Price cap regulation and water quality

A number of studies suggest that price cap regulation may reduce the quality of the regulated good. This paper analyzes the impact on drinking water quality of a shift from cost-of-service to price cap regulation in Denmark, using a balanced panel of drinking water companies, for the period 2008 to 2016. The price cap was introduced in 2011 for companies above a certain threshold size. We exploit this quasi-experimental setting to estimate the impact of the shift in regulation using a regression discontinuity difference-in-differences approach. Our measure of drinking water quality is based on results from a compulsory surveillance drinking water testing program, which investigates whether or not water samples contain a level of microbiological content that exceeds limit values. More specifically, we compare the change over time in water quality for a treatment group of 113 companies regulated with price caps that have a size close to the threshold size for being regulated, with the change in drinking water quality for a control group of 282 companies that are below but close to the threshold size. We find that the shift in regulation has not caused a reduction in drinking water quality in Denmark.

Capital requirements, risk-taking and welfare in a growing economy

The effects of capital requirements on risk-taking and welfare are studied in an overlapping generations model of endogenous growth with banking, limited liability, and government guarantees. Capital producers face a choice between a safe technology and a risky, more productive but socially inefficient, technology. Bank risk-taking is endogenous. As a result of a skin in the game effect—motivated either as an aggregate externality, or as the outcome of the optimal choice of monitoring effort by individual banks—default risk is inversely related to the capital adequacy ratio. Numerical simulations show that in an equilibrium where banks extend both safe and risky loans, the skin in the game effect must be sufficiently strong for a welfare-maximizing regulatory policy to exist. These results remain qualitatively similar with endogenous monitoring costs and a strong effect of monitoring on entrepreneurial moral hazard. However, numerical experiments also suggest that the optimal capital adequacy ratio may be too high in practice and may require concomitantly a broadening of the perimeter of regulation and a strengthening of financial supervision to prevent disintermediation and distortions in financial markets.