other goods in which it has comparative advantage and exchanges for the mahogany harvests from other country then it can avoid the present ecological issues.Now if Brazil engages in the production of mahogany then for one unit production of mahogany harvests, it has to let go some unit of the production of the goods which it was producing comparatively advantageously. Thus growing mahogany now would inflict higher opportunity cost.
2. The contextual study already presented government regulation as one of the solution to the issue and also the consequences have been studied. Another most important solution can be creating social awareness that can reduce mot only the supply but also the demands coming from range of consumers. Social campaigns and awareness programs can take care of the issue on a large scale. As this would act as greater factor to make shift in both supply and demand.

References

Barbosa, L.C., 2015. Guardians of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest: Environmental organizations and development. Routledge.  

Canto, V.A., Joines, D.H. and Laffer, A.B., 2014. Foundations of supply-side economics: Theory and evidence. Academic Press.  

Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S., 2013. Trade and the environment: Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press.  

Feenstra, R.C., 2015. Advanced international trade: theory and evidence. Princeton university press.

Free, C.M., Landis, R.M., Grogan, J., Schulze, M.D., Lentini, M. and Dünisch, O., 2014. Management implications of long-term tree growth and mortality rates: A modeling study of big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest ecology and management, 330, pp.46-54.     

Gandolfo, G., 2013. International trade theory and policy. Springer Science & Business Media.   

Grogan, J., Schulze, M., Lentini, M., Zweede, J., Landis, M. and Christopher, M., 2013. Managing big-leaf mahogany in natural forests. Tropical Forest Update, 22(1), pp.12-15.

Hyman, D.N., 2014. Public finance: A contemporary application of theory to policy. Cengage Learning.   

Nicholson, W. and Snyder, C., 2014. Microeconomic theory.    

Reboredo, F., 2013. Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging. Environment Systems and Decisions, 33(2), pp.295-304.   

Rios, M.C., McConnell, C.R. and Brue, S.L., 2013. Economics: Principles, problems, and policies. McGraw-Hill

Rubinstein, A., 2012. Lecture notes in microeconomic theory: the economic agent. Princeton University Press.   

Saunders, J. and Reeve, R., 2014. The EU timber regulation and CITES (No. Energy, Environment and Resources PP EER no. 2014/08, p. 30p). Chatham House, London, UK.

Seydack, A.H., 2012. Regulation of timber yield sustainability for tropical and subtropical moist forests: Ecosilvicultural paradigms and economic constraints. In Continuous Cover Forestry (pp. 129-165). Springer Netherlands.

Tacconi, L., 2012. Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. Earthscan.  

Zimmerman, B.L. and Kormos, C.F., 2012. Prospects for sustainable logging in tropical forests. BioScience, 62(5), pp.479-487.