Rip Off Britain.

James Bartholomew has a nice piece in the Telegraph. This rip off Britain we keep hearing about. Just why are British supermarkets more expensive than those abroad?

The second objection is that supermarkets still
overcharge, despite their "oppression" of farmers, compared with shops
in other countries. The Government knows the reason for this, even if
most commentators appear not to.

When it came to
power, the Government commissioned McKinsey, the management consultant,
to look at the issue. The answer? We pay higher prices because British
supermarkets have been so hemmed in by planning restrictions that they
are much smaller than stores in France and the United States.

The
average French supermarket is 50 per cent bigger, even without
including the vast clothes selection many also contain. American
supermarkets are 90 per cent bigger. Extra size means economies of
scale, which mean they – and their suppliers – can gain economies of
scale.

The savings are passed on to consumers –
not through kindness but because of competition. Prices are lower
abroad because supermarkets in certain countries are less opposed.

They
can get planning permission more easily, they can build bigger and so
they can sell more cheaply. There is no "rip-off Britain". The return
on capital of British supermarkets is no higher than those on French or
American supermarkets. They are just smaller.

I have vague memories of a similar, earlier, report into CD prices. British retailers faced higher property costs as a result of the more restrictive planning process so margins, as one would expect, were notably higher.

3 responses

  1. I saw a report a few years ago doing the same comparison of retail prices between San Francisco and Sacramento. Because of the insane planning laws in SF groceries are between 10% and 30% more expensive in SF than in Sac which is only 90 miles away.
    The floor size of the retail units was the only meaningful variable that was different between doing business in SF and Sac. Sacrament has a pro-business attitude so all the retail outlets are fairly typical in size, in SF you have to get the permission of the ‘neighborhood’ to build any commercial unit greater than 1000sf, and the parking / traffic excuse is used to limit the size of any development to less than a half of the state average. As almost one third of the area of the city of SF is under-developed or low density brown-field land the lack of space in the city argument does not hold any water.
    The same story with the price of petrol in San Fransisco. It is the most expensive in the US due to planning laws in SF. The city used a change in state law regarding the storage of petrol to force almost half the petrol stations to close down over the last ten years. Result the price difference in the price of petrol between SF and its suburbs went up at least another 10%.
    Of course the real irony is that these ‘community activists’ are making the SF less and less affordable, slowly driving out of the city all the people who formed the bedrock of support for the radical ‘community activists’ policies. Political natural selection at its finest.

  2. Is it possible that land and property just are more expensive in Britain for reasons other than planning permission, ie scarcity? I think there is a lot of arable land even in the South-East that could easily be built upon and should be (though note the howls of anguish over John Prescott’s limited relaxation of planning laws), but it must be the case that there is less in Britain than France or Germany.
    On CDs, I think there was some overpricing in the mid 1990s in Britain by the major music retailers. I still think some exists today – Itunes is more expensive in Britain than Europe, and it’s not because our internet is smaller.

  3. Its true that constraints on store size affect productivity in this sector too.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading