Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

3.7: Market interventions – governments and interest groups

  • Page ID
    45739
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    The freely functioning markets that we have developed certainly do not describe all markets. For example, minimum wages characterize the labour market, most agricultural markets have supply restrictions, apartments are subject to rent controls, and blood is not a freely traded market commodity in Canada. In short, price controls and quotas characterize many markets. Price controls are government rules or laws that inhibit the formation of market-determined prices. Quotas are physical restrictions on how much output can be brought to the market.

    Price controls are government rules or laws that inhibit the formation of market-determined prices.

    Quotas are physical restrictions on output.

    Price controls come in the form of either floors or ceilings. Price floors are frequently accompanied by marketing boards.

    Price ceilings – rental boards

    Ceilings mean that suppliers cannot legally charge more than a specific price. Limits on apartment rents are one form of ceiling. In times of emergency – such as flooding or famine, price controls are frequently imposed on foodstuffs, in conjunction with rationing, to ensure that access is not determined by who has the most income. The problem with price ceilings, however, is that they leave demand unsatisfied, and therefore they must be accompanied by some other allocation mechanism.

    Consider an environment where, for some reason – perhaps a sudden and unanticipated growth in population – rents increase. Let the resulting equilibrium be defined by the point E0 in Figure 3.6. If the government were to decide that this is an unfair price because it places hardships on low- and middle-income households, it might impose a price limit, or ceiling, of Pc. The problem with such a limit is that excess demand results: Individuals want to rent more apartments than are available in the city. In a free market the price would adjust upward to eliminate the excess demand, but in this controlled environment it cannot. So some other way of allocating the available supply between demanders must evolve.

    In reality, most apartments are allocated to those households already occupying them. But what happens when such a resident household decides to purchase a home or move to another city? In a free market, the landlord could increase the rent in accordance with market pressures. But in a controlled market a city's rental tribunal may restrict the annual rent increase to just a couple of percent and the demand may continue to outstrip supply. So how does the stock of apartments get allocated between the potential renters? One allocation method is well known: The existing tenant informs her friends of her plan to move, and the friends are the first to apply to the landlord to occupy the apartment. But that still leaves much unmet demand. If this is a student rental market, students whose parents live nearby may simply return 'home'. Others may chose to move to a part of the city where rents are more affordable.

    Figure 3.6 The effect of a price ceiling
    img43.png
    The free market equilibrium occurs at E0. A price ceiling at Pc holds down the price but leads to excess demand EcB, because Qc is the quantity traded. A price ceiling above P0 is irrelevant since the free market equilibrium E0 can still be attained.

    However, rent controls sometimes yield undesirable outcomes. Rent controls are widely studied in economics, and the consequences are well understood: Landlords tend not to repair or maintain their rental units in good condition if they cannot obtain the rent they believe they are entitled to. Accordingly, the residential rental stock deteriorates. In addition, builders realize that more money is to be made in building condominium units than rental units, or in converting rental units to condominiums. The frequent consequence is thus a reduction in supply and a reduced quality. Market forces are hard to circumvent because, as we emphasized in Chapter 1, economic players react to the incentives they face. These outcomes are examples of what we call the law of unintended consequences.

    Price floors – minimum wages

    An effective price floor sets the price above the market-clearing price. A minimum wage is the most widespread example in the Canadian economy. Provinces each set their own minimum, and it is seen as a way of protecting the well-being of low-skill workers. Such a floor is illustrated in Figure 3.7. The free-market equilibrium is again E0, but the effective market outcome is the combination of price and quantity corresponding to the point Ef at the price floor, Pf. In this instance, there is excess supply equal to the amount EfC.

    Figure 3.7 Price floor – minimum wage
    img44.png
    In a free market the equilibrium is E0. A minimum wage of Pf raises the hourly wage, but reduces the hours demanded to Qf. Thus EfC is the excess supply.

