Price discrimination using linear and nonlinear pricing simultaneously

Price discrimination practiced by using linear and nonlinear pricing simultaneously raises the average price for heterogenous consumers paying linear price but lowers for homogeneous group who pay nonlinear price. Discrimination lowers consumer surplus for both groups but increases total surplus.     

On the Second-best Policy of Household's Waste Recycling

This study analyzes the second-best household's waste recycling policy. If we assume the first-best economy with no illegal disposal or transaction costs, then unit pricing, an advance disposal fee and a recycling subsidy are required in order to achieve the social optimum such that both the sum of unit pricing and an advance disposal fee and the sum of unit pricing and a recycling subsidy are equal to the marginal disposal cost. Furthermore, the first-best outcome can also be obtained by a producer take-back requirement system.In the real economy, however, various factors prevent the first-best optimal outcome. In this study we consider two factors, one being the transaction cost associated with a recycling subsidy (or refund) and the other being illegal disposal by the consumer. If a recycling subsidy (or a deposit-refund system) is adopted, a transaction cost associated with it will be generated. Alternatively, if unit pricing is adopted, some of the consumed goods may be disposed of illegally. We show the complete trade-off between unit pricing and a recycling subsidy. In other words, we can not adopt unit pricing and a recycling subsidy simultaneously. As a result, there are three candidates for the second-best policy: unit pricing with an advance disposal fee, a deposit-refund system, and a producer take-back requirement system.Which of these three policies is the second-best policy will depend on the relative magnitude of the price of a recycled good and the marginal transaction cost associated with a recycling subsidy (or the refund in a deposit-refund system). Generally, if the price of a recycled good is positive and the marginal transaction cost is relatively high, unit pricing with an advance disposal fee is the second-best policy. However, where the price of a recycled good is negative and the marginal transaction cost is relatively high, a producer take-back requirement system is the second-best policy. Further, where the marginal transaction cost is relatively low, a deposit-refund system is the second-best policy, regardless of whether the price of a recycled good is positive or negative.     

Auctioning Monopoly Franchises: Award Criteria and Rollout Obligations

We study the competition to acquire the exclusive right to operate an utility service, by comparing two specifications for the financial proposals—the fee that the concessionaire will pay to the government and the price that the concessionaire will charge to its customers—and two alternative contractual arrangements, a concession which incorporates the obligation for the franchisee to operate the service immediately after winning the auction, and a contract which simply assigns the right to supply the market. We show that relieving the concessionaire from rollout obligations may either increase or reduce the government’s expected payoff depending on the bidding rule used to allocate the contract. As long as the government is indifferent between maximizing the fiscal revenue and maximizing the consumer surplus, concessioning without imposing rollout time limits and awarding the contract to the bidder offering the highest fee appears to be the best policy option.     

History-based price discrimination and entry in markets with switching costs: A welfare analysis

We analyze history-based price discrimination in an asymmetric industry, where an incumbent, protected by switching costs, faces an entrant who does not have access to information about consumers’ purchase histories. We demonstrate that consumer surplus is higher with uniform pricing than with history-based price discrimination. We find that the entry decision is invariant to whether the incumbent implements history-based pricing or uniform pricing. This implies that the potential abuse of market dominance imposed by history-based price discrimination is exploitation, not exclusion. Finally, we establish that the profit gain to the incumbent from history-based pricing exceeds the associated loss to consumers.     

消费者寻求多样化与企业定价竞争

消费者寻求多样化的购买行为会对寡头企业之间的价格竞争和经济效率产生重要影响。文章研究发现,针对消费者寻求多样化的购买行为,企业会对忠诚的消费者给予价格优惠,而对新顾客索取高价;消费者寻求多样化购买行为弱化了企业两期价格竞争,导致"默契合谋";而以两期统一定价为基准的经济效率分析显示,歧视定价机制促进了企业间竞争,导致消费者剩余增加,企业利润减少。     

Human development and alcohol abuse in adolescence

This article gives some exploratory results from estimating a consumer surplus type equation which features a number of economic and demographic variables as regressors. We calculate an income elasticity for the maximum surplus that individuals would ever perceive themselves to be getting by being allowed to buy at a set price. The results also show that those who attend the cinema are significantly less inclined to generate a surplus in flexible price events markets whilst young adults offer to pay quite a large amount more for their heavily desired entertainment. This suggests that part of the burden of a shift in ticket pricing methods may be borne by the parents of young adults.     

