It seems like the simplest solution: if prices are too high, just pass a law to make them lower. It's an idea that's seeing a major resurgence in popularity, with proposals ranging from rent freezes in major cities to caps on electricity bills and credit card interest rates. I cut through the political noise to answer the question: do price controls actually work?
The core of the argument lies in how economists view prices, not as arbitrary numbers set by greedy sellers, but as crucial signals of scarcity and demand (however there is a lot of greedy people outhere than will increase prizes disproportionately). When a product becomes scarce due to a natural disaster or a spike in demand, its price naturally rises. That high price acts as a powerful signal and incentive, encouraging producers to make more of that good to capture the profit, which ultimately helps resolve the shortage. But if you smash that signal by capping the price, you eliminate the incentive for producers to increase supply. The result is predictable and severe: shortages, long lines, rationing, and often the emergence of black markets where goods are sold at even higher prices (I live in Cuba and this country is an example to study).
Harold Demsetz compared using price controls to fight inflation to "trying to control the [temperature] by smashing the thermometer." Most strikingly, economist Assar Lindbeck famously described rent control as "the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city except for bombing."
Despite this clear economic consensus, price controls are making a comeback through the world. Why? Because people (voters) are hurting. Housing has reached crisis levels of unaffordability, and everyday necessities feel out of reach for millions of families. People want relief now, not in the years it might take to build more housing. This has made the idea of a simple price cap extremely politically attractive, even for some politicians who previously defended free-market orthodoxy.
This political pressure has sparked a fierce debate. On one side, a recent New York Times op-ed by two economists argues for temporary, targeted price caps paired with supply-side reforms like government investment in new housing and energy. Their argument is that short-term relief could provide political cover for long-term solutions.
However, critics remain deeply skeptical. They point out that "temporary" price controls have a nasty habit of becoming permanent, creating a powerful political constituency that fights to keep them in place. Real-world examples often support this skepticism. For instance, price caps in Kenya led to long queues and hoarding, as producers stopped supplying goods at artificially low rates. In fact, a World Bank working paper noted that similar policies in Ancient Greece led to grain shortages and a thriving black market. Meanwhile, international examples like Mexico, where the government has capped the price of two dozen essential goods, show how politically popular such measures can be, even if their long-term economic impact is debated.
The near-universal consensus among economists is that broad, long-term price controls lead to shortages, stifle investment, and ultimately make the underlying problem worse. Yet, the idea of price controls remains a powerful political tool because it speaks directly to the very real pain voters are experiencing in their daily lives. The debate, therefore, may not be about whether price controls are a perfect solution, but whether a strategically designed, temporary version can provide a political bridge to more sustainable solutions without causing more harm than good.
The solution can be a policy of incentives to social housing or productions. This means financing the production of basic necessities that are not attractive enough for private capital to do. This would guarantee affordability for those with lower incomes, without affecting free market incentives in the rest of the economy.
But this, can be another debate.
Image made with Rafiki
