Rent Control in a Fast-Growing Capital
A fast-growing capital city has a rental market of about 14,000 two-bedroom units. The median monthly rent rose from N$4,800 in 2021 to N$7,400 in 2025, while median household income rose only from N$11,000 to N$12,300. Vacancy is 2.8% and landlords report waiting lists. Construction costs have risen 28% since 2021 and mortgage rates stand at 10.5%; of 900 approved new units, only 300 were completed. Some landlords now prefer short-stay letting to tourists, which earns roughly 1.6 times the long-term rent but requires furnishing. Tenant groups have petitioned for a legal ceiling of N$5,800 per month. Consultants estimate the short-run price elasticity of supply of rental housing at 0.2 and the long-run elasticity at 0.9, with a price elasticity of demand of -0.25. Developers warn that several projects will be postponed if the ceiling is imposed.
1. Using the elasticity estimates, assess the likely effect of a N$5,800 ceiling on the quantity of rental housing supplied, demanded and available in the short run and the long run.
Read the worked answer
The ceiling is (7,400 - 5,800) / 7,400 = 21.6% below the current market rent, so it binds.
Short run. Supply elasticity 0.2: quantity supplied changes by 0.2 x -21.6% = -4.3%, about 0.043 x 14,000 = 600 fewer units, leaving roughly 13,400. Demand elasticity -0.25: quantity demanded changes by -0.25 x -21.6% = +5.4%, about 760 more units, roughly 14,760. Excess demand is about 1,360 units, close to 10% of the stock.
Long run. Supply elasticity 0.9: 0.9 x 21.6% = 19.4% contraction, about 2,700 units withdrawn, leaving roughly 11,300, because developers postpone projects and landlords convert to tourist letting. Demand stays near 14,760. The shortage widens to roughly 3,500 units.
Caveats. These are estimates applied to a large price change, so the figures are illustrative rather than precise. Supply may be even less elastic because of planning delays and the 28% construction-cost increase. The measured quantity also hides quality: a landlord can keep a unit let while cutting maintenance, so the effective supply of decent housing may fall by more than the unit count suggests. The shortage is not of housing for sitting tenants but of units available to new tenants, so allocation shifts to queues, deposits and personal connections.
2. Explain why the ceiling may fail to make housing more affordable for households seeking a rental, and assess who gains and who loses.
Read the worked answer
Affordability is the full cost of obtaining and keeping a unit, not only the advertised rent. A sitting tenant who stays pays N$5,800 rather than N$7,400 and gains N$1,600 a month, or N$19,200 a year. A new household, however, faces a shortage of about 1,360 units in the short run and 3,500 in the long run. Landlords can choose among applicants, so allocation may be by queueing, larger deposits, key money or discrimination. Those non-price costs are real costs to tenants and can leave the effective rent close to the market level, especially for newcomers.
If landlords respond by reducing maintenance, the quality-adjusted rent may not fall at all, and tenants bear repair costs themselves. Conversion to short-stay letting removes stock from the long-term market, and postponed construction reduces future supply, so the next cohort of tenants may face higher rents once controls are lifted.
Gainers: sitting tenants, particularly older and higher-income households already in secure units, who capture the transfer from landlords. Losers: newly forming households, young mobile workers, landlords, construction workers and possibly the treasury if it later has to fund social housing. The net welfare loss is the deadweight loss on the units no longer supplied even though tenants valued them above their cost. The policy therefore redistributes between tenants as well as from landlords to tenants.
3. Evaluate whether a supply-side housing subsidy or the rent ceiling is the better policy response.
Read the worked answer
The ceiling is quick, visible and costs the budget nothing, but the elasticity evidence suggests it creates a shortage that grows over time as supply contracts by about 19%. Treating the symptom while the underlying supply constraint worsens is weak policy.
A supply-side subsidy works on the cause. If the aim is to lift completions towards the 900 approved units, a grant of, say, N$250,000 per unit for 600 units would cost N$150m. It preserves the price signal, encourages construction and can be targeted at affordable units through planning conditions. But it is fiscally costly, may crowd out private building, has a two- to three-year lag, and risks capture by developers who would have built anyway.
A third option, a targeted housing allowance, might cost N$1,600 x 3,000 households = N$57.6m a year. It helps the poorest and preserves mobility, but with a supply elasticity of only 0.2 in the short run much of the allowance would be capitalised into higher rents rather than increasing the number of units.
Judgement: the ceiling alone is the weakest option because it suppresses supply precisely where supply is inelastic. A credible package would release land and speed up approvals, part-fund infrastructure, and use a time-limited allowance for low-income tenants; a temporary ceiling might be defensible only alongside anti-eviction protection and a clear expiry date. The choice turns on fiscal cost and time lags, not on the headline rent alone.