The Market for Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs

We show that the more inelastic either demand for or supply of a good is, the greater the increase in social cost from further reducing its production by greater enforcement efforts.
JPEG - 30.2 kb
www.journals.uchicago.edu

Gary S. Becker and

Kevin M. Murphy

University of Chicago and Hoover Institution

Michael Grossman

City University of New York Graduate Center and National Bureau of Economic Research

This paper considers the costs of reducing consumption of a good by making its production illegal and punishing apprehended illegal producers. We use illegal drugs as a prominent example. We show that the more inelastic either demand for or supply of a good is, the greater the increase in social cost from further reducing its production by greater enforcement efforts. So optimal public expenditures on apprehension and conviction of illegal suppliers depend not only on the difference between the social and private values from consumption but also on these elasticities. When demand and supply are not too elastic, it does not pay to enforce any prohibition unless the social value is negative. We also show that a monetary tax could cause a greater reduction in output and increase in price than optimal enforcement against the same good would if it were illegal, even though some producers may go underground to avoid a monetary tax. When enforcement is costly, excise taxes and quantity restrictions are not equivalent.

P.S.

Our research has been supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant 045566 to the National Opinion Research Center), the Hoover Institution Project on Drugs, the Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, and the Chicago Initiative on Price Theory. Steve Cicala provided excellent research assistance. Helpful comments were received from Dhaval Dave, Steve Levitt, Ivan Werning, and a referee and at seminars at the University of Chicago and Harvard University. This paper has not undergone the review accorded official National Bureau of Economic Research publications; in particular, it has not been submitted for approval by the board of directors. Any opinions expressed are ours and not those of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Hoover Institution, NORC, the NBER, the Stigler Center, or the Chicago Initiative on Price Theory.
published Thursday 16 March 2006 18:53
invention an first documented 1983
invention an first documented 1983
invention an first documented 1983
invention an first documented 1983
invention an first documented 1983