From Roman edicts to modern crises: The true cost of price controls.

Price controls: Why they do not work

Price controls are government mandates that set maximum or minimum prices for goods and services. They are often introduced with intent to protect consumers from rapid inflation, to maintain affordability during crises, or to prevent perceived exploitation by suppliers. Despite the good intentions that drive them, recorded evidence from history shows that price controls consistently fail to deliver sustainable economic benefits.

The earliest and most documented example is Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, issued in 301 CE, which ended in economic chaos. Across time, similar policies have been attempted in modern economies from the United States to Venezuela, and the results have overwhelmingly shown that price controls distort market signals, create shortages, and harm the very people they aim to help.

Trading platforms pexels tima miroshnichenko 7567443.jpg? nc cat=111&ccb=1 7& nc sid=6ee11a& nc ohc=QwTDklpLC6wQ7kNvgEmg1GS& nc zt=23& nc ht=scontent.fpos1 1

TradingView — Track All Markets

Where the world charts, chats and trades markets. We’re a supercharged super-charting platform and social network for traders and investors. Free to sign up.

Diocletian’s Edict on maximum prices: Historical context

In the late third century Roman Empire, inflation was rampant. Emperors before Diocletian had debased the currency to fund military campaigns, causing prices to spiral. In response, Emperor Diocletian, co-ruler of the Roman Empire, issued the Edict on Maximum Prices in 301 CE. The edict listed fixed maximum prices for more than a thousand goods and services, ranging from the cost of a loaf of bread to the wages of labourers. The goal was to curb inflation and stabilise the economy.

At the heart of Diocletian’s policy was a basic misunderstanding of market dynamics. The edict assumed that setting caps on prices would stop inflation. Instead, it ignored the underlying causes of price increases: a shrinking supply of goods, rampant currency debasement, and loss of confidence in money. By imposing ceilings that were often well below equilibrium market prices, the edict effectively forbade sellers from charging what was economically necessary to cover costs and risks associated with production and distribution.

The failure of the edict

The consequences of the edict were swift and severe. Producers and merchants, unable to sell at profitable prices, removed their goods from the market. This led to widespread shortages. A loaf of bread, though priced cheaply by law, became impossible to find because bakers could not secure grain at costs that allowed them to operate.

Black markets sprang up where goods traded at prices determined by supply and demand rather than by imperial decree. Enforcement was brutal; violators faced severe penalties, including death. Yet enforcement failed to resolve shortages or bring goods back into legal markets. Within months, the edict became unenforceable, and it was quietly abandoned after Diocletian’s reign.

Economists and historians view the Edict on Maximum Prices as one of the earliest and clearest examples of the fundamental flaws inherent in price control policies. What was intended as a stabilising force instead accelerated economic dysfunction because it ignored the incentives and signals that allow markets to allocate resources efficiently.

TradingView — Track All Markets

Where the world charts, chats, and trades markets. We’re a supercharged super-charting platform and social network for traders and investors. Free to sign up.

Core problems with price controls

To understand why price controls fail, it is necessary to look at the economic mechanisms they disrupt. Prices in a free market perform two essential roles. First, they convey information about scarcity. When supply tightens or demand rises, prices increase, signalling to producers that more resources are needed. Second, prices act as incentives. Higher potential profits encourage producers to increase output or innovate. When governments impose fixed prices, these roles are undermined.

For example, a price ceiling below equilibrium causes excess demand: more consumers want the good at that price, but suppliers produce less because the price does not cover costs or uncertainty. This typically leads to shortages, rationing, waiting lines, and black markets. Conversely, price floors above equilibrium, such as minimum wage laws set above market levels, can lead to surpluses: an excess of labour or goods, such as unemployment or unsold agricultural products.

Modern instances of price controls and their outcomes

The 20th and 21st centuries offer numerous modern examples where price controls have failed in practice. In the United States during the 1970s, the Nixon administration imposed wage and price controls in an attempt to combat inflation.

In the short term, these controls appeared to slow rising prices, but they created distortions in supply chains and labour markets. Producers faced arbitrary cost limits and responded by reducing supply, lowering quality, or exiting markets entirely, which created shortages and black markets in certain sectors.

