Hubbry Logo
Price floorPrice floorMain
Open search
Price floor
Community hub
Price floor
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Price floor
Price floor
Price floor
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Protesters call for an increased legal minimum wage as part of the "Fight for $15" effort to require a $15 per hour minimum wage in 2015. A government-set minimum wage is a price floor on the price of labour.

A price floor is a government- or group-imposed price control or limit on how low a price can be charged for a product,[1] good, commodity, or service. It is one type of price support; other types include supply regulation and guarantee government purchase price. A price floor must be higher than the equilibrium price in order to be effective. The equilibrium price, commonly called the "market price", is the price where economic forces such as supply and demand are balanced and in the absence of external influences the (equilibrium) values of economic variables will not change, often described as the point at which quantity demanded and quantity supplied are equal (in a perfectly competitive market). Governments use price floors to keep certain prices from going too low.

Two common price floors are minimum wage laws and supply management in Canadian agriculture. Other price floors include regulated US airfares prior to 1978 and minimum price per-drink laws for alcohol. While price floors are often imposed by governments, there are also price floors which are implemented by non-governmental organizations such as companies, such as the practice of resale price maintenance. With resale price maintenance, a manufacturer and its distributors agree that the distributors will sell the manufacturer's product at certain prices (resale price maintenance), at or above a price floor (minimum resale price maintenance) or at or below a price ceiling (maximum resale price maintenance). A related government- or group-imposed intervention, which is also a price control, is the price ceiling; it sets the maximum price that can legally be charged for a good or service, with a common government-imposed example being rent control.

Effectiveness

[edit]
An ineffective, non-binding price floor, below equilibrium price

A price floor could be set below the free-market equilibrium price. In the first graph at right, the dashed green line represents a price floor set below the free-market price. In this case, the floor has no practical effect. The government has mandated a minimum price, but the market already bears and is using a higher price.

An effective, binding price floor, causing a surplus (supply exceeds demand)

By contrast, in the second graph, the dashed green line represents a price floor set above the free-market price. In this case, the price floor has a measurable impact on the market. It ensures prices stay high, causing a surplus in the market.

In practice, many goods and services are not perfectly identical, real markets experience friction and hysteresis, different participants have different amounts of market power. As a result, prices vary from transaction to transaction. Price floors can thus affect the price of certain transactions but not others, even if they are below the average price. The market price can also vary over time, and a price floor can affect the market price during low periods.

Effect on the market

[edit]

A price floor set above the market equilibrium price has several side-effects. Consumers find they must now pay a higher price for the same product. As a result, they reduce their purchases, switch to substitutes (e.g., from butter to margarine) or drop out of the market entirely. Meanwhile, suppliers find they are guaranteed a new, higher price than they were charging before, but with fewer willing buyers.

Taken together, these effects mean there is now an excess supply (known as a "surplus") of the product in the market to maintain the price floor over the long term. The equilibrium price is determined when the quantity demanded is equal to the quantity supplied. Further, the effect of mandating a higher price transfers some of the consumer surplus to producer surplus, while creating a deadweight loss as the price moves upward from the equilibrium price. A price floor may lead to market failure if the market is not able to allocate scarce resources in an efficient manner.

Minimum wage

[edit]

An example of a price floor is minimum wage laws, where the government sets out the minimum hourly rate that can be paid for labour. In this case, the wage is the price of labour, and employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer of employees' labour. When the minimum wage is set above the equilibrium market price for unskilled or low-skilled labour, employers hire fewer workers. Employers may cut their use of labour by switching to a "self-serve" model in which customers do an action previously done by staff (e.g., self-serve gas stations); or buying machines, computers or robots to do part or all of employees' jobs (e.g., automated teller machines in banks, automated ticket kiosks in parking garages).

Consequentially, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available)[citation needed]. At the same time, a minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would allow (or entice) more people to enter the labor market because of the higher salary. The result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for workers would be dependent upon their skill sets along with market conditions.[2]

Agriculture

[edit]

Previously, price floors in agriculture have been common in Europe. Since the 1990s, the EU has used a "softer" method: if the price falls below an intervention price, the EU buys enough of the product that the decrease in supply raises the price to the intervention price level. As a result of this, "butter mountains" of surplus products in EU warehouses have sometimes resulted.[3]: 40–43 [clarification needed]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, supply management is a national agricultural policy framework that coordinates the supply of dairy, poultry, and eggs through production and import control and pricing mechanisms designed to prevent shortages and surpluses, to ensure farmers' rates of return and Canadian consumers' access to these products. With supply management, the Canadian "government sets a minimum price that processors have to pay the farmers, or a 'price floor.' Critics have argued that floor is artificially high, meaning dairy and other products cost more for Canadian consumers that they might otherwise."[4]

Supply management's supporters say that the system offers stability for producers, processors, service providers and retailers.[5] Detractors have criticized tariff-rate import quotas, price-control and supply-control mechanisms used by provincial and national governing agencies, organizations and committees. The policy has been described as regressive and protectionist and costly with money transferred from consumers to producers through higher prices on milk, poultry and eggs which some label as a subsidy. Canada's trade partners posit that SM limits market access.[5][6]

Canada's supply management system, which encompasses "five types of products: dairy, chicken and turkey products, table eggs, and broiler hatching eggs", "coordinates production and demand while controlling imports as a means of setting stable prices for both farmers and consumers."[7] The Fraser Institute, C.D. Howe, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary have called for the elimination of supply management.[citation needed]

A 2017 study from the University of Toronto estimated that the higher consumer prices that are attributable to supply management push between 133,000 and 189,000 Canadians below the poverty line.[8]

Minimum Support Price

[edit]

India

[edit]

Minimum support price (India) is a government intervention policy program. The farmers are paid prices above market determined rates to help them. Support prices helped India gain food security during period of Green Revolution in India.[9]

Alcohol

[edit]

Scotland

[edit]

In Scotland, the government passed a law that sets out a price floor on alcoholic beverages. The Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 is an Act of the Scottish Parliament, which introduces a statutory minimum price for alcohol, initially 50p per unit, as an element in the programme to counter alcohol problems. The government introduced the Act to discourage excessive drinking. As a price floor, the Act is expected to increase the cost of the lowest-cost alcoholic beverages, such as bargain-priced cider. The Act was passed with the support of the Scottish National Party, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. The opposition, Scottish Labour, refused to support the legislation because the Act failed to claw back an estimated £125m windfall profit from alcohol retailers.[10]

