Information Failure

#VERIDIAN™ | WEC11/01 · Unit 1: Markets in Action

---

VERIDIAN™ | © VERIDIAN 2026. All rights reserved. This material is the intellectual property of VERIDIAN. Unauthorised reproduction, resale, or distribution is prohibited. For personal study use only.

---

Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel.

---

#READ THIS FIRST — THE DISTINCTION MOST STUDENTS MISS

Information asymmetry and irrational behaviour are two separate causes of market failure that often appear in the same question. Students who confuse them conflate two different mechanisms and lose marks on both.

The single most important distinction:

• Information asymmetry: Consumer would choose differently if they had the information. The failure is in the information, not the person.
• Irrational behaviour: Consumer has the information but behavioural biases prevent rational choice. The failure is in the decision-making, not the information.

A consumer who doesn't know they could save AUS$1,000 by switching = information asymmetry. A consumer who knows they could save AUS$1,000 but still doesn't switch due to inertia = irrational behaviour.

Both are valid causes of market failure. They require different policy responses.

---

#PART 1 — INFORMATION ASYMMETRY

Definition: Information asymmetry occurs when one party to a transaction has more information than the other, causing the less-informed party to make decisions that reduce their welfare.

Three confirmed WEC11 types:

Moral hazard vs adverse selection — confirmed WEC11 distinction:

• Moral hazard: behaviour changes after contract is signed (existing insured take more risks)
• Adverse selection: high-risk individuals enter the market before contract (selection problem)

"Insured had far more hospital admissions and emergency department visits... people take more risks as they know health insurance covers costs." — Jan 2021 mark scheme (confirming moral hazard, not adverse selection)

---

#PART 2 — IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Definition: Irrational behaviour occurs when individuals make decisions that deviate from rational utility maximisation, due to behavioural biases rather than information gaps.

Seven confirmed WEC11 irrational behaviour types (from Jan 2021 mark scheme):

The Level 4 rule: Two of these, each developed to Stage 4 with extract data embedded. Not all seven listed at Stage 1.

---

#PART 3 — WRONG VS RIGHT: FIVE CONFIRMED ERRORS

ERROR 1 — Moral hazard definition too vague

WRONG: "Moral hazard is when insured people take more risks." → Partial K at best. Missing: that the costs are transferred to the insurer. The mechanism is cost transfer, not just risk-taking.

RIGHT: "Moral hazard occurs when one party takes on greater risk because the costs of that risk are borne by another — insured individuals face a zero effective price for risk-taking, causing behaviour that diverges from the uninsured baseline." → Full K mark. Cost transfer mechanism present.

---

ERROR 2 — Adverse selection confused with moral hazard

WRONG: "Moral hazard means high-risk people are more likely to buy insurance." → This is adverse selection. High-risk people entering the market = adverse selection (before contract). Behaviour changing after insurance = moral hazard (after contract).

RIGHT: "Moral hazard: insured individuals already in the market change their behaviour after taking out insurance. Adverse selection: high-risk individuals disproportionately choose to enter the insurance market in the first place." → Both correctly defined. Critical distinction for MCQ and Q9-type questions.

---

ERROR 3 — Information asymmetry confused with irrational behaviour

WRONG: "Information asymmetry explains why consumers don't switch electricity supplier even though they could save AUS$1,000." → Wrong for the 30% who don't switch due to effort. That is irrational behaviour (inertia). The 22% who lack information = information asymmetry. They are different causes.

RIGHT: "The 22% who lack information about available savings demonstrate information asymmetry — they would switch if informed. The 30% who cite effort demonstrate irrational behaviour (inertia) — they know switching is available but the immediate effort cost dominates the delayed financial benefit." → Both causes correctly separated with extract data.

---

ERROR 4 — Stage 3 endpoint on moral hazard

WRONG: "With health insurance, people take more risks so they end up in hospital more." → Stage 3. What are the consequences for the insurer and the healthcare system? Who bears the welfare loss?

RIGHT: "As the insured group shows 32% more hospital admissions than the uninsured, the insurer faces higher costs than actuarially predicted — either requiring premium increases that price lower-risk individuals out of the market (adverse selection cascade) or generating losses that destabilise the insurance product. The welfare loss falls on all premium-payers and taxpayers funding the healthcare system." → Stage 4: third parties (all premium-payers, taxpayers), specific harm (higher premiums / system costs), welfare consequence.

---

ERROR 5 — Evaluation that just restates the chain

WRONG: "However, information asymmetry is a problem because consumers don't have information." → Restates the KAA. Zero AO4.

RIGHT: "However, information asymmetry as the primary cause holds only if the information is genuinely unavailable — in markets with mandatory comparison websites and standardised billing disclosure, the information asymmetry may be substantially reduced, meaning persistent non-switching reflects irrational behaviour rather than information failure, requiring a different policy response." → Evaluation: challenges whether information asymmetry is the correct diagnosis. "Holds only if" present. Different policy implication as new addition.

---

#PART 4 — THE SAME CHAIN AT THREE LEVELS

Question: "Evaluate possible reasons why consumers may behave irrationally." (20 marks — Jun 2023 type)

LEVEL 2 KAA (4–6/12): "Irrational behaviour is when consumers do not make the best decisions. One reason is inertia — people don't bother to switch electricity suppliers even though they could save money. Another reason is that people don't have the information about how much they could save."

