Market Failure, Government Response, and the 2008 Crisis
This paper examines the interrelated nature of market failures and government responses, arguing that neither markets nor governments operate in isolation when systemic collapse occurs. Drawing on Keech, Munger, and Simon's framework of incentives and information failures, as well as Acharya et al.'s regulatory analysis, the paper uses the 2007–2009 global economic downturn as its primary case study. It traces how relaxed mortgage lending standards, misaligned financial incentives, and government assumptions about bailouts combined to produce a real estate bubble that eventually collapsed. The paper concludes that governments can mitigate future market failures by adhering to principles such as risk-aligned guarantees, financial transparency, and liquidity requirements.
- Introduction: Markets, Governments, and Fallibility: Both markets and governments fail due to human fallibility
- Systemic Failure: Beyond Simple Blame: Failures reflect system-wide breakdowns, not isolated causes
- The 2007–2009 Economic Downturn as a Case Study: Mortgage market collapse driven by misaligned lending incentives
- Government Bailouts and Questions of Morality: Bailouts raised ethical concerns about government priorities
- Principles for Addressing Market Failure: Regulatory principles can reduce future systemic risk
- Conclusion: Governments can minimize market failure through sound economics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper links abstract economic concepts — externalities, public goods, incentive misalignment — directly to a well-known historical event, grounding theory in concrete evidence.
- It maintains a balanced perspective, avoiding the common error of blaming either markets or governments exclusively, and instead argues for a systemic view of failure.
- The paper raises an ethical dimension (morality of bailouts) that moves the analysis beyond pure economics, broadening its relevance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses case-study analysis drawn from secondary academic sources to support a theoretical claim. By citing Keech, Munger, and Simon alongside Acharya et al., the student demonstrates the ability to synthesize multiple scholarly perspectives into a single coherent argument — a core skill in economics and policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a theoretical framing of market and government failure, then introduces the analytical lens provided by Keech et al. It narrows progressively from general theory to a specific historical case (the 2007–2009 downturn), examines the moral criticism of government bailouts, and closes with Acharya et al.'s policy prescriptions. This funnel structure — broad principle to specific evidence to actionable conclusion — is well-suited to policy-oriented economics writing.
Introduction: Markets, Governments, and Fallibility
The nature of market failure and government responses to it rests on a fundamental premise: both markets and governments are fallible entities, managed by people who are themselves inherently flawed. In a broader sense, market failure never occurs in isolation; it is, in fact, the result of an integrated system failure. To demonstrate this, the example of one of the largest market failures to date is examined — the global economic downturn between 2007 and 2009. The conclusion is that, by adhering to certain principles of economics, governments can take responsibility for minimizing the risk of market failure.
Being regulated by people, it is a reality that, like people, neither markets nor governments are perfect. They both fail (Lee and Clark, 2013). The responsibility for this failure is generally placed at the door of either positive or negative externalities. The undersupply of public goods and an excess of pollution are both considered market failures. Although both of these can result from market activity, government activity can have an equally dire effect on markets and their failure. Generally, governments create market failure through transfers connected to politically influential groups and their desire to benefit regardless of consequences — usually at the expense of others. Regardless of the core reasons for market failure, however, the common response is to expand the power of government in order to mitigate and correct that failure. This was widely evident during the large-scale economic downturn of the late 2000s.
Systemic Failure: Beyond Simple Blame
Keech, Munger, and Simon use two significant case studies to explain the failure of markets and government responses to them. The first they examine is the recent economic downturn. With these case studies, the authors' intention is to demonstrate how neither markets nor governments can be blamed individually when complex organizations fail. Instead, it is a wider-scale failure of entire systems — a conglomeration of incentives, decision-maker information, and the arrangement of other systems that contribute to the function of the market, government, or a combination of the two.
The 2007–2009 Economic Downturn as a Case Study
In addition to the Deepwater Horizon crisis, Keech, Munger, and Simon (2012) address the recent economic downturn. They demonstrate how this downturn was the result of a failure to use information correctly to create the right incentives for lenders. The crisis began with the collapse of the mortgage market. In an attempt to increase the diversity of people who qualified for mortgages, and in a further effort to promote an "affordable housing" drive, the government pressured banks to relax their lending standards. While banks were unwilling to do this, the incentive drove the creation of lending businesses outside of traditional banking, whose standards were far more relaxed. These lenders simply repackaged and resold the loans to generate a profit for themselves.
At the same time, financial institutions operated under the assumption that, while they would profit in prosperous times, the government would assist them in times of less prosperity. The widespread reports of government bailouts for large financial institutions became common during the downturn. This dynamic — in which private risk-taking was effectively underwritten by public guarantees — was central to the systemic breakdown that followed.
Conclusion
The overarching premise remains that markets and governments are both very fallible entities, managed by people who are also inherently flawed. By adhering to sound principles of economics and responsible regulation, however, governments can take meaningful responsibility for minimizing the risk of market failure.
References
Acharya, V. V., Cooley, T., Richardson, M., and Walter, I. (2009, December 5). Market failures and regulatory failures: Lessons from past and present financial crises.
Keech, W. R., Munger, M. C., and Simon, C. (2012). Market failure and government failure. Public Choice World Congress, Miami.
Lee, D. R. and Clark, J. R. (2013, Spring/Summer). Market failures, government solutions, and moral perceptions. Cato Journal, 33(2).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.