Australia

[edit]

A review in October 2017 by former chief justice Trevor Riley brought about huge changes to policy in the Northern Territory, Australia, where alcohol-fuelled crime has long been a problem. The 220 recommendations included a floor price for all alcohol products at A$1.50 per standard drink.[11] In the 10 months between 1 October 2018, the date that the floor price and other measures were imposed by the NT government, and 31 July 2019, there was a 26% decrease in alcohol-related assaults in the Territory. [12]

Republic of Ireland

[edit]

In 2022, minimum unit pricing (MUP; Irish: íosphraghsáil aonaid) was introduced in the Republic of Ireland, at €0.10 per gram of alcohol.[13] This meant that some of the cheapest forms of alcohol rose substantially in price: a 700 mL bottle of 37.5% spirits would cost a minimum of €20.71, whereas before MUP it was available for €13 or less. A bottle of wine cost over €7, whereas previously the cheapest wine was available for less than €5. A 500 mL can of cider or beer would now sell for €1.66 or more, depending on strength; prior to this, some cans were available for less than one euro.[14] MUP is not a tax; most of the price increase goes directly to retailers, with the state collecting some value-added tax. Vincent Jennings, chief executive of the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association criticised the change, saying that it would increase purchases over the Irish border in Northern Ireland, and pointing out that MUP did not apply to duty-free alcohol.[14]

The Health Service Executive justified the move on public-health grounds, claiming that "The heaviest drinkers buy the cheapest alcohol. Minimum unit pricing on alcohol targets these drinkers, reducing its affordability so that less alcohol is purchased. This will reduce the harm that alcohol causes them and others. This should result in around 200 fewer alcohol-related deaths and 6,000 fewer hospital admissions per year."[15][16]

Neil Fetherstonhaugh of the Sunday World criticised MUP, saying that it would disproportionately impact those on low incomes.[17] TheJournal.ie also criticised MUP in its FactCheck section, saying that it was not proven to work in British Columbia, saying "there is little or no scientific evidence establishing an observed link between minimum unit pricing and declining health harms."[18]

Carbon pricing

[edit]

Carbon pricing is being implemented by governments to reduce the use of carbon fuels. Carbon pricing can be determined by specific policies such as taxes or caps or by commitments such as emission reduction commitments or price commitments. However, emission reduction commitments (used by the Kyoto Protocol) can be met by non-price policies, so they do not necessarily determine a carbon price. Carbon policies can be either price-based (taxes) or quantity-based (cap and trade). A cap-and-trade system is quantity-based because the regulator sets an emissions quantity cap and the market determines the carbon price.

The IMF’s Fact Sheet states that “Cap-and-trade systems are another option, but generally they should be designed to look like taxes through revenue-raising and price stability provisions."[19] Such designs are often referred to as hybrid designs. The stability provisions referred to are typically floor and ceiling prices[20] (a ceiling price is also known as a safety valve), which are implemented as follows. When permits are auctioned, there is a floor (reserve) price below which permits are not sold, and permits for immediate use are always made available at the ceiling price, even if sales have already reached the permit cap. To the extent the price is controlled by these limits, it is a tax. So if the floor is set equal to the ceiling, cap-and-trade becomes a pure carbon tax.

US airfare before 1978

[edit]
A Boeing 707 at JFK airport in 1970. During the mid-1960s, airfares had a regulated price floor that made flying twice the cost of the 2010s, due to the ending of price controls in 1978.

Until the late 1970s, government regulated price floors on airfares in the US made flying "absurdly expensive" to the point that in 1965, more than 80% of Americans had never flown on a jet.[21] For example, in 1974, US air carriers had to charge at least $1,442 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) for a New York City to Los Angeles trip, a flight that cost as little as $278 in 2013.[21] In 1978, the US government deregulated airfares, on the grounds that flying is not a necessity (like food or prescription drugs), and nor was it addictive (like alcohol). The government deregulated airfares so that increased competition would lead to a drop in airfare prices. By 2011, the inflation-adjusted cost of air travel dropped by half as compared with 1978. By 2000, half of Americans were taking at least one round-trip air flight per year.[21]

Private sector

[edit]

While the setting of price floors is often associated with government measures, there are also private sector-imposed price floors. Until November 2016, the National Football League (NFL) set a price floor on tickets that were sold on league websites, a practice which a 2016 court case found to be in violation of US antitrust laws.[22] The price floors were introduced when teams sought to prevent "...season-ticket holders from selling tickets at prices below face value."[22] In 2013, the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim declined to participate in Major League Baseball ticket sales through StubHub because this online ticket resale website did not allow teams to put a price floor in place.[23]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Price floor

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A price floor is a government-imposed minimum price for a good, service, or factor of production, established to prevent market prices from falling below a specified level, typically set above the equilibrium price determined by . When effective—meaning the floor exceeds the equilibrium price—it creates a surplus, as producers supply more than consumers at that elevated price, distorting from first-principles of . Prominent examples include laws, which function as price floors on labor to ensure workers receive a baseline compensation deemed socially necessary, and agricultural price supports, which governments use to stabilize farm incomes by guaranteeing minimum payouts for commodities like or grains. These interventions aim to protect vulnerable producers or workers from low market-clearing prices but often necessitate additional policies, such as subsidies or government stockpiling of excess output, to manage resulting surpluses. Price floors generate economic inefficiencies, including deadweight losses from reduced transactions and potential for new suppliers or workers, with empirical studies confirming welfare reductions equivalent to significant fractions of market revenue in controlled sectors. In labor markets, binding minimum wages correlate with elevated rates and curtailed hiring of low-skilled individuals, underscoring causal links between artificially high prices and diminished quantities employed. While intended to rectify perceived market failures, such controls frequently exacerbate inequalities by favoring incumbents over marginal participants, prompting ongoing debates over their net societal costs.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Mechanism