Why Level 2: "Do not make the best decisions" — imprecise, no "fail to maximise utility." "Don't bother" = correct concept but no mechanism. "Don't have the information" = Stage 1. No extract data. No Stage 4 welfare consequences.

---

LEVEL 3 ENTRY KAA (7–9/12): "Irrational behaviour occurs when consumers fail to maximise utility. Inertia explains why 30% of Australian consumers do not switch electricity suppliers despite saving AUS$1,000 on average — the immediate effort cost of switching is perceived as larger than the delayed financial benefit, leading to systematic under-switching relative to the rational optimum. Each year of non-switching represents a foregone AUS$1,000 welfare loss."

Why L3 entry: "Fail to maximise utility" ✓. Extract data (30%, AUS$1,000) embedded ✓. Mechanism (effort cost vs delayed benefit) ✓. Stage 4 present (AUS$1,000 welfare loss). Missing for Level 4: P2 bilateral development + second cause at equal depth.

---

LEVEL 4 KAA (10–12/12): As Level 3 entry PLUS: P2 evaluates the inertia chain before presenting Chain 2 ("However, for high-income earners AUS$1,000 represents a small proportion of income — rational non-switching if time opportunity cost exceeds the saving"). Chain 2: information failure (22%, cannot calculate comparative value). Both chains at equal S4 depth. No stages omitted.

---

#PART 5 — DIAGNOSE YOUR ANSWER

ATTEMPT 1: "Information asymmetry is when one side knows more than the other and this causes problems in markets."

Level: L1. "Causes problems" = no mechanism, no welfare consequence, no extract data.

Upgrade: "Information asymmetry occurs when one party to a transaction has more information than the other — insured individuals know their own health risk better than the insurer (Jan 2021 context), causing those with higher risk to disproportionately purchase insurance (adverse selection) or to take greater risks after purchasing (moral hazard)."

---

ATTEMPT 2: "Moral hazard occurs when people take more risks because they have insurance. The insured group had more hospital admissions than the uninsured group. This shows moral hazard is happening."

Level: Low L2. "Take more risks" present but no cost-transfer mechanism. Data present (more admissions) but as separate statement not embedded. "Shows moral hazard is happening" = conclusion without welfare consequence.

Upgrade: (1) Add cost-transfer mechanism: "the effective price of risk-taking falls to zero for the insured — costs borne by insurer not insured." (2) Add Stage 4: "insurer faces higher costs than predicted — either raising premiums (excluding lower-risk individuals) or generating losses that destabilise the insurance market."

---

ATTEMPT 3: "Moral hazard occurs when one party takes on greater risk because costs are borne by another. The insured group had 32% more hospital admissions than the uninsured, confirming the zero effective price of risk-taking changed behaviour. The insurer faces higher claim costs than predicted, requiring premium increases. This holds only if individuals genuinely respond to financial incentives — intrinsically health-motivated individuals may not change behaviour regardless of insurance status."

Level: L3 (7–8/8 on an 8-marker). All marks accessible: K (cost-transfer definition) ✓, App (32% embedded) ✓, An1 (zero effective price mechanism) ✓, An2 (insurer cost / premium consequence) ✓, Eval (holds only if + intrinsic motivation condition) ✓.

---

ATTEMPT 4 (L4 on 20-marker): As Attempt 3 PLUS: P2 (challenges moral hazard as primary cause: "co-payment structures that maintain partial cost exposure at point of treatment reduce moral hazard without eliminating risk-pooling benefit — holds only if co-payment is not so high it excludes low-income patients from care"). Second cause (information asymmetry or irrational behaviour) at equal depth. All five judgement elements.

---

#PART 6 — CONDITIONAL JUDGEMENTS

"Evaluate reasons for underconsumption of education." "Information asymmetry is the primary cause — individuals cannot accurately assess the private returns to specific degree subjects before choosing, confirmed by Italy's 28% participation rate versus EU norms despite similar formal information availability. This holds only if the information asymmetry is genuine rather than reflecting rational choice given Italy's specific graduate labour market conditions — if Italian graduate unemployment is high, rational individuals correctly invest less in qualifications with low local returns. However, irrational behaviour provides a complementary explanation: present bias systematically over-weights the immediate tuition cost against the distant career benefit — suggesting information provision alone is insufficient, and nudge policies targeting present bias may be required alongside disclosure improvements."

---

#REFERENCE CARD

INFORMATION ASYMMETRY vs IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR:
Info asymmetry: would choose differently IF informed
Irrational: has info but biases prevent rational choice

MORAL HAZARD: cost transfer → risk-taking increases
(behaviour changes AFTER contract)
ADVERSE SELECTION: high-risk enter market first
(selection BEFORE contract)

MORAL HAZARD DEFINITION (full K mark):
"One party takes greater risk because costs borne by another"
"People take more risks" alone = partial K only

SEVEN IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR TYPES:
Inertia | Information gap | Poor computation |
Herding | Habit | Need to feel valued | Framing

STAGE 4 — MORAL HAZARD:
Third party: premium-payers and taxpayers
Harm: higher premiums / system destabilisation
Welfare: adverse selection cascade OR insurance collapse

---

VERIDIAN™ | © VERIDIAN 2026. All rights reserved. This material is the intellectual property of VERIDIAN. Unauthorised reproduction, resale, or distribution is prohibited. For personal study use only. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel.

VERIDIAN WEC11 · CODEX SERIES · INFORMATION FAILURE