Unit 2.

7(2): Governments in markets - price controls

What you should know by the end of this chapter:
• Price controls
• Maximum prices
• Reasons for the use of maximum prices
• Effects of a maximum price on a market using
graphical analysis
• Consequences of maximum prices for different
stakeholders and welfare
• Minimum price
• Reasons for minimum prices
• Effects of minimum prices on a market using graphical analysis
• Consequences of minimum prices for different stakeholders and welfare.

Price controls
In free markets where there is no government intervention, the price and output in a market are
determined by demand and supply. Governments often intervene in markets when the market price
and output do not maximise welfare in society. This could be a high price that negatively affects
households on lower incomes or a low price that forces firms out of business in a strategically
important market.

Maximum prices (price ceiling)

Definition
A maximum price or price ceiling is a price set by a government or controlling authority to prevent
the price of a good or service from rising above a fixed level. For example, rent controls in a housing
market are a maximum price where market rents cannot rise above a certain price.

Reasons for maximum prices

Maximum prices are put in place to protect low-income consumers from prices rising in a market to
a level they cannot afford. Maximum prices are normally put on goods that governments feel all
people in society ought to be able to consume such as housing, basic food, healthcare and
education.

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 1
Effects of a maximum price
One of the most famous maximum prices or price ceilings are rent controls
in New York City. Rent controls have existed in the city since the 1940s to
protect low-income families. The number of houses and apartments
subject to rent controls is around 22,000 at present with an average rent
of about $1,300 per month. The average market rent would be around
$2,500 per month.

Diagram 2.33(1) illustrates the impact of

a maximum price on rents in the New
York housing market.

Empirical evidence of the effects of a maximum price set below the equilibrium price would be:

• If the price falls in the market from $2500 to $1300, the quantity demanded increases from
30,000 units to 36,000 units because of the income and substitution effects (more people
can afford to rent and its cheaper to rent relative to buying a house).

• The decrease in price reduces the quantity supplied when landlords withdraw from the
market because they make less profit and fewer landlords can cover their costs.

• Excess demand (shortages) for rented housing develops because the quantity demanded is
greater than the quantity supplied of rented housing at the maximum price.

• The rationing function of price no longer works effectively. The price cannot rise to clear the
market because of the price ceiling.

• Other methods of rationing develop such as: queueing (first come, first serve), preferential
consumer selection (landlords rent to tenants they favour), regulations develop (landlords
are forced to prioritise families) and lottery schemes develop (random selection of tenants).

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 2
 • Parallel markets develop where consumers and producers try to find their way around the
ceiling price controls. A landlord and tenant might officially agree on the rent ceiling of
$1300 but also agree on a payment of $1000 per month to be paid unofficially.

• The quality of rented housing declines because landlords do not have funds to make repairs
and maintain their properties as well as they could do at the equilibrium price.

• In the long-term new investment in rented housing falls because the market is not as
profitable as it would be without the maximum price.

Impact on stakeholders
Consumers

The consumers who buy the good or

service at a maximum price benefit
because they pay a lower price than the
equilibrium price. The gain in consumer
surplus these consumers receive is shown
by the yellow shaded area in diagram
2.34. Some consumers who would have
paid the market price and cannot buy the
good at the maximum price because of a
shortage lose out.

Consumers may also lose out because of the time they might spend queueing for a good that is in
short supply, or they might encounter extra regulations resulting from the price ceiling. Some
consumers might enter the parallel market where they might have to pay a very inflated price and
risk breaking the law.

Producers

In theory, producers lose when there is a maximum price because they receive less revenue and
profit from selling their good or service. For the landlords in the rented housing market, the
producer surplus is the green shaded which is smaller than the producer surplus at the normal
market equilibrium price. It is, however, possible for some fringe producers to enter the parallel
market and make high profits from selling their good illegally.

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 3
Governments

Governments have the cost of setting up and enforcing the maximum price, as well as the loss of tax
revenue that might come from lower sales in the market (although the good may not be subject to
tax). There are, however, some political benefits from setting a price ceiling because it looks like an
effective policy that reduces prices. This is why governments are often tempted to use them.