A price floor is a government- or regulator-imposed minimum price below which a good, service, commodity, or factor of production cannot legally be sold or offered. Unlike market-driven prices, which adjust freely to equate supply and demand at equilibrium, price floors are enacted to protect producers, ensure income levels, or achieve policy goals such as supporting low-wage workers or farmers, though they often distort natural market clearing./03:_Demand_and_Supply/3.04:Government_Intervention-_Price_Floors_and_Price_Ceilings) If set below the equilibrium price where supply equals demand, the floor is non-binding and exerts no market effect, as transactions occur at the higher equilibrium level; however, floors are typically imposed above equilibrium to influence outcomes, rendering them binding. The mechanism operates through the standard framework: at prices above equilibrium, the quantity supplied exceeds the quantity demanded, generating an excess supply or surplus, as producers are incentivized to offer more units while consumers purchase fewer due to the elevated cost. For instance, if equilibrium occurs at price P∗P^* with quantity Q∗Q^*, a binding floor at Pf>P∗P_f > P^* results in suppliers willing to produce QsQ_s units but demanders seeking only QdQ_d units, where Qs>QdQ_s > Q_d, leading to unsold accumulation unless mitigated by purchases or other interventions. This surplus arises causally from the floor blocking price adjustments downward, which would otherwise clear the market by ; without such adjustment, resources remain underutilized, and some potential trades—beneficial to both parties—are foregone./03:_Demand_and_Supply/3.04:Government_Intervention-_Price_Floors_and_Price_Ceilings) In practice, governments may address surpluses via subsidies for storage, direct buyouts, or production quotas to restrict QsQ_s, but these add fiscal costs and further interventions, compounding inefficiencies beyond the initial . The benefits some producers by guaranteeing higher revenues on sold units but harms consumers through reduced access and quantities, while marginal producers may still fail to sell, exacerbating or waste in affected sectors like labor or . Empirical models confirm this dynamic holds in competitive markets, though real-world frictions like imperfect information or can modulate but not eliminate the surplus effect./05:_Government_Interventions/5.04:_Price_Floors_and_Ceilings)

Theoretical Predictions from Supply and Demand

In the standard model of , market equilibrium occurs where the demanded equals the supplied at the price that clears the market. A price floor represents a legal minimum price below which transactions cannot occur; if set below the equilibrium price, it exerts no influence on market outcomes, as the market price remains at equilibrium. However, when the price floor exceeds the equilibrium price—rendering it binding—producers respond by increasing the supplied, while consumers reduce the demanded due to the elevated price. This mismatch generates an , or surplus, equal to the difference between quantity supplied and quantity demanded at the floor price. The actual quantity transacted equals the lower quantity demanded, meaning some willing producers cannot sell all output, potentially leading to unsold inventories or government interventions to manage surpluses. Producers of inframarginal units benefit from higher revenues, but overall market efficiency declines as trades between units where falls below marginal benefit cease. The model predicts no change in consumer surplus for the units traded but a loss for foregone purchases, alongside gains in producer surplus for sold units offset by losses from unsold production. These dynamics assume competitive markets with and no transaction costs, highlighting the floor's of signals that allocate resources efficiently. Empirical deviations may arise from factors like or adjustment frictions, but the core prediction of surplus under binding floors holds in theoretical analysis.

Economic Impacts

Market Distortions and Efficiency Losses

A binding price floor, established above the equilibrium price determined by intersecting curves, prevents the market from clearing and generates a surplus where quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded. This distortion arises because producers, facing higher guaranteed prices, increase output beyond the level consumers are willing to purchase at that price, leading to unsold goods or services. The resulting misallocates resources, as inputs are directed toward of low-value output rather than alternative uses where marginal benefits exceed costs. Efficiency losses manifest as , quantified as the forgone net benefits from transactions that do not occur due to the . In graphical terms, this is the area of the triangle bounded by the curves between the equilibrium and the reduced actually traded, representing value that could have been created but is lost. Theoretical models predict this loss because the eliminates mutually beneficial trades where valuation exceeds production but falls below the mandated . Experimental from controlled markets confirms that floors produce deadweight losses at least as large as neoclassical predictions, often exceeding them due to behavioral factors like reduced trading volume. Additional distortions include incentives for suppliers to lower quality or engage in to offload surplus, further eroding , while consumers face higher prices and reduced availability, prompting potential black markets or administrative . Government interventions to absorb surpluses, such as purchases or subsidies, compound these losses by imposing fiscal burdens equivalent to the rectangle of times quantity excess. Overall, these effects undermine the of competitive markets, where prices coordinate decentralized decisions to maximize total surplus.

Welfare Effects and Deadweight Loss

A binding price floor, set above the market equilibrium price, distorts by reducing the demanded below the equilibrium level while increasing the supplied, resulting in or surplus. The transacted is limited to the lower demanded, preventing trades that would occur at the equilibrium price where marginal benefit equals . This mismatch generates a , quantified as the area of the triangular region between the supply and demand curves from the transacted to the equilibrium , representing lost total surplus from unconsummated exchanges. Consumer surplus declines due to the higher price paid on units purchased and the forgone surplus on units not bought, with part of the loss transferred to producers as increased producer surplus on the units sold. Producers gain surplus on the transacted units from the elevated but incur losses on unsold output, as the yields no and may involve storage or disposal costs not captured in the basic model. Overall societal welfare decreases by the amount, as the policy intervenes in voluntary exchanges without correcting a , leading to net inefficiency. In graphical terms, if the equilibrium is at price PeP_e and quantity QeQ_e, a price floor at Pf>PeP_f > P_e yields quantity demanded Qd<QeQ_d < Q_e and quantity supplied Qs>QeQ_s > Q_e, with traded quantity QdQ_d. The deadweight loss triangle spans from QdQ_d to QeQ_e, bounded by the demand (marginal benefit) and supply (marginal cost) curves. Empirical quantification varies by market, but the theoretical prediction holds that any deviation from equilibrium induces such losses unless offset by externalities or other distortions, which price floors typically do not address.

