Companies can get ahead in two very different ways. One is to win customers by making better products or inventing something people want. The other is to persuade the government to change the rules in their favor. Economists call that second route rent-seeking, and it helps explain why some economies keep improving while others fall behind.¹, ²
Rent-seeking carries a real cost, because the effort spent winning government favors is effort not spent creating anything new. When the easiest way to make money is to win special treatment from the government rather than compete in the market, talent and capital flow into seeking that treatment instead of better products, and a country's growth can suffer as a result.³
This article explains what rent-seeking is, how it works, why it persists, and what it costs.
What does rent-seeking mean?
In political economy, rent-seeking is the pursuit of wealth by capturing economic advantages through political or legal channels instead of by producing goods, services, or ideas that create new value.⁴
The difference is easiest to see by comparing two companies. One invents a cheaper product and earns its profit by adding something to the economy. The other persuades the government to keep out its foreign competitors, so the wealth it gains comes from consumers and rivals rather than from anything newly created.⁴ For example, imagine a domestic carmaker that lobbies for a steep tax on imported cars. Once the tax is in place, it can raise its prices, and the extra profit comes out of car buyers' pockets, not from anything it has newly built.
Economists use the term "rent" to mean extra income, the amount someone earns above the least they would have accepted.⁴ But not all rent is a problem. Professor of law and economics Gordon Tullock drew a line between "good rents," the rewards that come from real innovation in a competitive market, and "bad rent-seeking," the chase for government favors, which he said reduces society's wealth overall.⁵ It's this second, harmful kind of lobbying government for special privileges rather than creating anything of equal value that a clearer label might call "privilege seeking." But "rent" is the term that stuck.⁴
Where the concept came from
The concept of rent-seeking goes back to Tullock and his 1967 paper The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft. His insight was that the money and effort spent chasing a privilege are themselves a loss to the wider economy, because resources a firm pours into winning protection buy nothing new. They simply move wealth from other people and could have gone toward something productive instead.⁴, ⁶
While Tullock supplied the idea, economist Anne Krueger was the one who coined the term “rent-seeking” in 1974. Looking at economies where the government tightly controlled business, she showed how those controls created valuable rewards, or rents, that people then competed for. In Turkey in 1968, for example, the permits or import licenses needed to bring in foreign goods were worth about 15 percent of the country's total output. In India in 1964, government rules created rents worth roughly 7 percent of national income.¹, ⁴
The rent-seeking framework was later expanded by James M. Buchanan and Robert D. Tollison, who, with Tullock, co-edited the 1980 volume Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society, the book that pulled the early research together into a recognized field.², ⁵ Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the constitutional foundations of political decision-making, helped establish public choice theory, which treats politicians and officials as people who respond to their own incentives rather than acting purely in the public interest, which is why rent-seeking sits close to the field's core.⁷,⁸
How does rent-seeking work?
Rent-seeking does not usually look like bribery or backroom deals. Most of it is legal and happens in the open, through the everyday machinery of government.⁴
Lobbying
The most direct route is to approach the people who make the rules. Companies pay for lobbying and for advertising that sways public opinion, hoping to win a rule change in their favor. That might be a subsidy (a payment from the government), a tariff (a tax that makes foreign goods more expensive), or a rule that holds back their competitors. For the company, the logic is simple. The rule change can be worth far more than the lobbying costs to obtain it, so the spending pays off. For the economy, though, it is a loss, because all that money and effort produces nothing new.⁴, ⁶
Regulatory capture
Governments set up agencies to watch over industries on the public's behalf, like the bodies that oversee banks or approve new medicines. Sometimes an industry gains so much sway over the agency meant to watch it that the agency ends up serving the industry instead of the public. Economist George Stigler put it bluntly, arguing that regulation is typically "acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit.”⁹,¹⁰
One common sign is a rule that quietly protects the companies already in the market. Take a grandfather clause, a rule that lets existing firms carry on under the old standard while new firms have to meet a tougher one. It raises the cost of entering the market, making it harder for newcomers to compete.¹⁰
Licensing and legal privilege
Governments can also hand out special rights that turn into a steady income. The clearest case is occupational licensing, where you need official permission to work in a particular job, such as plumbing or medicine. Some of this protects the public, like making sure a doctor is properly trained. But strict licensing also shields those already licensed from competition, which can keep their pay higher.¹⁰ Licensed electricians and doctors, for example, often push to keep rules that limit competition from unlicensed rivals.⁴
Subsidies, tariffs, and quotas
Subsidies, taxes on imports, and limits on how much can be brought in from abroad all move wealth from taxpayers and shoppers toward one favored industry.¹,⁴ Once an industry wins that kind of protection, it spends real effort to defend it. The cost to everyone else goes beyond the wealth that changes hands, because the time, talent, and money poured into the fight could have gone into making something useful instead.⁶
Why does rent-seeking happen?
