A Mandate to Be Inefficient

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s plan for New York City taxicabs to go green, to switch to hybrid cars.? This all started a few years ago when Bloomberg announced a plan to mandate that the famous New York City taxi fleet go all-hybrid.? The classic Crown Victoria gets about 12 miles per gallon, whereas a hybrid taxi gets 30 miles per gallon.? Quite a difference!? So this is great for the environment.

A bit of background may be helpful: taxicab drivers save about $15.00 per shift in gas with a hybrid compared to a Crown Victoria, but hybrids cost fleet owners around $7.50 more to buy and maintain. So it makes economic sense to have hybrids. But the city government sets a maximum lease rate, the maximum amount a taxi owner can charge a driver to drive the taxi for half a day. Why does this matter? This maximum lease rate means that the owners cannot charge more to the drivers to recoup their extra cost of owning and maintaining a hybrid.

The Federal Courts shot down Bloomberg’s must-go-hybrid mandate a few years ago because it violates the United States Clean Air Act (ironically!), which allows only the federal government to set fuel efficiency standards.? So then Bloomberg tried to introduce two-tiers to the maximum lease cap: there would be one higher tier for hybrids and one lower tier for the Crown Victoria.? Unfortunately for Bloomberg, and for the environment, the term “mandate” here is a legal term, one that is judged by what people actually will do, not what they are allowed to do.? If an incentive is so big that almost everyone does it, then legally this is considered a mandate. Just yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case, thus letting stand the lower court’s decision.

The deep irony that seems to have escaped the policy discussion is that the current maximum lease rates are somewhat a mandate too, but a mandate to be brown!? Since the maximum lease cap is binding, taxicab owners are not able to charge more to recover their costs of owning a hybrid. So in a free market the hybrid would be more profitable, but with the cap in place the Crown Victoria becomes more profitable for the owners (note that about 1/3 of taxis are now hybrid, but I think that number would be radically higher if there weren’t incentives to go brown). Encouraging fuel inefficiency is not what Bloomberg and the city government want to be doing, but they are. Why is this?

The frustrating fact is that both taxi owners and drivers would actually prefer to go green, if given the chance to let incentives work their magic. But there is a basic market failure here, generated by price regulation.? It is a classic case of a positive externality (the savings on gasoline costs for the driver) that could be internalized (by drivers paying the owners a bit more).? In economics jargon, this is just a simple matter of letting the Coase Theorem come to life … let people come together without regulation and the efficient solution can be found (read here for a 2007 Freakonomics article on the Coase Theorem). So why can’t we get this right?

One might suggest that the lease caps should simply be set precisely so that they cover the exact cost of operating a hybrid.? The problem here is one of stickiness and precision.? Changing lease caps is a cumbersome process, yet technology changes rapidly.? A system which kept lease caps in place but got this right would need constant updating to take into account changes in operating costs (which influence the relative costs to fleet owners) and changes in fuel efficiency (which influence the relative benefits of hybrids to the drivers).? This would be an exercise in futility, and nonstop bickering.

This is one of those nice situations where basic free market economics and the environment are perfectly aligned.? The current lease caps get the incentives wrong, and are ironically a de facto mandate to be fuel inefficient.? So let’s make our taxicabs green the easy way, by removing lease caps and freeing the markets.

What do you think?


Iljitsch van Beijnum

Seems to me that all of this would work itself out for the most part if the drivers and the owners were one and the same.


I agree with you that often a free market is the best solution, but this seems like a fairly narrow case where a selective and illogical reading of the term 'mandate' is the more pressing issue than the entire market structure.

Mr Nonsense

Jeeminy Cricket! Just get rid of the over regulation. Set insurance standards, maybe have a test on knowledge of streets and routes, make a special class of license for carrying paid passengers and revert it to a standard license if there's an accident, but get rid of everything else. Especially cost controls and price controls and number of allowed taxis -- let anyone who meets the minimum requirements drive any old piece of junk they want. This idea that the default arrangement is for government regulation is slowly grinding the economy to a halt in bureaucratic sludge.