Optimal pricing when rational consumers anticipate monitoring cost

This article considers a monopolistic firm’s optimal pricing decision over two periods among dynamic pricing, preannounced pricing and single pricing. In the models, consumers rationally determine whether to exhibit strategic waiting by weighing their costs against prospectively lower price. Our analysis yields three main results. First, single pricing that completely eliminates strategic waiting surely would be dominated by intertemporal pricing when facing rational consumers. Second, preannounced pricing may actually yield lower revenue than dynamic pricing when considering its effect on the reduction of consumer monitoring cost. Only when monitoring costs under dynamic pricing and under preannounced pricing are equal, is firm revenue weakly greater under preannounced pricing than under dynamic pricing. Third, in dynamic pricing equilibrium, increasing monitoring cost may increase firm revenue, consumer surplus and social welfare simultaneously.     

The economic analysis of lotteries

This paper considers policy issues arising in the design, regulation and taxation of lotteries, focusing on the market for an on-line lottery game. Demand determines who buys lottery tickets and in what quantities. The design of lotteries affects the terms on which tickets are supplied.
UK data suggest that its lottery may be priced too high to maximize lottery revenue – more revenue might be raised if the proportion of sales allocated to tax and other levies were smaller.
Having established the positive economics of lotteries, the paper then assesses their welfare implications. Pari-mutuel lotteries enjoy scale economies and, as natural monopolies, are invariably run either by government agencies or a regulated licensee. I estimate consumer surplus and identify the excess burden that arises from existing (over)taxation of lotteries. The large price elasticity of demand implies that revenue raised from the lottery is raised very inefficiently. Moreover, the demand for lottery tickets is inferior (and there is some evidence that such games are contagious and addictive). So using lotteries as a vehicle for raising revenue is extremely regressive. Finally, I consider other policy implications: induced effects on charitable giving and on other forms of gambling; the impact on the government budget; perceptions of risk; and distributional considerations.     

Nonprofits with distributional objectives: price discrimination and corner solutions

We characterize the patterns of pricing and rationing when paternalistic nonprofit organizations (either private or governmental) care about the level and distribution of consumer surplus provided to their clients. Equilibrium depends upon marginal cost, the organization's distributional weights, exogenous income levels, and cream-skimming by competing for-profit firms. In equilibrium, some consumers pay their reservation price or a lower price above marginal cost, some pay less than marginal cost, some obtain the good for free, and some are not permitted to buy the good at any acceptable price. Comparative statics here differs from that for output or profit maximizers, with discontinuous price schedules shifting abruptly when exogenous income changes.     

Price-Cap Regulation and Inefficiency in Relative Pricing

The allocative efficiency properties of three price-cap schemes are compared. The scheme that uses lagged quantities in the price index and has a fixed cap works well when the firm is myopic but generates inefficient relative prices otherwise. With myopia prices are efficient and welfare is higher than with equal pricing, but the gain to the firm comes at the expense of lower consumer surplus. When the firm is not myopic pricing can be so inefficient that steady-state welfare is below the no-regulation level.     

Complementarity of willingness to pay and cost heterogeneity under vertical product differentiation: A welfare analysis

Due to the fact that a consumer’s willingness to pay differs between segments, many unregulated industries are price constrained, although the specific costs of market segments also differ. If the product quality is endogenously chosen, we find that third-degree price discrimination increases welfare if a sufficiently pronounced complementarity between the willingness to pay and variable cost heterogeneity is given. This is due to the fact that the monopolist’s incentive for employing a pronounced price dispersion strategy is directly influenced by the consumers’ willingness to pay for the quality of a product. With endogenous product quality, the paper shows that the standard welfare result of third-degree price discrimination compared to uniform monopoly pricing (e.g. that total welfare and consumer surplus both fall if total output does not rise) can be only reversed given the complementarity is sufficiently pronounced.     

Lottery or waiting-line auction?

This paper studies the efficiencies of the two most widely used non-price allocation mechanisms: lotteries and waiting-line auctions. As our analysis suggests, in addition to the fairness of the mechanism, the use of lotteries in lieu of waiting-line auctions can be also justified from an efficiency point of view. In particular, we show that the less dispersed consumers’ time valuations are, the more efficient is a lottery relative to a waiting-line auction. In addition, we identify four conditions under which a lottery dominates a waiting-line auction in expected social surplus preserving. Furthermore, the numerical simulations we conduct indicate that over a predominantly wide range of circumstances, a lottery is more socially efficient than a waiting-line auction as an allocative mechanism in the absence of a conventional price system.     

Utility Regulation and Risk Allocation: The Roles of Marginal Cost Pricing and Futures Markets

The effects on consumer welfare of requiring a utility facing cost or demand risk to use either a fixed retail price or marginal cost pricing are assessed. With marginal cost pricing and cost volatility an efficient futures market allows consumer welfare to be at least as high in every state as with the fixed price. With demand risk marginal cost pricing can benefit the consumer in every state without harming the firm if the profit difference is transferred to the consumer. A futures market can act as a partial replacement for the transfer.     