Welfare

Empirical evidence suggests maximum prices tend to lead to a loss of welfare because the benefits
of the maximum price are concentrated amongst a relatively small number of consumers and there
are wider dispersed costs on the rest of society. In New York, a relatively small number of tenants
(sometimes wealthy) benefit from the maximum price, but many potential tenants lose out,
landlords see a fall in profits and the government (taxpayers) have to pay for the system.

Minimum prices (price floors)

Definition
A minimum price or price floor is a lower limit set by the government or
controlling authority to stop the price of a good or service from falling below
a certain level. Minimum prices have been used in the past in agricultural
markets, although they are not used as much today. There are, however, still
examples of minimum prices in agriculture in India on Kharif (autumn) crops.
These are crops such as maize and rice.

Reasons for minimum prices

Governments use minimum prices or guaranteed minimum prices to protect producers in markets.
This is often the case in agricultural markets where governments look to support farmers and
protect the food supply. Producers in agricultural markets often struggle because of unstable prices
because of the impact of the weather on their output. A price floor aims to offer them a more stable
income.

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 4
Effects of minimum price (price floor)
The European Union used minimum prices as
part of their Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
in the 1970s and 80s. Diagram 2.35 is an
example of how minimum prices might work in
the market for wheat. In this example, the
equilibrium price for wheat is €8 per bushel
with 2 million units of output. A minimum
guaranteed price is put in place at €11.

Empirical evidence of the effects of a minimum price set above the equilibrium price would be:

• As the price rises from €8 to €11 the quantity demand for wheat falls to 1.1m bushels. As the
price increases quantity demanded decreases because of the income and substitution
effects. Wheat is now less affordable, and buyers switch to cheaper alternatives.

• Quantity supplied increases to 2.7m bushels because the higher price increases producer
profits and covers the costs of higher production.

• At the minimum price, the quantity supplied is greater than the quantity demanded and
there is excess supply or surplus output. In diagram this is (2.7m – 1.1m = 1.6m units).

• To maintain the minimum price the government or buying authority needs to purchase the
surplus and put it into storage. If the surplus is allowed onto the market the price will fall –
hence the term guaranteed price. The cost of the government intervention is 1.6m x €11 =
€17.6m

• The wheat needs to be stored and this is an additional cost of the scheme. This can be
particularly expensive for goods that need to be refrigerated.

• Additional agricultural producers are attracted to the market by the minimum price which
leads to an increase in excess supply in the long run and reduces supply in other markets.

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 5
Impact on stakeholders
Consumers

Consumers lose out when a minimum price is set

above the equilibrium price because they need to
pay a higher price for the good and their
consumer surplus falls. The loss of consumer
surplus from the minimum price put on wheat is
shown in diagram 2.36. The yellow shaded area
shows the new consumer surplus following the
increase in price from €8 to €11. The increase in
the price of agricultural products affects poorer
consumers badly because buying food is often a
high proportion of their household expenditure.

Producers

Producers gain when a guaranteed minimum price is above the equilibrium price because their
producer surplus increases. This means they will receive higher revenues and profits. The increase in
producer surplus is shown by the green shaded area in diagram 2.36. In the wheat market, this may
well fulfil the government’s aim of stabilising farming incomes and maintaining a long-term food
supply.

Government

Minimum prices represent an opportunity cost to the government. The government or the authority
buys the excess supply and has the considerable cost of purchasing the good, as well as the cost of
storing any excess supply and managing the system.

Welfare

Minimum prices are not used very much anymore because they were expensive for the government
to manage and the benefits of the system were less than its costs. They often led to a misallocation
of resources in agriculture markets with huge surpluses developing at the expense of reduced
production in other markets. There was also considerable waste with excess supply being destroyed
when it could not be sold. In some instances, the European Union sold excess supplies to developing
countries with disastrous effects on their farmers when prices fell in their markets. Like maximum
prices, the gains tended to be concentrated amongst a certain group of stakeholders - in this case,
producers, with dispersed losses for consumers and taxpayers.

© Alex Smith
InThinking www.thinkib.net/Economics 6