Question

One common example of a price ceiling is rent control. In many cities, the local government places a ceiling on rents that landlords may charge their tenants. The goal of this policy is to help the poor by making housing more affordable. Economists often criticize rent control, arguing that it is a highly inefficient way to help the poor raise their standard of living. One economist called rent control “the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.” The adverse effects of rent control are less apparent to the general population because these effects occur over many years. In the short run, landlords have a fixed number of apartments to rent, and they cannot adjust this number quickly as market conditions change. Moreover, the number of people searching for housing in a city may not be highly responsive to rents in the short run because people take time to adjust their housing arrangements. Therefore, the short-run supply and demand for housing are relatively inelastic. As with any binding price ceiling, rent control causes a shortage. Yet because supply and demand are inelastic in the short run, the initial shortage caused by rent control is small. The primary effect in the short run is to reduce rents. The long-run story is very different because the buyers and sellers of rental housing respond more to market conditions as time passes. On the supply side, landlords respond to low rents by not building new apartments and by failing to maintain existing ones. On the demand side, low rents encourage people to find their own apartments (rather than living with their parents or sharing apartments with roommates) and induce more people to move into a city. Therefore, both supply and demand are more elastic in the long run. When rent control depresses rents below the equilibrium level, the quantity of apartments supplied falls substantially, and the quantity of apartments demanded rises substantially. The result is a large shortage of housing. In cities with rent control, landlords use various mechanisms to ration housing. Some landlords keep long waiting lists. Others give a preference to tenants without children. Still others discriminate on the basis of race. Sometimes apartments are allocated to those willing to offer under-the-table payments to building superintendents. In essence, these bribes bring the total price of an apartment (including the bribe) closer to the equilibrium price. To understand fully the effects of rent control, we have to remember one of the Ten Principles of Economics from Chapter 1: People respond to incentives. In free markets, landlords try to keep their buildings clean and safe because desirable apartments command higher prices. By contrast, when rent control creates short- ages and waiting lists, landlords lose their incentive to respond to tenants’ concerns. Why should a landlord spend money to maintain and improve the property when people are waiting to get in as it is? In the end, tenants get lower rents, but they also get lower-quality housing. Policymakers often react to the effects of rent control by imposing additional regulations. For example, various laws make racial discrimination in housing illegal and require landlords to provide minimally adequate living conditions. These laws, however, are difficult and costly to enforce. By contrast, when rent control is eliminated and a market for housing is regulated by the forces of competition, such laws are less necessary. In a free market, the price of housing adjusts to eliminate the shortages that give rise to undesirable landlord behavior.

You are asked to advise on if your city should or should not start a rent control scheme. Most working families in your city are middle class, but you have about 20% of the population on pension (retired with a fixed income). What do you advise? What arguments favor rent control? What arguments oppose rent control? What unintended consequences do you foresee?

Answer 1

It has been observed that several U.S. cities use rent control to limit the rent a landlord can charge for residential properties. It is mainly seen in the expensive markets of California. Since the city in which I live is not a very expensive city, thus, rent control scheme should not be implemented in the city because the disadvantages of rent control exceed the advantages of rent control. The gains from rent control include reduced rent and affordable housing for the immigrants which increases consumer surplus. But the disadvantages of rent control include reduced mobility- Rent control discourages people from moving. It reduces overall mobility in the nation. Another big disadvantage of rent control include shortage of houses in the city. Housing quality issues are also important in this case. It discourages landlords from making repairs and upgrading their properties. Thus, maintainence of the houses suffer and poor quality houses are provided to the tenants. Some of the unintended consequences include black marketing of houses and increased corruption in this market.