Policy Implementations

Minimum Wage Applications

The minimum wage functions as a statutory price floor on labor, prohibiting employers from paying workers below a specified hourly rate, which aims to ensure a living standard but can distort labor markets when exceeding the equilibrium wage. In the United States, the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009, affecting approximately 1.3% of hourly workers directly, though state and local variations—such as California's $16.00 per hour effective January 1, 2024—cover broader populations. Internationally, countries like Australia enforce higher floors, with the national minimum at AU$24.10 per hour as of July 1, 2024, often indexed to inflation or productivity. These policies generate a surplus of labor supply over demand, theoretically manifesting as involuntary unemployment, reduced hours, or substitution toward capital and higher-skilled workers. Empirical applications reveal mixed but predominantly negative employment effects, particularly for low-skilled, , and minority workers, as employers adjust via , price pass-through, or hiring restraint. A synthesis of over 100 studies by economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that nearly two-thirds reported disemployment, with elasticities indicating a 1-2% employment drop per 10% hike, concentrated among teens and the least-skilled. In Seattle's phased increase from $9.47 to $13.00 per hour between 2015 and 2016 (en route to $15 by 2021), low-wage workers experienced a 9% decline in hours worked per week—equivalent to about 2,800 job losses citywide—while earnings rose modestly before offsetting reductions. The projected that raising the U.S. federal minimum to $15 by 2025 under the Raise the Wage Act would boost wages for 17 million workers but eliminate 1.4 million jobs, with losses skewed toward young and low-income households. Critiques of null-effect studies, such as the 1994 Card-Krueger analysis of fast-food employment, highlight methodological limitations like reliance on biased surveys over administrative payroll data, which later revisions and meta-regressions corrected to reveal small negative impacts after adjusting for favoring insignificant results. In the , the National Minimum Wage's introduction in 1999 and subsequent rises showed negligible aggregate employment effects but reduced hours and increased prices in low-wage sectors, per Low Pay Commission analyses. Firms often mitigate costs through a "ripple effect," compressing wages just above the floor or substituting part-time and contract labor, though these responses exacerbate inequality by pricing out entry-level positions.
Study/ApplicationMinimum Wage ChangeEmployment/Hours EffectSource
Ordinance (2015-2016)$9.47 to $13.00/hour-9% hours for low-wage jobs; ~$125/week earnings loss per worker
U.S. Federal to $15 (CBO Projection, by 2025)$7.25 to $15.00/hour-1.4 million jobs; 0.8-1.3% reduction
(Neumark et al., 2007+)10% increase-1-3% teen elasticity
While advocates cite —e.g., CBO estimates of 900,000 lifted from poverty under a $15 floor—these gains are partially offset by job losses and fiscal costs like expanded welfare, with evidence indicating targeted transfers more efficient than broad wage mandates.

Agricultural Price Supports

Agricultural price supports establish government-mandated minimum prices for farm products, typically set above equilibrium market levels to bolster producers' incomes amid price volatility. These mechanisms, including direct purchases, loans, and deficiency payments, compel governments to acquire surplus output when market falls short, preventing price collapse. By distorting supply incentives, such policies foster , as farmers expand output in response to assured high prices, resulting in persistent surpluses that impose storage, export, or disposal burdens on taxpayers. In the United States, price supports originated with the of 1933, evolving through farm bills that authorized commodity programs for crops like , corn, and . For instance, supports in the and involved price floors coupled with herd reduction incentives, yet generated excess milk production requiring federal buyouts, with net farm income stagnating around $12 billion in 1960 despite interventions. The 2018 Farm Bill allocated approximately $428 billion over five years, including elements sustaining elevated prices via loan rates and insurance subsidies, though reforms like the 1996 decoupling aimed to unlink payments from production to mitigate distortions. The European Union's (), implemented in 1962, initially relied on intervention prices as floors to guarantee farmer remuneration, stabilizing markets but triggering infamous surpluses such as "butter mountains" and "wine lakes" by the 1980s. These led to annual costs exceeding 70% of the budget at peak, prompting 1992 reforms via the MacSharry package that shifted toward direct income supports and quota reductions to curb . Empirical assessments indicate CAP price mechanisms elevated domestic prices above world levels, reducing competitiveness and necessitating export subsidies that distorted global trade, with total agricultural support transfers valued via metrics encompassing market price support components. Economically, these supports generate deadweight losses through inefficient , as higher prices deter consumption while subsidizing , often benefiting larger producers disproportionately and exacerbating fiscal strains—evident in U.S. cases where surpluses required costly dispositions like distributions in the . Cross-national evidence underscores that while mitigating short-term income risks, price floors amplify long-term inefficiencies, with alternatives like decoupled payments showing potential to lessen surpluses without fully eliminating market signals.

Other Government Price Floors

Government-imposed price floors extend beyond labor markets and to include regulations on "sin goods" such as products, where minimum prices aim to curb consumption, deter youth initiation, and prevent below-cost sales that undermine tax revenues. In the United States, several localities have enacted tobacco minimum floor price laws (MFPLs), which establish a statutory baseline below which products cannot be sold; for instance, , approved a $7 per pack MFPL for cigarettes in 2016, applicable to all tobacco retailers within the . Similarly, mandates a minimum price of $3.00 for single cigars sold after October 2013, requiring smaller cigars to be packaged in minimum units to avoid discounted single sales. These policies function as price floors by overriding market discounts and promotions, often complementing taxes, though empirical analyses indicate they raise average prices particularly at the lower market segment without fully eliminating illicit trade risks. In , minimum import prices (MIPs) serve as price floors to shield domestic producers from foreign dumping or , prohibiting imports below a specified threshold. has frequently applied MIPs as anti-dumping measures; for example, in 2015, the government imposed an MIP of $550 per metric ton on flat-rolled steel products from to counter subsidized exports, with duties collected on shipments below this level until reviews in subsequent years. Such mechanisms, permissible under WTO rules when tied to investigations, effectively set a floor by requiring importers to pay the difference as if market prices fall short, thereby reducing volumes and supporting local industries, as seen in Uruguay's use of reference prices covering over a third of . Critics note these floors can elevate costs and invite retaliatory barriers, but proponents argue they preserve domestic and prevent market collapse from below-cost imports. Less commonly, price floors appear in sectors to mitigate volatility and ensure supplier viability, particularly in deregulated markets prone to . In wholesale electricity auctions, some jurisdictions implement administrative price floors to avoid uneconomic dispatch; for example, certain European and U.S. markets set floors around zero or marginal costs (e.g., €0/MWh in parts of the EU's internal market post-2015 reforms) to incentivize generation during oversupply from renewables. For , governments occasionally enforce minimum prices to stabilize producers amid global fluctuations, though such interventions remain sporadic and often blend with subsidies rather than pure floors. These applications reflect efforts to balance market signals with , yet they risk distorting dispatch orders and increasing system costs if set above competitive equilibria.

