When a pet owner decides to give up a pet for adoption or breed more pets, he is callously ignoring the implications for other potential pets. The pet he gives up for adoption crowds out a home for another animal. The pet exerts a negative externality on other potential pets. The decision-maker – i.e. the pet owner – does not take this externality into account and there is overproduction of pets. Excess pets are euthanized.
When a tomato farmer sells more tomatoes, he is callously ignoring the welfare of other tomato farmers. The tomatoes he sells crowd out a home for other tomatoes. But we think the market for tomatoes in principle works quite well.
Why of your fat cat couch potato not like a tomato? In a new publication, Coate and Knight answer this question. In the tomato market, there is a market price for tomatoes. Each tomato producer is small and his output does not affect the price. But there is a market price for pets and neither buyers nor sellers of pets affect the price. So what’s the big difference?
Tomatoes you are bored with or cannot support financially do not have to be euthanized. Stray tomatoes do not wander the city, scavenging rotten meat from trash cans. Pet euthanasia imposes an external cost that the pet owner does not pay. Stray pets must be caught by public services. There is no easy way to charge the pet owner for these costs. If there were, pets would be like tomatoes. But pet owners can avoid euthanasia fees by dumping unwanted pets as strays. Coate and Knight argue that this “moral hazard” problem makes it impossible to effectively deal with the externality created by pet owners. Hence, there is overproduction of pets.
What is to be done? Taxation of pet ownership is one solution. Subsidies for spaying are another. Dog licenses act as a tax. But cat owners face no government imposed barrier to acquisition of a furry friend. There must be serious overproduction of cats. We all know cats generate more allergies than dogs – another negative externality. This is serious
Obama has made an effort to improve healthcare. Hopefully he or whoever replaces him will take up pet – particularly cat – overpopulation in the next term.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 21, 2011 at 9:53 pm
MikeY
think you mean a subsidy on “spaying”. A subsidy for “splaying” would, if anything, increase the birth rate.
February 22, 2011 at 9:02 am
Sandeep Baliga
Thanks.
February 21, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Mr. Me
Or we could all learn a few good recipes for cat.
February 22, 2011 at 10:31 am
samson
here’s a link to the referenced Coate, Knight study:
http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol10/iss1/art106/
February 22, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Sandeep Baliga
Thanks. Added link to post
February 23, 2011 at 12:20 am
Tom P
What in the world?? The above analysis completely ignores the utility of cats themselves. Presumably there is an UNDERsupply of cats because cats cannot contract with humans to give the humans warm fuzzies. (Cats are not libertarian. They scoff at contract law.)
No credit goes to the guy who says that cats have no “willingness to pay” and hence don’t matter.
Cats also catch rats which is yet another positive externality of cats.
More cats, please!
February 23, 2011 at 7:40 am
Jerry
What in the world?? The above comment completely ignores the utility of rats and mice themselves. Presumably there is an OVERsupply of mice because mice cannot contract jointly with humans and cats to eat wasted human food or cat food and to poop only in the cat litter, all while being sooo cute (Robert Burns notwithstanding).
No credit goes to the guy who says that mice and rats have no “willingness to pay” and hence don’t matter.
Cats also stay stupid things while posing awkwardly, wasting millions of hours of human attention on the internet, which is yet another negative externality of cats.
Fewer cats, please!
February 25, 2011 at 11:15 pm
zbicyclist
” Dog licenses act as a tax. But cat owners face no government imposed barrier to acquisition of a furry friend. ” — But aren’t stray dogs just as much of a problem as stray cats? If so, doesn’t that mean taxation doesn’t work here?