Has Deregulation Delivered Lower Prices and More Choices?

Last updated 3 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

For decades, deregulation has been presented as a common-sense solution to economic stagnation.

The central promise is simple: by removing government rules, we foster greater competition. This competition should deliver a cascade of benefits directly to the public, most notably a wider array of choices and lower prices for essential goods and services.

This principle has been applied across vast sectors of the U.S. economy, from airlines and telecommunications to energy and banking. So has this promise been fulfilled?

Over the past several decades, deregulation in major U.S. industries like airlines, trucking, telecom, and energy has brought many benefits, including more competition, lower prices, and new innovations. However, these benefits are not the same everywhere and can be limited by remaining market power, rules, and the complexity of the industries. Efforts to analyze and review regulations have helped, but they are not always done well. Authors Dudley and Ellig argue in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis that deregulation works best when paired with careful oversight and smart rules that are updated as markets and technology change, helping to ensure lasting benefits for consumers and the economy.

The Theory Behind Deregulation

Deregulation is the process of removing or reducing state and federal rules, particularly in the economic sphere. It’s not the same as privatization, which involves transferring ownership of government-run businesses to the private sector. Deregulation simply changes the rules for private businesses that are already operating.

The modern push for deregulation gained significant momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, fueled by a shift in economic thinking that questioned the effectiveness of extensive government control. This intellectual shift was a reaction to a long history of government intervention.

The first major wave of economic regulation occurred during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s) and the New Deal of the 1930s. These were direct responses to perceived market failures, the unchecked power of monopolies, hazardous working conditions, and devastating economic cycles.

By the 1970s, however, the pendulum began to swing back. A new consensus emerged that the regulations themselves had become the problem.

Arguments for Free Markets

The arguments for deregulation rest on several key economic theories.

Promoting Competition and Efficiency

The primary stated goal of deregulation is to increase competition. The theory suggests that by removing government-imposed barriers to entry, such as price controls or restrictions on which firms can operate in a market, new companies will be able to compete with established ones.

This rivalry forces all businesses to become more efficient, innovate to create better products, and lower their prices to attract customers. The ultimate result should be higher productivity, more consumer choice, and a more dynamic economy.

Combating Regulatory Capture

A central pillar of the argument against regulation is the theory of regulatory capture. This theory, developed by economists like Nobel laureate George Stigler, suggests that regulatory agencies often become “captured” by the very industries they’re supposed to oversee.

Instead of acting in the public interest, captured agencies use their power to create rules that benefit the regulated firms. They might set high prices and block new competitors from entering the market. This effectively turns the regulatory body into a tool for enforcing a cartel, harming consumers and the broader economy.

Public Choice Theory

This school of thought extends the concept of self-interest from the marketplace to the government itself. It suggests that politicians and regulators, like everyone else, are often driven by their own interests, such as reelection or career advancement, rather than a benevolent desire to serve the public good.

Interest groups with concentrated financial power can influence the regulatory process through lobbying and campaign contributions. This results in rules that serve their narrow interests over those of the dispersed, less-organized public. Deregulation is seen as a way to limit the power of these special interests by reducing the scope of government intervention.

Government Tools for Deregulation

The U.S. government has several powerful tools to implement deregulation, reflecting the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and administrative branches.

Legislative Action

The most direct and powerful tool is a new law passed by Congress and signed by the president. Landmark acts like the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 can fundamentally restructure an entire industry, dismantle the existing regulatory framework, and even abolish the agencies responsible for it.

Executive Orders

The President can drive a deregulatory agenda through executive orders, which direct the actions of federal agencies. A prominent recent example is the “one-in, two-out” policy, which mandates that for every new regulation an agency issues, it must identify multiple existing regulations for elimination.

Agency Rulemaking and Review

Much of deregulation happens through the administrative process. Agencies are often required by law to conduct periodic reviews of their existing rules to weed out those that are outdated, ineffective, or duplicative.

They frequently use cost-benefit analysis to weigh the economic impact of a rule against its intended benefits. This process is also open to public input, citizens and businesses can submit their ideas for deregulation directly to the government through Regulations.gov.

Airlines: The First Major Test

The deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in 1978 was the first major test of the modern deregulatory movement and remains its most cited example.

The Old System

From 1938 to 1978, the airline industry operated under the tight control of the Civil Aeronautics Board. This federal agency dictated nearly every aspect of the business: which airlines could fly, what routes they could serve, and how much they could charge for a ticket.

The system guaranteed a 12% profit for airlines on most flights, effectively eliminating price competition. Airlines competed on service and amenities, leading to famously inefficient practices like half-empty planes and onboard piano lounges. Fares were high, and flying was a luxury reserved for business travelers and the wealthy.