Empirical Evidence

General Studies on Price Floors

Empirical analyses of price floors in non-labor markets, such as commodities and , consistently reveal and reduced market when floors bind above equilibrium levels. In agricultural sectors, producers expand output in response to guaranteed minimum prices, generating surpluses that necessitate government intervention, including purchases and storage. For example, U.S. federal price supports for grains like and feed grains from the mid-20th century onward led to chronic , with government acquisitions averaging millions of tons annually and incurring disposal costs that transferred burdens to taxpayers. Similarly, in developing economies, output price supports via buffer stocks have boosted participating smallholder incomes by approximately 12% through higher realizations, though these gains stem from subsidized surpluses rather than market-clearing dynamics. Laboratory experiments on storable goods markets, modeling commodities like grains or emissions permits, confirm that price floors—even those appearing nonbinding—elevate spot prices and encourage carryover inventories, amplifying surpluses beyond static predictions. These effects arise as rational agents anticipate future floors, distorting intertemporal allocation and creating inefficiencies not fully captured in partial equilibrium models. In competitive settings without power on the buyer side, such interventions yield deadweight losses averaging 12% of baseline market revenue, as resources shift toward at the expense of access and alternative uses. Broader reviews of price control implementations underscore that floors intended to stabilize revenues often exacerbate volatility in the long run, as surpluses depress future unsubsidized prices and strain fiscal resources. Peer-reviewed assessments prioritize these causal channels, drawing from difference-in-differences and structural estimations that isolate floor effects from factors like or global demand shifts. While producer-side gains materialize, net welfare declines in the absence of market failures, aligning with first-principles expectations of distorted incentives over politically motivated supports.

Minimum Wage Employment and Price Effects

In standard models, a acts as a price floor above the equilibrium wage, generating a surplus of labor over , which manifests as reduced opportunities, particularly for low-skilled and entry-level workers. Empirical investigations confirm this theoretical prediction, with numerous studies documenting disemployment effects, though the magnitude varies by context, worker group, and methodology. For instance, a analysis of Seattle's phased increase to a $15 from 2015 to 2017 found that low-wage workers experienced a 9% decline in due to reduced hours worked, with an implied employment elasticity of approximately -0.3 for hours. Similarly, the (CBO) projected that raising the federal to $15 by 2025 would result in 1.4 million fewer jobs on average, with losses concentrated among teenagers and low-education workers. Meta-analyses of minimum wage impacts reveal small but statistically significant negative employment elasticities, often in the range of -0.1 to -0.2 overall, with larger effects for vulnerable subgroups such as and minorities. These findings contrast with earlier studies like Card and Krueger (1994), which suggested negligible effects in specific fast-food markets, but subsequent critiques and reanalyses using improved and methods have largely overturned those results, attributing minimal effects to short-run dynamics or measurement errors. Long-run adjustments, including reduced hiring, increased , and shifts to higher-productivity labor, amplify disemployment, as evidenced by from U.S. states showing nuanced but negative net effects on teen following hikes. Minimum wage increases also lead to higher prices in affected sectors, as firms pass on elevated labor costs to consumers. A meta-analysis estimates a price elasticity of 0.03 to 0.11, implying that a 10% minimum wage rise elevates prices by 0.3% to 1.1%, with stronger pass-through in low-wage industries like restaurants and retail. For example, research on U.S. localities found small but significant price increases following minimum wage hikes, particularly in sectors with high low-wage worker shares, offsetting some wage gains through reduced real purchasing power. These price effects underscore the partial incidence of minimum wages on consumers rather than solely employers, aligning with competitive market dynamics where costs are diffused across stakeholders.

Case Studies

Alcohol Minimum Pricing

Minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol establishes a statutory per unit of pure alcohol—typically defined as 8 grams or 10 milliliters—to prevent sales of beverages below that threshold, aiming to diminish excessive consumption by elevating the of inexpensive, high-alcohol-content products disproportionately purchased by heavy drinkers. This policy functions as a that targets market distortions from low-cost alcohol, which empirical price elasticity studies indicate drives higher consumption volumes among vulnerable groups, with a 10% hike estimated to curb overall intake by approximately 7.7%. pioneered national MUP implementation on May 1, 2018, setting the at £0.50 per unit, following legislative battles and modeled projections of health gains; similar partial measures exist in Canadian provinces like since 2015, though often with exemptions for certain categories that dilute effectiveness. Post-implementation evaluations in reveal MUP correlated with a 3% decline in population-level alcohol and a 7.6% drop in household purchases, alongside a 0.64 pence per gram rise in effective pricing, primarily affecting off-trade cheap , fortified wines, and spirits. outcomes include statistically significant reductions in wholly alcohol-attributable deaths—estimated at 11.4% fewer over three years—and admissions, with greater relative benefits in deprived areas, supporting causal claims via interrupted time-series analyses that control for trends like taxation changes. However, evidence on heaviest consumers is inconsistent: while some surveys report 5.3% fewer drinks per occasion across hazardous drinkers, others find no behavioral shift among dependent individuals, with stable consumption and health metrics, suggesting limited deterrence for those with entrenched habits who may absorb costs or source alternatives. Unintended effects include modest displacement to food budgets, with reduced purchases of nutrient-dense categories like fruits and , potentially exacerbating nutritional inequities among low-income households. Cross-border buying into appears negligible, with retailer data showing infrequent occurrences insufficient to offset domestic reductions, though proximity to borders prompted minor licensing scrutiny without evident sales shifts. Economically, the policy yielded neutral sector impacts, as volume declines were balanced by price uplifts, preserving revenue for producers and retailers despite opposition claims of job losses in distilling; critics, including industry groups, contend it unfairly burdens moderate drinkers— who comprise most consumers—imposing regressive costs without proportional , and question long-term efficacy amid potential substitution to unregulated channels. Overall, while MUP demonstrates causal population-level consumption curbs via price mechanisms, its targeted impact on severe misuse remains empirically contested, with evaluations potentially overemphasizing benefits due to institutional incentives favoring interventionist policies.

