Syracuse University
A subsidy generally affects a market by reducing the price paid by
buyers and increasing the quantity sold. Subsidies are usually
pareto inefficient because they cost more than they deliver in
benefits.
To see why, start with a market without a subsidy. The market would reach an equilibrium where the
demand curve intersects the pre-tax supply curve, which is given by the
sellers' willingness to accept (W2A). The price would be Po and the
quantity would be Qo (o for original). Graphically, the equilibrium would look as follows:

Now suppose the government begins subsidizing sellers by paying them Z dollars per unit sold. Suppliers now receive a total of Pn+Z for each unit: the amount paid by the buyer plus the amount of subsidy provided by the government. They sell until:
Pn + Z = W2A
or
Pn = W2A - Z
Thus, the supply curve changes as shown in the diagram below:

The effect of the subsidy is that sellers can now charge Z less then their W2A because the government is going to make up the difference. The price falls to Pn and the quantity rises to Qn. Sellers get to keep Pn+Z.
The
sellers gain area A in new producer surplus. The buyers, who now
pay a lower price, gain area B in consumer surplus. However, the
total cost of the subsidy to the government is Z*Qn, which is equal to
areas A+B+C. The subsidy thus costs C dollars more than the
benefits it delivers. It is pareto inefficient, and area C is deadweight loss.