The 1978 Revolution

By the 1970s, a bipartisan consensus had formed that the CAB’s regulation was stifling the industry and harming consumers. Under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter and economist Alfred Kahn, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

The law’s explicit purpose was to phase out the CAB and allow competitive market forces to determine the quality, variety, and price of air service. For the first time in 40 years, airlines were free to set their own fares and choose their own routes.

Results: A Turbulent Transformation

The impact of the 1978 act was immediate, profound, and disruptive.

The Upside: Prices and Choices

The most celebrated outcome was a dramatic fall in prices. With airlines now competing on fares, the average cost of a ticket, adjusted for inflation, plummeted by about one-third in the following two decades. Some estimates show a decline of nearly 45% since 1978.

These savings, amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year for consumers, “democratized” air travel, making it accessible to a much broader segment of the American public. The number of annual passengers more than doubled.

The new freedom spurred innovation, leading to the creation of new low-cost carriers like PeopleExpress and the expansion of others like Southwest Airlines, which pioneered a “no-frills” business model that further drove down costs.

The Downside: Industry Structure

This new era of fierce competition came at a high cost. The industry experienced massive upheaval, with many iconic legacy carriers, including Pan Am, Braniff, and Eastern, and dozens of new airlines going bankrupt or being acquired.

This “shakeout” led to a wave of mergers that resulted in significant industry consolidation, leaving a handful of major carriers in control of the market and raising long-term concerns about reduced competition.

To maximize efficiency, airlines also shifted from point-to-point routes to a “hub-and-spoke” system. While this model increased the number of passengers per flight, it also created major congestion at hub airports and eliminated many convenient non-stop flights, particularly for travelers in smaller cities.

The Essential Air Service Program

The architects of the 1978 act foresaw a critical consequence of letting market forces take over: airlines would likely abandon service to small, rural communities where routes were unprofitable.

To prevent these communities from being cut off from the national transportation network, Congress built a safety net directly into the deregulation law: the Essential Air Service program.

EAS guarantees that eligible small communities maintain a minimum level of scheduled air service, with the federal government providing subsidies to airlines to operate these routes when they’re not commercially viable. The program was initially planned as a temporary 10-year measure but was later made permanent.

Today, it continues to support service to hundreds of communities, but its costs have grown substantially, raising ongoing policy debates about its expense and effectiveness. The existence of EAS reveals that even one of the most successful examples of deregulation required a lasting and costly government role to address the social and geographic inequalities created by the market.

Telecommunications: A Complex Experiment

If airline deregulation was a straightforward removal of government controls, the attempt to deregulate telecommunications in the 1990s was a far more complex and, in many ways, less successful experiment.

The Promise of 1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first comprehensive overhaul of the industry’s laws in over 60 years. Its ambitious goal was to break down the regulatory walls that separated local phone companies, long-distance carriers, and cable television providers, allowing any company to compete in any communications business.

Proponents promised the act would unleash a new era of competition, leading to massive consumer savings, more choices, and rapid technological innovation.

The Reality of Consolidation

The outcome was almost the precise opposite of the stated intent. Instead of fostering a diverse marketplace of new competitors, the 1996 Act triggered an unprecedented wave of mergers and consolidation.

The law relaxed or eliminated long-standing media ownership rules, allowing a few giant corporations to buy up thousands of radio and television stations across the country. This consolidation dramatically reduced the number of independent media owners, leading to what critics describe as the homogenization of radio programming and a decline in local news coverage on television.

Two Different Stories

The impact on consumer prices illustrates the act’s divided and ultimately disappointing results. The outcome depended heavily on the method of deregulation applied to different sectors.

Cable Television

The act largely removed federal price controls on cable TV, a market where most consumers had only one provider. Without competition to restrain them, cable companies raised prices aggressively.

A February 2000 report from Consumers Union labeled the result a “consumer disaster,” finding that cable rates had increased at nearly three times the rate of inflation since the act’s passage.

Telephone Service

In contrast, the act didn’t simply remove rules for the telephone industry. Instead, it created a complex new regulatory regime that required incumbent local phone companies to lease parts of their physical networks to new competitors at regulated rates.

While this was intended to jump-start competition, it led to years of legal battles and failed to create widespread, sustainable new choices for consumers. However, the continued regulatory oversight of these wholesale rates meant that retail prices for telephone service remained relatively stable or even declined slightly.

A Flawed Design

The divergent outcomes for cable and telephone services reveal a critical lesson: the design of deregulation matters immensely. The 1996 Act’s approach to the telephone industry is now widely seen by critics as a failure not of deregulation itself, but of a flawed attempt to engineer competition through complex rules.