Carbon and Environmental Pricing Floors

Carbon pricing floors establish a minimum price for emissions allowances or carbon taxes within cap-and-trade systems or hybrid mechanisms, aiming to prevent market prices from collapsing due to oversupply of permits while ensuring a baseline for emission reductions. These floors function as price supports by withholding allowances from auctions if bids fall below the threshold or by imposing supplemental taxes to elevate effective costs, thereby stabilizing revenue for governments and signaling long-term abatement commitments to investors. Implemented in various jurisdictions to address volatility in schemes (ETS), they differ from standard price floors by targeting environmental externalities rather than consumer goods, with the goal of internalizing costs without fully relying on quantity caps alone. In the United States, California's Cap-and-Trade Program, launched in 2013, incorporates a price floor that began at $10 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and escalates annually by 5% plus the Consumer Price Index for inflation; by 2024, the floor reached approximately $25.87 per ton, with allowance prices settling above it at $29.27 in a February 2025 auction. This mechanism has helped maintain prices amid fluctuating supply, contributing to program stability as covered entities—spanning electricity, industrial, and fuel sectors—must surrender allowances matching 85% of statewide emissions by 2030. Empirical analysis indicates the floor provides a backstop against low prices, supporting over $5 billion in auction revenue directed toward clean energy projects, though critics argue it may inflate costs without proportionally accelerating deep decarbonization if offsets dilute stringency. Complementing California, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), covering nine northeastern states since 2009, enforces a minimum auction price that rose to $13.57 per ton by 2024, fostering investments in renewables; a 2022 survey of German firms (analogous to RGGI contexts) found such floors enhance low-carbon project portfolios by reducing investment risk. Internationally, the United Kingdom's Carbon Price Floor (CPF), introduced in 2013, supplements the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) with a ensuring a minimum effective price for generation, reaching £18 per of CO2 by 2015 before adjustments; it has stabilized costs for power producers but faced scrutiny for elevating prices without commensurate emission drops in oversupplied markets. The enacted a national price floor in 2019 for production, targeting €43 per by 2030 via a top-up on ETS allowances, aiming to bridge gaps in EU-wide pricing and drive . Proposals for international floors, such as the IMF's tiered minimums, seek to harmonize efforts and curb leakage, but implementation remains limited; a analysis estimates a global floor at $40 per could cut emissions by 10-20% by 2030 while raising $1 trillion annually, though effectiveness hinges on enforcement and border adjustments. Broader environmental pricing floors, such as those for nitrogen oxides or in targeted markets, are rarer but follow similar logic; for instance, some programs integrate minimums in allowance trading to sustain incentives for technologies. Overall, these floors mitigate ETS price crashes—as seen in the EU ETS's early oversupply—but evidence on net emission reductions is mixed, with studies showing they bolster investment certainty yet risk higher compliance costs if not paired with tightening caps; a 2020 analysis posits floors ensure minimum abatement levels, averting zero-price scenarios that undermine policy signals.

Historical Airline Regulation in the US

The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 established the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to oversee interstate air transportation in the United States, granting it authority to regulate entry, routes, and fares for commercial airlines. The CAB approved fare schedules submitted by airlines, typically setting minimum prices based on standardized formulas like distance-based rates that ensured carrier profitability and prevented destructive competition. These regulated minimum fares functioned as price floors, maintaining prices above competitive market levels and restricting airlines from discounting to attract passengers. Under CAB oversight from 1938 to 1978, the regime limited new market entry to a small number of incumbents, fostering an oligopolistic structure with high barriers. Price floors suppressed price competition, leading airlines to differentiate through non-price factors such as enhanced in-flight services, complimentary meals, and spacious seating, often resulting in excess capacity and underutilized flights—manifesting as surpluses akin to those predicted by economic models of price floors. Fares remained elevated; for instance, average domestic ticket prices in constant dollars were significantly higher than post-deregulation levels, with regulated contributing to limited access for lower-income travelers. Criticism mounted in the 1970s as economic analyses, including those by economists like Alfred Kahn, highlighted inefficiencies: the CAB's fare-setting insulated carriers from market discipline, inflating costs and fares while stifling . Intrastate routes in states like and , exempt from federal regulation, demonstrated lower fares and higher passenger volumes through competition, providing empirical evidence against the CAB's model. This pressured to pass the of 1978, which gradually eliminated the CAB's fare and entry controls, fully dissolving the agency by January 1, 1985. Following , real average fares declined by approximately 44.9% between and the early s, driven by increased from low-cost carriers and route flexibility, validating critiques that prior price floors had distorted markets and consumer welfare. Passenger enplanements surged from 240 million in to over 700 million by , reflecting , though some rural routes faced reduced service without subsidies. The episode illustrates how government-imposed price floors in regulated industries can sustain high prices and excesses at the expense of and affordability until are unleashed.

Criticisms and Debates

Unintended Consequences and Empirical Critiques

Price floors established above market equilibrium levels typically produce surpluses, as producers supply more than consumers at the mandated price, resulting in excess inventory, wasted resources, and fiscal burdens on governments through purchase and storage programs. In the agricultural sector, U.S. price supports for in the and led to , culminating in a of over 500 million pounds of cheese by 1982, which required taxpayer-funded distribution and incurred substantial storage costs exceeding $100 million annually. Similar policies in the generated "butter mountains" and "wine lakes," diverting public funds to manage surpluses while distorting toward subsidized crops, often at the expense of environmental . In labor markets, s functioning as price floors have been associated with disemployment effects, particularly for low-skilled, youth, and minority workers, as employers reduce hiring or hours to offset higher labor costs. A of time-series studies estimates that a 10% minimum wage increase reduces teen by 1-3%, with stronger effects in more affected sectors. Empirical evidence from firm-level responses, such as in following a 2007-2008 minimum wage introduction, shows treated firms hiring fewer workers, cutting hours by up to 5%, and shifting toward more experienced employees, thereby excluding marginal entrants from the market. Critiques of studies reporting negligible employment impacts highlight methodological limitations, including short time horizons that overlook long-run adjustments like and in publication, where null results are overrepresented due to ideological preferences in academia. Additional unintended outcomes include cost pass-through to consumers via elevated product prices and reduced firm in productivity-enhancing capital. Research on hikes indicates that low-wage firms raise output prices by 0.2-0.5% per 10% wage increase, eroding real for the very workers targeted for aid. In , price floors encourage inefficient and input overuse, contributing to soil degradation and higher , as farmers chase subsidies rather than market signals. These effects underscore causal mechanisms where interventions disrupting voluntary exchange generate inefficiencies, often amplifying inequality by benefiting entrenched producers or firms while harming peripheral participants.