    Note that there is a similarity between the outcomes defined in the floor and ceiling cases: The quantity actually traded is the lesser of the supply quantity and demand quantity at the going price: The short side dominates.

    If price floors, in the form of minimum wages, result in some workers going unemployed, why do governments choose to put them in place? The excess supply in this case corresponds to unemployment – more individuals are willing to work for the going wage than buyers (employers) wish to employ. The answer really depends upon the magnitude of the excess supply. In particular, suppose, in Figure 3.7 that the supply and demand curves going through the equilibrium E0 were more 'vertical'. This would result in a smaller excess supply than is represented with the existing supply and demand curves. This would mean in practice that a higher wage could go to workers, making them better off, without causing substantial unemployment. This is the tradeoff that governments face: With a view to increasing the purchasing power of generally lower-skill individuals, a minimum wage is set, hoping that the negative impact on employment will be small. We will return to this in the next chapter, where we examine the responsiveness of supply and demand curves to different prices.

    Quotas – agricultural supply

    A quota represents the right to supply a specified quantity of a good to the market. It is a means of keeping prices higher than the free-market equilibrium price. As an alternative to imposing a price floor, the government can generate a high price by restricting supply.

    Agricultural markets abound with examples. In these markets, farmers can supply only what they are permitted by the quota they hold, and there is usually a market for these quotas. For example, in several Canadian provinces it currently costs in the region of $30,000 to purchase a quota granting the right to sell the milk of one cow. The cost of purchasing quotas can thus easily outstrip the cost of a farm and herd. Canadian cheese importers must pay for the right to import cheese from abroad. Restrictions also apply to poultry. The impact of all of these restrictions is to raise the domestic price above the free market price.

    In Figure 3.8, the free-market equilibrium is at E0. In order to raise the price above P0, the government restricts supply to Qq by granting quotas, which permit producers to supply a limited amount of the good in question. This supply is purchased at the price equal to Pq. From the standpoint of farmers, a higher price might be beneficial, even if they get to supply a smaller quantity, provided the amount of revenue they get as a result is as great as the revenue in the free market.

    Figure 3.8 The effect of a quota
    img45.png
    The government decides that the equilibrium price P0 is too low. It decides to boost price by reducing supply from Q0 to Qq. It achieves this by requiring producers to have a production quota. This is equivalent to fixing supply at Sq.

    Marketing boards – milk and maple syrup

    A marketing board is a means of insuring that a quota or price floor can be maintained. Quotas are frequent in the agriculture sector of the economy. One example is maple syrup in Quebec. The Federation of Maple Syrup Producers of Quebec has the sole right to market maple syrup. All producers must sell their syrup through this marketing board. It is a de facto monopoly. The Federation increases the total revenue going to producers by artificially restricting the supply to the market. The Federation calculates that by reducing supply and selling it at a higher price, more revenue will accrue to the producers. This is illustrated in Figure 3.8. The market equilibrium is given by E0, but the Federation restricts supply to the quantity Qq, which is sold to buyers at price Pq. To make this possible the total supply must be restricted; otherwise producers would supply the amount given by the point C on the supply curve, and this would result in excess supply in the amount EqC. In order to restrict supply to Qq in total, individual producers are limited in what they can sell to the Federation; they have a quota, which gives them the right to produce and sell no more than a specific limited amount. This system of quotas is necessary to eliminate the excess supply that would emerge at the above-equilibrium price Pq.

    We will return to this topic in Principles of Microeconomics Chapter 4. For the moment, to see that this type of revenue-increasing outcome is possible, examine Table 3.1 again. At this equilibrium price of $4 the quantity traded is 6 units, yielding a total expenditure by buyers (revenue to suppliers) of $24. However, if the supply were restricted and a price of $5 were set, the expenditure by buyers (revenue to suppliers) would rise to $25.


    This page titled 3.7: Market interventions – governments and interest groups is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Douglas Curtis and Ian Irvine (Lyryx) .

    • Was this article helpful?