Rather than simply removing barriers and letting new companies build their own networks, it tried to force competitors to share the infrastructure of the established monopolies. This approach proved unworkable and ultimately encouraged the incumbent companies to merge with each other rather than compete.

Energy: Power Plays and Market Failures

The deregulation of energy markets for natural gas and electricity offered the promise of choice and lower bills for every American household and business. However, the path has been fraught with challenges, including one of the most catastrophic market failures in modern U.S. history.

Breaking Up the Monopolies

Historically, most Americans bought their energy from a single, vertically integrated utility that owned everything from the power plants to the wires running to their homes. Starting with the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and accelerating through state and federal actions in the 1990s, policymakers sought to break up these monopolies.

The goal was to create competitive markets by separating the generation of energy from its transmission and delivery. In this new structure, consumers could theoretically choose their energy supplier, forcing providers to compete on price and service.

The California Crisis: A Cautionary Tale

California’s bold move to deregulate its electricity market in the late 1990s became a textbook example of how deregulation can go disastrously wrong. The state’s plan contained a fatal design flaw: it allowed the wholesale price of electricity to fluctuate with market demand, while simultaneously capping the retail price that utilities could charge their customers.

This created a ticking time bomb. In 2000, a perfect storm of factors: high demand from a booming economy, a drought in the Pacific Northwest that reduced cheap hydropower imports, and soaring natural gas prices, caused wholesale electricity prices to skyrocket by over 800%.

This volatile situation was ruthlessly exploited by energy trading companies like Enron, which used a variety of illegal schemes with cynical names like “Death Star” and “Get Shorty” to manipulate the market, create artificial shortages, and drive prices even higher.

The Devastating Consequences

The consequences were catastrophic. Caught between uncapped wholesale costs and capped retail prices, California’s largest utilities, PG&E and Southern California Edison, effectively went bankrupt.

The state was plunged into a crisis of rolling blackouts that shut down businesses and disrupted daily life, ultimately costing the California economy an estimated $40 billion or more. This crisis demonstrated how a poorly designed deregulated market can amplify external shocks and market imperfections, leading to complete system collapse.

The Broader National Picture

Outside of California’s dramatic failure, the national experience with energy deregulation has been mixed.

Natural Gas Success

Deregulation has been generally more successful in the natural gas sector. Many states have implemented customer choice programs, and a 1998 Government Accountability Office study found that these programs produced consumer savings ranging from 1% to 15% on total gas bills.

Electricity Results

The results for electricity are far less clear. While some states have functioning competitive markets, the evidence of widespread, long-term consumer savings is weak.

Some academic studies have found that while deregulation led to more efficient and lower-cost electricity generation, these savings were often not passed on to wholesale or retail customers. In some cases, wholesale prices actually increased as the gap between the cost of generation and the price of power grew.

The success of electricity deregulation remains highly dependent on specific market design and regional factors, with no single model proving universally beneficial.

Finance: High Stakes and Higher Risks

No area of deregulation has been more consequential or more controversial than the financial sector. The decades-long process of dismantling post-Great Depression regulations culminated in the 2008 global financial crisis, sparking a fierce and ongoing debate about the proper balance between market freedom and economic stability.

From Glass-Steagall to Gramm-Leach-Bliley

In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, Congress enacted the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. A cornerstone of this law was the strict separation of commercial banking (taking deposits and making loans) from the riskier business of investment banking (underwriting and trading securities).

This and other regulations created a stable, if highly constrained, financial system for over half a century.

Beginning in the 1980s, this regulatory framework was steadily eroded through legislative changes and new agency interpretations. This process culminated in the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which formally repealed the key provisions of Glass-Steagall, allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to merge and form massive financial conglomerates.

The 2008 Meltdown: A Deregulation Debate

The 2008 financial crisis, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, triggered an intense debate over the role deregulation played in the disaster.

The Case for Causality

Many economists, regulators, and a congressionally-appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that deregulation was a primary cause of the crisis. This view holds that dismantling Glass-Steagall and leaving new financial products like derivatives largely unregulated fostered a culture of excessive risk-taking on Wall Street.

It allowed for the creation of “too big to fail” institutions and the spread of complex, opaque financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, which concealed and amplified risk throughout the global financial system.

This perspective suggests that financial innovation, occurring in an environment of lax oversight, led directly to the housing bubble, the subprime mortgage collapse, and the ensuing economic meltdown.

The Case Against Causality

A competing narrative, advanced by organizations like the Cato Institute and other free-market proponents, argues that the idea of a “deregulatory era” is a myth. They present evidence that the budgets, staffing, and rulemaking output of financial regulatory agencies actually increased in the years leading up to 2008.

