Price controls dominate political debate but may not help consumers

A new report by The Advocata Institute, titled “Price Controls in Sri Lanka: Political Theatre” finds that consumer price controls lead to unintended outcomes including lower quality. Politicians have imposed price controls on a variety of items in the belief that capping prices will lower costs but our survey shows that they are of limited value in controlling the cost of goods.

According to a limited survey carried out by Advocata, a comparison of controlled prices (over a ten month period) against retail prices as per the open market weekly average retail prices, showed that of 13 basic groceries only one (milk powder) was being consistently sold at the controlled price throughout the entire period. No one, not even the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA), possesses a comprehensive list of items subject to price control.

Serious enforcement seems confined to items produced by multinationals or large corporates (milk powder, cement, cooking gas) which are administratively easier to police. In contrast, there only appears to be token enforcement in the unorganised sector. Loose enforcement prevents the most obvious symptoms of price controls from manifesting but at the expense of consumer choice and quality. Where price controls are enforced (eg: cement, milk powder) it is done so in consultation with the industry, leading to a stickiness in prices. Retail prices are slow to rise when world market prices rise but are equally slow to fall when world market prices decline.

The report also highlights how the Government’s approach to prices is schizophrenic; taxes are imposed that raise costs but the same products are then subject to price controls, supposedly to lower prices. The survey seems to indicate that price controls are of limited value in reducing costs and damage markets by preventing the supply of products rising to meet demand. They can cause significant welfare losses, a deterioration in product quality, a reduction in investment and, in the long run, higher prices.

A survey of traders indicate that 67% of retailers and 46% of wholesalers react to raids by the CAA by temporarily adjusting prices. They later revert to business as usual. Traders even claimed that paying fines for non-adherence was more profitable than retailing products at controlled prices. This was particularly true in the case of small tea and hopper sellers.

Tea and Hopper shops were subject to an arbitrary price control in 2015, but it is rarely enforced. At best, the control is useless and at worst, it works against these small entrepreneurs legitimate business activity and opens up potential for clandestine business. Advocata strongly believes that this control should be abolished.

Key recommendations of the report:

• Little serious attempt appears to be made to impose the price controls on basic foodstuffs, particularly in the public markets. The controls encourage sub-optimal behaviour including the sourcing of poor quality or substandard items. Abolishing the controls will have minimal impact on prices while improving choice.  

• Taxes, specifically the Special Commodity Levy and CESS play a significant role in raising consumer prices. Creating the fiscal space for simplification of the system, moving to uniform rates and the lowering taxes of taxes should lead to lower prices.

This report highlights that price controls are of limited value in reducing costs. They can cause significant welfare losses, a deterioration in product quality, a reduction in investment and, in the long run, higher prices. Advocata strongly believes that fostering competition and improving productivity are the best form of price control in Sri Lanka.

“Price Controls in Sri Lanka: Political Theatre”, a new report by the Advocata Institute finds that consumer price controls lead to unintended outcomes including lower quality.

To read more on Price Controls and download full report: www.research.advocata.org/pricecontrol

A video documentary: https://youtu.be/zG5hV94G7Qc