What a perfect example of why bureaucracy is never the answer.

Trent McBride

"But there is a market failure here, generated by price regulation. "

That is an interesting turn of phrase.


This not a market failure, but rather a government failure. The "market" here is working within the rules forced on it by government, hence it is a government failure that produces the inefficient outcome.


Government interference in the market producing an unfavorable outcome? Unpossible!

Simon C

So from a custoners point of view it seems that hailing a non-green taxi would have meant that I would get charged less for the same service.

Joe Arnao

The answer is simple. Just create another lease agreement that skirts the law. Have the companies and the drivers create a lease agreement for the battery or the battery connector or for those beaded seat covers every taxi driver site on as an "accessory package" that comes with every hybrid. If we don't start to find creative solutions to obtuse government regulations, the rest of the world is going to pass us by, they already are....

Nick L.

This makes sense from the perspective of eliminating the disincentive to upgrading fleets to hybrids, but neither the article nor any other comments addresses the original purpose of the lease cap. It's fine and good to identify when and how regulations get in the way of efficient market functioning, but if we ignore the original intent and purpose of the regulations in the interest of convenience, we aren't contributing any useful academic thought here, just propaganda.

I presume the lease cap was developed to prevent lease-gouging behavior from fleet owners who may have previously charged abusively high rates to drivers, putting drivers' real earnings below a livable wage.

So, the question - how can we make a useful incentive for fleet owners to upgrade their cabs to more efficient vehicles while still protecting the real earnings of cab drivers?

Gavin Andresen

Ah what a tangled web we weave....

So if I understand the situation, you start with a limited supply of taxicabs (because there are only a fixed number of "medallions").

That lets owners gouge their drivers, because nobody but rich owners can afford to buy a medallion.

Solution: don't eliminate the medallions, but cap the prices owners can charge. Problem solved!

Except for this whole hybrid thing... which, I guess Nick L. thinks Yet Another Layer of regulation will fix.

The whole system is such a hairball of competing interests (owners want to keep the medallions, drivers want to get paid a decent wage) I doubt it will ever get fixed. And everybody in New York will suffer just a little bit every time they have to wait longer in dirtier air to get a cab.


^^^ What Nick L. said.

robyn goldstein

Science is never efficient. If it were, people would never make discoveries. Fortunately or unfortunately, that is what distinguishes the people who do from the people who don't.

Robyn Goldstein

As to the taxi cab blow. That is really a shame. I have such a car and have seen such taxis around. People just don't get the idea of what we humans are doing to our environment. Well, years from now when there is nothing we can do to improve it cause we already messed it up, then we will weep. I have said this before, but I vividly recall an experiment conducted by a fifth grader. She took coke and left her baby teeth in it for a week. They rotted. I would not want that to happen to our environment.


I also conducted this experiment (as an adult) when I had a tooth extracted. I washed it off, dried it, weighed it, put it in a glass of Coke, and left it there. After a week it was still there. I took it out, washed it, dried it, and weighed it. The weight was the same. I believe I also saw this done on a Food Network show years later. I think the Coke legend is no more than that. Can you supply the name and address of the fifth grader whose experiment you so vividly recall, or is this something you heard about?

robyn goldstein

ps. I like coke too ...once and a while ie., in moderation.


The problem? Too many governmental busybodies creating inefficiencies. Why do they do it when it makes no sense? Because it's about control, not efficiency. To loosen the Gordian Knot you need a sword, not legislation.


I agree with Gavin. Why look to change the structure of the system if it mostly works for the current Crown Vic, and the only variable that is a problem when switching over to hybrids is the lease cap. Change the Lease cap proportionally.


The broader issue is the fact that our eçonomy ecomomizes nothing we simply consume too much and manufacture things not to last and sustain utility but to break so we consumers mist simply buy again our teo in manu cases is boy a result of growth but waste because ee are anti economizing the ene ali be All resource called earth thru landfills and waste