More recently, Venezuela’s experience in the 21st century illustrates another dramatic failure of price control policies. In the early 2000s, the Venezuelan government instituted comprehensive price controls on essential goods such as food and medicine in an effort to make them affordable.

Over time, producers were unable to cover their costs, leading to factory closures, plummeting domestic production, and widespread shortages. Supermarket shelves remained empty, and desperate consumers turned to informal markets where prices reflected true scarcity, often at multiples above official maximums. The result was hyperinflation, humanitarian crisis, and economic contraction.

Zimbabwe faced a similar outcome in the 2000s when the government imposed price controls on basic commodities. As with Venezuela, producers withdrew from the market, shortages worsened, and the informal economy grew. The controls failed to stabilise prices or improve access to goods. Instead, they accelerated economic dysfunction.

Housing price controls: Rent ceilings and long-term distortions

Housing markets around the world have also seen attempts at price control through rent ceilings. Cities such as New York and Berlin have implemented forms of rent control to protect tenants from rising costs. While these policies can provide temporary relief to incumbent tenants, they often discourage investment in housing supply.

Landlords may reduce maintenance or withdraw units from the rental market altogether. New construction slows because developers anticipate limited returns. Over time, this results in a constrained supply of quality housing, higher prices for those not protected under the regime, and an overall reduction in housing stock. Evidence from economists shows that rent control, without accompanying supply-increasing measures, leads to poorer outcomes for both renters and the broader housing market.

Send money online from the United States with Remitly

Send money online faster and more securely with Remitly, and discover our great exchange rates and low money transfer fees.

Minimum wage and price floor challenges

Minimum wages are another form of price control. By setting a wage floor above the market rate for certain jobs, governments aim to increase incomes for low-paid workers. However, when the minimum wage significantly exceeds productivity or the value of marginal labour, employers have fewer incentives to hire. This can lead to reduced hours, layoffs, or increased automation that displaces low-skilled workers. Studies have shown that moderate minimum wage increases have minimal negative employment effects when economies are healthy and near full employment.

However, large imposed increases in struggling sectors can reduce job opportunities and harm the very workers they aim to help. The complexity of labour markets means that broad-sweeping wage floors impose costs that are often borne by the most vulnerable workers.

Price controls distort resource allocation

At the heart of these failures is the distortion of resource allocation. When governments set prices, they override the information that markets generate about supply and demand. Firms cannot respond effectively when they cannot price risk or scarcity. Consumers cannot signal their preferences when costs do not reflect real scarcity. The result is a misallocation of resources, inefficiencies, and reduced economic growth.

Economists describe this as a loss of allocative efficiency, where resources do not flow to their most valued uses. In free markets, rising prices attract production and allocate goods to those who value them most highly. Price controls reverse these signals, leading to persistent shortages or surpluses.

Send money online from the United States at our best price

Join millions of customers around the world and start sending and receiving money with Western Union.

When governments intervene and what works

While price controls have a poor track record, there are scenarios where governments play a constructive role without mandating price ceilings or floors. Instead of controlling prices, governments can address structural causes of high costs. This includes reducing barriers to supply, improving infrastructure to facilitate production and distribution, promoting competition, and providing targeted subsidies to vulnerable populations without distorting market prices.

For example, instead of capping food prices during a crisis, a government might reduce tariffs on imports or offer temporary direct support to low-income households. This preserves price signals while easing burdens on those most affected. Similarly, in housing markets, policies that encourage new construction through planning reform and tax incentives can increase supply and reduce pressure on rents without resorting to caps that deter investment.

Lessons from history

The historical record, from Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices to modern price control experiments in the United States, Venezuela, and housing markets, shows that price controls fail because they ignore the fundamental functions of prices in a market economy. Price signals convey information and incentives that guide production, investment, and consumption.

When governments fix prices without addressing underlying causes of scarcity or inflation, the results are predictable: shortages, reduced investment, informal markets, and greater economic hardship. Thoughtful policy must focus on underlying structural reforms, targeted support for vulnerable populations, and measures that preserve the market’s ability to allocate resources effectively. Only by understanding why price controls do not work can governments design responses that address economic challenges without undermining prosperity.

_________________