This perspective blames the crisis on other factors, such as flawed government housing policies that encouraged lending to unqualified borrowers, critical failures by existing regulators to use the authority they already had, and the central role of government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in fueling the mortgage market.

They also point out that some of the key firms that failed, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were standalone investment banks that were never subject to the Glass-Steagall restrictions in the first place.

The Aftermath: Swinging Back

Regardless of the precise cause, the crisis demonstrated that deregulation represents a societal choice about how to allocate risk and reward. In the years before 2008, the financial sector reaped enormous profits from its high-risk activities, and the rewards were privatized. When the system collapsed, the immense losses were socialized through taxpayer-funded bailouts and a devastating recession that harmed workers and the real economy.

In response to this public cost, the policy pendulum swung sharply back toward regulation. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the most sweeping financial re-regulation since the New Deal.

The act created new oversight bodies and consumer protections, and imposed tougher rules on large banks, reflecting a renewed belief that an unconstrained financial market can pose an existential threat to the broader economy.

The Broader Consequences

The promise of deregulation is typically framed in narrow economic terms of price and choice. However, its true impact is far broader, affecting the structure of industries, the lives of workers, the health of the environment, and the safety of the public.

Market Concentration vs. Competition

A recurring and paradoxical outcome across multiple industries is that deregulation, intended to increase competition, often leads to its opposite: greater market concentration.

The intense competitive pressure unleashed by deregulation can drive weaker or smaller firms out of business, while larger, more established companies merge to gain economies of scale and market power. In the airline industry, a wave of bankruptcies and mergers followed the 1978 act, leaving a few giant carriers dominating the skies.

Similarly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 triggered massive consolidation in media and communications. This trend raises a critical long-term concern: that the initial benefits of competition may be eroded over time as a deregulated industry evolves into an oligopoly or even a monopoly.

Impact on American Workers

The economic shifts brought about by deregulation have profound consequences for the American workforce. When industries are forced to compete intensely on price, cutting labor costs often becomes a primary strategy.

This can lead to significant job losses, downward pressure on wages and benefits, and a decline in the bargaining power of unions. The airline industry, for example, saw widespread layoffs and contentious labor disputes in the years following deregulation as legacy carriers struggled to compete with low-cost, non-union startups.

More broadly, the push for deregulation often extends to workplace rules themselves, with proposals aimed at rolling back regulations related to minimum wage, overtime, and workplace safety.

Environmental Questions

Deregulation’s impact on the environment, particularly in the energy sector, is complex and presents significant trade-offs. There is evidence that competitive electricity markets have accelerated the nation’s transition away from coal-fired power plants toward cleaner-burning natural gas.

This fuel-switching has been a major driver of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, and the decline in carbon intensity has been faster in deregulated states than in regulated ones.

However, deregulation can create disincentives for investments in energy efficiency, as utilities in competitive markets may no longer have a financial reason to encourage customers to use less power. Furthermore, the market volatility and focus on short-term costs in deregulated markets can make it difficult to finance large, capital-intensive clean energy projects like nuclear power plants.

Safety and Consumer Protection

A fundamental and persistent concern is that in a deregulated environment, the relentless pressure to maximize profits can lead companies to cut corners on safety and exploit consumers.

In the airline industry, critics worried that intense price competition would force carriers to skimp on maintenance, leading to a decline in safety. While the overall safety record of U.S. aviation has continued to improve, high-profile accidents have kept these concerns alive.

In the financial sector, the removal of consumer protection regulations is seen as a key contributor to the predatory lending practices that fueled the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

These examples underscore the vital, ongoing role of government in setting and enforcing baseline standards for health, safety, and fair dealing, even in markets that are otherwise competitive. Citizens can play a role in this process by making their voices heard on proposed rules through government platforms like Regulations.gov.

The Deregulation Scorecard

A Recurring Cycle

The history of deregulation reveals that the debate over regulation is not a one-way street toward a perfectly free market. It’s a recurring cycle. After the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the widespread belief that a lack of oversight had caused a catastrophic market failure led to calls for significant re-regulation, culminating in the Dodd-Frank Act.

This demonstrates the perpetual tension in American governance between two sets of risks: the risks posed by unconstrained markets and the risks posed by inefficient or captured government. Deregulation is not an endpoint but one phase in this ongoing cycle of correcting for both market and government failures.

The promise of deregulation, more choices, and lower prices has been partially fulfilled in some sectors while creating new problems in others. The airline industry delivered dramatically lower fares but also led to market consolidation and service gaps that required government intervention. Telecommunications saw massive corporate consolidation rather than increased competition. Energy markets produced mixed results with some spectacular failures. Financial deregulation contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.