Policy Alternatives and Market Solutions

In contexts where price floors aim to support incomes or stabilize markets, alternatives focus on direct interventions that target recipients without interfering with price signals. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), implemented in the United States since 1975 and expanded in subsequent decades, exemplifies such an approach for labor markets by providing refundable tax credits to low-income working families, effectively subsidizing wages post-employment rather than mandating employer-paid minimums. Empirical analyses, including quasi-experimental studies comparing EITC expansions to minimum wage hikes, find that the EITC boosts employment among single mothers by 7-10% per 10% benefit increase, while minimum wages show neutral or negative employment effects for low-skilled workers. This mechanism encourages labor force participation without reducing hiring incentives, as employers face undistorted wage costs; for instance, a 1993-1996 EITC expansion correlated with a 2.4 percentage point rise in employment rates for eligible women, contrasting with disemployment risks from wage floors exceeding 50% of median wages. For agricultural sectors, where price floors historically generated surpluses—such as U.S. dairy supports leading to $20 billion in annual government purchases by the —decoupled direct payments serve as a market-preserving substitute. These payments, tied to historical production rather than current output prices, were adopted in U.S. farm bills like the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, reducing distortions by allowing market prices to fluctuate while stabilizing farmer incomes; evidence from the European Union's shift to supports post-2003 Common Agricultural Policy reform showed a 15-20% drop in production over-subsidization and improved resource allocation. Unlike price floors, which incentivize (e.g., U.S. corn surpluses exceeding 1 billion bushels annually under supports), decoupled subsidies minimize deadweight losses estimated at 20-30% of floor costs in econometric models. Market solutions emphasize deregulation and supply-side enhancements to address root causes of low prices, such as excess capacity or power, rather than propping up prices. In labor markets, reducing —covering 25% of U.S. jobs as of 2015—and easing entry barriers has empirically raised wages by 5-10% through increased , without the unemployment spikes observed in high minimum wage regimes like Puerto Rico's 1974 hike, which cut teen employment by 30%. For commodities, fostering futures markets and storage innovations, as in India's onion price stabilization via private warehousing since 2017, mitigates volatility without floors; transaction data indicate 10-15% price stabilization gains from such mechanisms, avoiding the 20-50% surpluses typical of policies. These approaches align with causal evidence that undistorted prices efficiently ration resources, though they necessitate complementary safety nets like means-tested transfers to mitigate short-term dislocations.

Private Sector Equivalents

Firm-Level Minimum Prices

Firms impose minimum prices on downstream resellers through (RPM) practices, where manufacturers specify the lowest allowable resale price for their products to prevent discounting below a set threshold. These firm-level mechanisms function as private price floors, distinct from mandates, by restricting intra-brand price while potentially fostering inter-brand rivalry. The primary economic rationale for RPM stems from addressing free-rider problems in distribution channels, where low-price resellers benefit from the promotional, demonstration, or inventory services provided by higher-price competitors without incurring equivalent costs, leading to underinvestment in such value-adding activities. By enforcing a price floor, manufacturers incentivize resellers to invest in pre-sale services, enhancing product differentiation and consumer information, which can expand overall market output despite elevated prices. Empirical analyses of RPM implementation in sectors like apparel and consumer electronics show it often correlates with increased retailer margins, larger inventories, and sustained promotional efforts, though effects vary by industry concentration and product type. In practice, minimum RPM can raise consumer prices by 5-10% in affected markets, as observed in case studies of branded goods, but this is offset in some instances by improved and reduced stockouts, yielding net welfare gains when free-riding is pronounced. However, if used to soften competition or enable retailer , it may suppress output and , prompting antitrust challenges. A common variant is the unilateral minimum advertised price (MAP) policy, under which manufacturers set a floor solely for public advertising while permitting unadvertised sales at lower prices, thereby avoiding explicit resale restrictions. MAP policies mitigate legal risks associated with RPM by not directly controlling transaction prices, yet they still curb aggressive online discounting, as evidenced by their widespread adoption in and luxury sectors since the early 2000s. In the United States, post-2007 ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, both RPM and MAP are assessed under the , weighing procompetitive efficiencies against anticompetitive harms rather than deeming them inherently illegal.

Voluntary Price Supports in Industries

Voluntary price supports in industries involve private agreements among competing firms or producers to refrain from pricing below a collectively determined minimum level, thereby avoiding destructive price wars and ensuring higher-than-competitive returns. These mechanisms function similarly to statutory price floors by restricting supply or enforcing , but they depend on mutual compliance enforced through monitoring, quotas, or penalties rather than government intervention. Such arrangements are typically unstable due to individual incentives to defect by undercutting prices for gains, leading to frequent breakdowns unless supplemented by strong coordination or external factors like market dominance. A prominent example is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (), established in 1960 by sovereign producers including , , and , which coordinates output quotas to support global oil prices. 's voluntary adherence to production cuts has enabled it to influence benchmarks like , with compliance varying by member; for instance, during the 2020-2023 period, + (including allies like ) implemented cuts totaling over 5 million barrels per day to counteract demand shocks and non-member supply growth, sustaining prices above $70 per barrel in late 2023 despite volatility. Similarly, De Beers historically dominated the diamond trade from the late , controlling 80-90% of supply through exclusive purchasing agreements with miners worldwide, which imposed effective price floors via centralized valuation and restricted output to maintain gem values at multiples of production costs. Empirical studies of such private cartels reveal average price overcharges of 20-30% above competitive levels, with international agreements like OPEC's yielding medians around 31% due to their scale and duration. These elevations generate producer surpluses but impose deadweight losses on consumers through reduced quantity demanded and inefficient , comparable to price floors; for example, detected cartels in chemicals and sectors from 1990-2010 showed sustained overcharges persisting until enforcement or defection dissolved them. Antitrust scrutiny in jurisdictions like the and renders most domestic voluntary price supports illegal under laws prohibiting , though international entities often evade penalties via .

