The economics of price gouging after a natural disaster.
Recommend on Google+
If you want to encourage students to analyse both sides of an issue using economic theory and then to provide evaluative comment, there are few better examples to use than price gouging.
What price gouging is depends on what definition you choose but in relation to natural disasters, several states in the USA have put their own definitions into law, ranging from the vague to the specific. Florida defines it as “unconscionable prices for goods and services following a declared state of emergency” (and even have their own nifty graphic) 
Arkansas prohibits price increases above 10% for storm recovery products (i.e. water, batteries, food, fuel, and construction materials). Alabama prohibits raising prices above 25% of the average price for the previous 30 days.
This website outlines the main thrust of the arguments in favour of price gouging laws, with the quote “Now as the victims of the tornadoes try to rebuild, they are left vulnerable to another foe—people who use the disaster for economic gain by price-gouging” and use the example of US$7 per bottle of water after Hurricane Katrina. So price gouging is mean, unethical and essentially about profiting from other people’s misfortune. It is right for the government to try and protect consumers from price gougers.
On the other hand, the basic forces of supply and demand still exist after a natural disaster and it can be argued that they actually help consumers in disaster situations. If a severe storm is forecast to knock down power lines for an extended period of time then it could be expected that demand for batteries and candles would soar. If prices stay the same then shops will sell out very quickly to those who get in first and buy huge quantities and most people will miss out. If prices were higher, those who got their first would probably buy less and therefore the stock of batteries and candles would be more spread out amongst those who need them.
In addition, higher prices attracts more of the needed products to the market. In “The virtues of price gouging” the author gives two opposite examples of this point. Firstly, a Florida man was charged with violating the Florida price gouging statute after renting a truck, driving to North Carolina to buy thirty-five generators, bringing them back to Florida and selling them for roughly twice what he paid for them. But the end result was positive – 35 generators were brought in to an area that desperately needed them and sold to people (presumably) happy to pay for them. Secondly, one national gasoline retailer shut down its stations in Florida “because the firm could not afford to re-supply the stations without either selling gasoline at a loss or risking that it would violate the state’s anti-gouging laws.” The end result was an even greater shortage! Mark Perry argues that “If the goal is eliminate shortages of critical goods…..by directing scarce resources as quickly as possible to the areas where they are needed the most, then there’s no mechanism more efficient than the price system to achieve that outcome.
Further thoughts on the question of who really serves the public interest - the merchant who boosts his price during a crisis, or the merchant who refuses to can be found in this Boston Globe article, which outlines two scenarios to consider.
Enjoy the discussion!
blog comments powered by Disqus
ECONOMICS TEACHER RESOURCE NEWSLETTER
Join over 6,000 other Economics Teachers in the UK and around the world who receive the tutor2u regular Economics Resource Email Newsletter. Get special offers, first news of latest resources, teaching ideas, conferences and workshops + loads of great ideas for teaching economics from our blog authors.