Rent-seeking is usually less about corruption and more about incentives. When bending the rules pays well, people and firms will try to bend them.⁵ A few conditions make this much more likely.
Concentrated benefits, scattered costs
The economist Mancur Olson explained the core reason in 1965. Small groups with a shared interest organize far more easily than large ones, because in a small group each member's stake is big enough to make acting worthwhile. In a large group, each person's share is too small to justify the effort of acting, and most people assume someone else will act.¹¹
Imagine a rule that adds a few cents to the price of sugar. A handful of sugar producers each stand to gain a great deal, so they organize and lobby hard. The millions of shoppers who each lose only a dollar or two a year have little reason to notice or push back. The small, motivated group wins, and the scattered majority stays quiet.
The knowledge gap
Most voters do not closely follow every policy. When the cost of a specific policy is spread across many people, it often attracts less public attention, making its details less likely to be closely examined. Tullock built this into his model of politics, where well-organized groups win out over what he called rationally ignorant voters, people who sensibly choose not to track every issue.⁵
The size and reach of government
The more a government gets to decide which businesses succeed and which fail, the more useful it becomes to influence it. As the number of rules, licenses, and subsidies grows, so does the reward for anyone who can get them changed in their favor. Krueger's research showed how big that reward can get. In some heavily regulated economies, the rents created were worth a large share of everything the country produced in a year.¹
What does rent-seeking cost?
As we've seen, rent-seeking adds nothing to an economy. The bigger problem is that the competition itself wastes resources. Time, talent, and money go into chasing and defending privileges instead of making goods and services, and as Gordon Tullock argued, those resources could have been put to productive use instead.², ⁶ The effort produces nothing new, so the loss is real, and it can be surprisingly large.
Wasted resources and slower growth
The amount of resources consumed by this competition can be surprisingly large. A 1988 study estimated that more than 20 percent of the United States' annual output was spent on competing over the distribution of real resources, which is much higher than economists had previously estimated.²
There is also a long-term cost. If lobbying for favors brings greater benefits than improving products or services, companies are more likely to invest in lobbying, which weakens economic growth. Economists Kevin Murphy, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny argued that this helps explain why some countries grow rich while others stay poor.²
The lobbying puzzle
If a political favor can be worth billions, you would expect companies to spend huge sums to win it. In reality, they spend much less. Tullock himself found that rent-seeking spending in democracies is not very large.⁴ He offered a few reasons. First, rent-seeking is often done in roundabout ways to keep it out of voters' sight. Second, the more a group spends, the smaller its extra returns become. Third, some people simply find the activity distasteful.⁵
But small spending does not mean a small cost to society. Tullock pointed out that the real cost includes the money spent by everyone chasing the favor, not just the winner. As he put it, the cost of a football pool is not the price of the winning ticket, but the price of all the tickets bought.⁶ Favors are also often handed out through less efficient means, such as strict limits on imports rather than a simple tax, and these can absorb considerable resources on their own.⁵
Final thoughts: why rent-seeking still matters
Rent-seeking is a useful idea because it puts a price on behavior we usually file away as politics. Lobbying, subsidies, and the shaping of regulation are not only political maneuvers. They are economic activities that consume real resources, and the cost can be measured.², ⁶
The deeper lesson is about design rather than blame. When the rules reward influence, people will seek influence, so the real question is how to build institutions that lower the payoff from chasing privilege while keeping the regulation that genuinely serves the public. Tullock devoted much of his later work to exactly this, looking at how constitutional and institutional design could reduce rent-seeking in society.⁵
For insights into political economy and related fields from our featured Nobel laureates, visit UBS Nobel Perspectives & Economic Views.
Recommended reading about political economy
References
- Krueger AO.The political economy of the rent-seeking society. American Economic Review, 1974.
- Congleton RD. On the emergence of a classic work: a short history of the impact of Gordon Tullock's Welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Public Choice, 2019.
- Murphy KM, Shleifer A, Vishny RW. The allocation of talent: implications for growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991.
- Henderson DR.Rent seeking. Library of Economics and Liberty, 2018.
- Rowley CK.The rent-seeking society: the selected works of Gordon Tullock, volume 5. Liberty Fund, 2005.
- Tullock G. The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 1967.
- Nobel Prize Outreach.Press release. NobelPrize.org, 1986.
- UBS.James M. Buchanan: public choice theory. UBS Nobel Perspectives, 2026.
- Stigler GJ.The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 1971.
- Carrigan C, Coglianese C. Capturing regulatory reality: Stigler's The Theory of Economic Regulation. University of Pennsylvania, 2016.
- Olson M.The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, 1965.