References

  1. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/price-floor/
  2. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/consumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/a/price-ceilings-and-price-floors-cnx
  3. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/government-intervention-minimum-prices
  4. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-macroeconomics/chapter/reading-price-floors/
  5. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/ib-economics-price-floors-in-economics
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272724000203
  7. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/735161586781898890/pdf/Price-Controls-Good-Intentions-Bad-Outcomes.pdf
  8. https://fee.org/articles/price-floors-surpluses-and-the-minimum-wage/
  9. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/41431/empirical-evidence-on-effects-of-price-floors-and-ceilings
  10. https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-3e/pages/3-4-price-ceilings-and-price-floors
  11. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/uvicecon103/chapter/4-6-price-controls/
  12. https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/principlesofeconomics/chapter/3-4-price-ceilings-and-price-floors/
  13. https://pressbooks.oer.hawaii.edu/microeconomics2019/chapter/3-3-consumer-surplus-producer-surplus-and-deadweight-loss/
  14. https://courses.ems.psu.edu/ebf200/node/157
  15. https://courses.byui.edu/econ_150/econ_150_old_site/lesson_03.htm
  16. https://econ102txt.pugetsound.edu/sec_price-controls.html
  17. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/Applied_Economics/Introduction_to_Economic_Analysis_%28LibreTexts%29/05%253A_Government_Interventions/5.04%253A_Price_Floors_and_Ceilings
  18. https://www.reviewecon.com/price-controls
  19. https://www.reviewecon.com/surplus-dwl
  20. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686479
  21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220485.2025.2524631
  22. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/deadweight-loss/
  23. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-economic-analysis/s06-04-price-floors-and-ceilings.html
  24. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/understanding-deadweight-welfare-losses-a-level-economics-mastery
  25. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2015/12/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
  26. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12663/w12663.pdf
  27. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262515085/minimum-wages/
  28. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf
  29. https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Seattles-Minimum-Wage-Experiences-2015-16.pdf
  30. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410
  31. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-12/The_Budgetary_and_Economic_Effects_of_S.%25202488_the_Raise_the_Wage_Act_of_2023_1.pdf
  32. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~card/papers/time%2520minwage.pdf
  33. https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lweab/Doucougliagos%2520&%2520Stanley%2520Publication%2520Selection%2520Bias%2520in%2520Min%2520Wage%2520Research-A%2520Metaregression%2520Analysis.pdf
  34. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1807/RAND_RR1807.pdf
  35. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-ripple-effect-of-a-minimum-wage-increase-on-american-workers/
  36. https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/464/pdfs/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages.pdf
  37. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/microeconomics/supply-and-demand/agricultural-price-supports/
  38. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/price-support
  39. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/HACC_Central_Pennsylvania%27s_Community_College/ECON_201%253A_Principles_of_Macroeconomics_%28Balic%29/03%253A_Demand_and_Supply/3.04%253A_Government_Intervention_-_Price_Floors_and_Price_Ceilings
  40. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41988/50847_aib485b.pdf?v=16315
  41. https://farms.extension.wisc.edu/articles/a-history-of-dairy-in-the-farm-bill-and-what-it-means-for-the-current-legislation/
  42. https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/
  43. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/common-agricultural-policy/
  44. https://www.ipp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Note_IPP___112Prix_planchers___Avignon___GuigueVEN.pdf
  45. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/agricultural-financial-support.html
  46. https://econ.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2018/07/Krishnaswamy_Price-Supports_Latest.pdf
  47. https://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/MFPL_UNC_FactSheet_FINAL_20190130.pdf
  48. https://countertobacco.org/policy/raising-tobacco-prices-through-non-tax-approaches/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4167119/
  50. https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=15245
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23550834_The_economic_effects_of_minimum_import_prices_with_an_application_to_Uruguay
  52. https://lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/the-price-puzzle-unpacking-the-distinct-roles-of-reference-price-and-minimum-import-price-in-the-indian-trade-laws/
  53. https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/07/176317.pdf
  54. https://helpfulprofessor.com/price-floor-examples/
  55. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c2808/c2808.pdf
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7519358/
  57. https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~neslihan/Uler_Price_Floors_Project_Experimental.pdf
  58. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/104321468739208826/pdf/multi0page.pdf
  59. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/2/4/130
  61. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711355
  62. https://jorpppp.github.io/research/2025-6-6-metamwprices
  63. https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/research-department-working-paper/2017/the-local-aggregate-effects-of-minimum-wage-increases.aspx
  64. https://docs.iza.org/dp1072.pdf
  65. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2823%2900497-X/fulltext
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8819621/
  67. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687637.2022.2075251
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309892412_Minimum_alcohol_pricing_policies_in_practice_A_critical_examination_of_implementation_in_Canada
  69. https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/47/1/e94/7907893
  70. https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5274
  71. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/2/e065220
  72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39412189/
  73. https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1410
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827322001537
  75. https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/35799/1/Evaluating-the-impact-of-MUP-of-alcohol-in-scotland-on-cross-border-purchasing.pdf
  76. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64457024
  77. https://www.gov.scot/publications/alcohol-minimum-unit-pricing-mup-continuation-future-pricing-consultation-analysis-responses/pages/5/
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36905242/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5777460/
  80. https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/carbon-pricing/price-floors-and-ceilings/
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421522004074
  82. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62644
  83. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48314
  84. https://influencemap.org/site/data/000/260/CBI_Parliament-Research-Briefing_UK-Carbon-Price-Floor_16-03-2017.pdf
  85. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2018/08/21/netherlands-fits-its-new-price-floor/
  86. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/assets/economic-impact-of-a-carbon-price-floor.pdf
  87. https://icapcarbonaction.com/system/files/document/market-stability-paper-final.pdf
  88. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/robust-carbon-markets-rethinking-quantities-and-prices-in-carbon-pricing/
  89. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-630.pdf
  90. https://www.atlas101.ca/pm/concepts/airline-regulation-and-wasteful-quality/
  91. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html
  92. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/airline-deregulation-when-everything-changed
  93. https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/AETR_2019_14ManuscriptProofFinal.pdf
  94. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c12104/c12104.pdf
  95. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20170637
  96. https://aier.org/article/the-economics-of-the-minimum-wage-myths-facts-and-consequences/
  97. https://wol.iza.org/articles/minimum-wage-versus-earned-income-tax-credit-for-reducing-poverty/long
  98. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12915/w12915.pdf
  99. https://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/article_27.pdf
  100. https://fastercapital.com/topics/the-alternatives-to-price-floors-and-their-pros-and-cons.html/1
  101. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/making-sense-minimum-wage-roadmap-navigating-recent-research
  102. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7171cb80-ef0d-4058-b3e6-f20fe608745f/the-economics-of-price-controls-final-092122.pdf
  103. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html
  104. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/publicevents/resale_price_maintenance_under_sherman_act_and_federal_trade_commission_act/gschafferppt0219.pdf
  105. https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/WebcastSlides-Resale-Price-Maintenance-28-June-2017.pdf
  106. https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/minimum-advertised-price-map-policy-violate-antitrust-laws/
  107. https://faculty.econ.ucsb.edu/~charness/papers/hp.pdf
  108. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20140359
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988311000788
  110. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daneberhart/2024/09/14/weak-demand-strong-non-opec-supply-put-cartel-on-defensive/
  111. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-economics-of-diamonds/
  112. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~lcabral/teaching/debeers3.pdf
  113. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787924
  114. https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/342.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.