>Also relevant is quality and availability of service. Previously prices >may have been cheap/falling but the range of offering, customer >treatment or availability may have constrained enjoyment of the service >to a sub optimal level. Deregulation could/should change this. (I think >it has in my limited experience)
Exactly the opposite of what happened in the formerly regulated markets I'm familiar with. With prices fixed at a level that gave most good companies very good rates of return they competed by increasing quality. Quality has declined most noticeably in air travel and the brokerage industry, but arguably in trucking and banking as well. >I'm also not sure to what extent the prices charged were also controlled >by governments as a macroeconomic tool to reduce measures of inflation? >Any thoughts? Since the regulatory agencies tended to be captured by the regulated industry (or at least sympathetic) prices tended to be too high (thus the price declines) rather than too low. As someone else said, the counterfactual is everything. CR is comparing the price declines during the 50s, 60s and early 70s with the price declines in the late 70s, and 80s. Productivity growth was notably faster in the earlier period than the later period. Would prices have declined as much in the 80s in trucking airlines, and phone service if there hadn't been deregulation? From the studies I've seen I seriously doubt it. Of course not everybody's prices decline. Regulation did tend to set prices too low for many low volume markets. In those places prices have skyrocketed. I suspect that some of this is just price rising to meet marginal cost, but because these are also markets with substantial fixed costs (maintaining terminals, ticket agents etc.) there is probably also some element of natural monopoly pushing prices in these markets up above long-run marginal cost. I would guess that there are three factors that account for CR's anguish about deregulation: 1) Their sense of fairness is offended by the big price increases experienced in difficult to serve markets, 2) Coming from the upper middle class as they do, they put more value on quality and are less concerned about price than the marginal air traveler/bank customer/brokerage customer so they experience the change from high q high p to low q low p less favorably than the new people attracted to the market by the change, and 3) deregulating a monopoly may cause an increase in price and to some extent that is what deregulation did (perhaps most notably in the cable industry, small air markets, and certain types of phone service). With respect to 3) don't think I'm not aware of the competition that cable faces from satellite or how contestable air markets are. Imperfect competition and limit pricing still leave plenty of room for monopolistic distortion. I don't think that _the_ definitive study on the costs and benefits of deregulation has been done and I very much doubt that CR's study is it. After all, CR used to (still does?) insist that economists have to be wrong about the predictability of capital markets because there are numerous mutual funds that have had 5 or more years of ROR above the market average - - without asking how many would be expected on the basis of chance alone. Thus they used to endorse mutual funds with exceptional records which, of course, tend to be the ones with the riskiest strategies (and by the studies I've seen only infinitesimally better expected returns). Sigh... - - Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
