Rent cap in a university town
In Msida, 4,200 full-time students compete for 1,850 private rental listings each September; purpose-built student beds total 1,300. The market-clearing rent for a shared flat is about €620 a month. The government proposes a two-year cap of €480 on new leases, arguing that students are being priced out. After the announcement, landlords withdraw 18% of listings and advertise more short-term lets; a student housing office records a queue of 260 applicants and reports 'key money' payments of €2,000. Small landlords say maintenance, insurance and compliance cost €3,400 a year per flat. Student representatives support the cap, but the university warns that new students will arrive without housing. The regulator must advise whether the cap will help the tenants it targets and what else could be done within one academic year.
1. Using supply and demand, explain why the €480 cap may leave the targeted students worse off in the short run. Refer to the price mechanism, elasticity and the evidence in the setup.
Read the worked answer
At €620 the market clears. A €480 cap is 22.6% below equilibrium, so quantity demanded rises while quantity supplied falls. The setup already shows the supply response: 18% of 1,850 listings is about 333 listings withdrawn. The 260-person queue is not the full shortage; it is only those who registered, and it understates hidden shortage because some students give up or pay key money. Short-run supply of flats is inelastic because converting a flat to short-term letting takes time and planning rules bind; demand from students is also inelastic in September because they have few alternatives. The cap therefore rations by non-price means: queues, landlord selection, key money, poorer maintenance and informal subletting. Sitting tenants on controlled leases gain consumer surplus, but new entrants may be worse off. The key judgement is that the policy helps insiders and harms marginal entrants unless supply expands or enforcement is strong.
2. Evaluate two alternative policies: a targeted rent voucher for low-income students and a relaxation of planning rules to build more student accommodation. Recommend a package for the coming academic year.
Read the worked answer
A voucher targeted at low-income students increases demand, so if supply is fixed it bids rents up and partly becomes a landlord subsidy. It is still better than a universal cap on equity grounds if combined with supply measures. Planning relaxation increases supply but the effect is small within one academic year; temporary modular student housing, converting vacant offices, and guaranteed leases for landlords who offer student lets can work faster. Enforcement against key money and registration of deposits reduces hidden costs. Recommended package: (i) targeted voucher or rent bursary for low-income students; (ii) time-limited tax or guarantee for landlords who sign 10-month student leases; (iii) fast-track permission for temporary student beds; (iv) enforcement against informal key money. Do not rely on the cap alone. The regulator should monitor listings and rents and sunset the cap if shortage worsens.
3. Distinguish between the efficiency loss and the distributional effect of the rent cap. Which should dominate the regulator's decision?
Read the worked answer
The efficiency loss is the deadweight loss from mutually beneficial lettings that no longer occur: some students would have been willing to pay above the landlord's cost but below €620, and some landlords would have supplied below €620 but above their cost. The cap also creates resource costs through queues, search, enforcement and poorer maintenance. The distributional effect is a transfer from landlords to sitting tenants: existing tenants gain, while new entrants lose. If the aim is to help low-income students, the distributional effect matters, but a cap is a blunt instrument because it does not identify need. A targeted transfer could achieve the same equity goal with a smaller efficiency cost. The regulator should let distributional concerns guide the objective, but choose the instrument by comparing efficiency costs; on this evidence, a cap alone is inferior to a targeted package.