Bidding in an Electricity Pay-as-Bid Auction

One of the main elements of the recent reform of electricity trading in the United Kingdom is the change from a uniform price auction in the wholesale market to discriminatory pricing. We analyze this change under two polar market structures (perfectly competitive and monopolistic supply), with demand uncertainty. We find that under perfect competition there is a trade-off between efficiency and consumer surplus between the two auction rules. We also establish that a move from uniform to discriminatory pricing under monopoly conditions has a negative impact on profits and output (weakly), a positive impact on consumer surplus, and ambiguous implications for welfare and average prices.     

电信竞争、呼叫外部性与接听方付费

该文扩展了 Joen-Laffont-Tirole(2002)文章的模型,考察了在呼叫方与接听方合作决定通话长度条件下电信运营商的竞争策略.当引入接听方付费和呼叫外部性的假设进入电信竞争模型时,在线性定价条件下,电信运营商制定的呼叫价格与接听价格仍然随着网络替代程度的增加而减少,但是电信运营商不再能够利用接入费来进行合谋.在非线性定价条件下,电信运营商竞争策略是制定使消费者剩余最大化的呼叫价格与接听价格,然后利用固定费榨取消费者剩余.在基于网络的价格歧视条件下,与 Joen-Laffont-Tirole(2002)模型相比较,由于通话时间由消费者合作决定,因此电信运营商将通过固定费进行市场份额的争夺,从而导致按边际成本定价,网络联接并没有因为电信运营商的竞争策略而发生中断.     

The Incremental Surplus Subsidy and rate-of-return regulation

Sappington and Sibley (1988) propose an alternative regulatory mechanism, the Incremental Surplus Subsidy (ISS), that would induce the regulated firm to set price at marginal cost and eliminate all waste. The ISS would give the firm a subsidy equal to the one-period gain in consumer surplus resulting from its pricing decision. This article shows that the ISS does not induce greater production efficiency than traditional rate-of-return (ROR) regulation. The author proposes a super-ISS mechanism that would give the firm a subsidy greater than the gain in consumer surplus resulting from its pricing decisions. This super-ISS mechanism is shown to result in greater benefits than either ISS or ROR regulation.     

Efficiency Defense in EU and US Horizontal Merger Control if Costs are Endogenous

If fixed costs are endogenous, following from profit maximization, horizontal mergers are always profitable. They cause the price to rise and consumer surplus to decrease. A case of horizontal merger in which, according to the requirement of US and EU Merger Guidelines for an efficiency defense to be acceptable, the price declines or remains constant does not exist and therefore cannot be expected by profit maximizing partners to arise following a merger. Merger control should be guided by focusing on total welfare. Permitting cooperation in R&D, although profitable, is likely to be detrimental to welfare.     

Transfer Pricing Rules,OECD Guidelines,and Market Distortions

We study the impact of transfer pricing rules on prices, firms' organizational structure, and consumers' utility in a two‐country monopolistic competition model with source‐based profit taxes. Firms can either be multinationals and serve the foreign market through a fully controlled affiliate, or be exporters and serve the foreign market by contracting with an independent distributor. The use of the OECD's comparable uncontrolled transfer price (CUP) rule distorts firms' output and pricing decisions, because the comparable arm's length transactions between exporters and distributors—which serve as the benchmark—are not efficient. We show that the CUP rule is detrimental to consumers in the low‐tax country, yet benefits consumers in the high‐tax country when compared to the benchmark of unconstrained profit shifting. Using the OECD rule increases tax revenue at the expense of consumer surplus. Those results also hold under the alternative cost‐plus transfer pricing rule.     

Rethinking real-time electricity pricing

Most US consumers are charged a near-constant retail price for electricity, despite substantial hourly variation in the wholesale market price. This paper evaluates the first program to expose residential consumers to hourly real-time pricing (RTP). I find that enrolled households are statistically significantly price elastic and that consumers responded by conserving energy during peak hours, but remarkably did not increase average consumption during off-peak times. The program increased consumer surplus by $10 per household per year. While this is only one to two percent of electricity costs, it illustrates a potential additional benefit from investment in retail Smart Grid applications, including the advanced electricity meters required to observe a household’s hourly consumption.     

SOCIALLY OPTIMAL SUBSIDIES FOR ENTRY: THE CASE OF MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HMOs*

The U.S. Medicare program has increased its spending on private Medicare plans in anticipation of larger consumer surplus and higher efficiency. To evaluate the welfare consequences of such policy interventions, I develop an empirical model with endogenous entry. Counterfactual simulation reveals the following: subsidizing HMO entry can be justified to enhance national welfare (no excessive entry); the level of price subsidies in 2008, however, is far beyond the optimal level; and the geographic inconsistency between the subsidies and the Medicare fee‐for‐service costs is another source of inefficiency. Resolving this geographic inconsistency significantly raises national welfare by restructuring entry.