Flawed Economic Models Have Misled RPM Policy: Changes in Canada,Europe and the United States

Some of the influential literature that supports the resale price maintenance efficiency view is flawed when it relies on presale services that do not modify the value-in-use of a good. Crucially, we consider that value-in-use may differ from prepurchase perceived value. We apply the value-in-use standard, which exposes the loss in consumer surplus in Bork’s model and reveals that even Bork’s dissenters significantly underestimate their calculated losses to inframarginal consumers. When consumer surplus is the antitrust/competition policy standard, our results suggest that a rule-of-reason regime where authorities or agencies bear the burden of proof can be unfavourable to consumers.     

Cursed Consumers and the Effectiveness of Consumer Protection Policies*

We model firms' quality disclosure and pricing in the presence of cursed consumers, who fail to be sufficiently skeptical about undisclosed quality. We show that cursed consumers are exploited in duopoly if firms are vertically differentiated, if there are few cursed consumers, and if average product quality is high. Three common consumer protection policies that work under monopoly, that is, mandatory disclosure, third party disclosure and consumer education, may all increase exploitation and decrease welfare. Even where these policies improve welfare, they often lead to a reduction in consumer surplus. Our conclusions hold in extensions with endogenous quality and horizontal differentiation.     

All-pay competition with captive consumers

We study a game in which two firms compete in quality to serve a market consisting of consumers with different initial consideration sets. If both firms invest below a certain threshold, they only compete for those consumers already aware of their existence. Above this threshold, a firm is visible to all and the highest investment attracts all consumers. On the one hand, the existence of initially captive consumers introduces an anti-competitive element: holding fixed the behavior of its rival, a firm with a larger captive segment enjoys a higher payoff from not investing at all. On the other hand, the fact that a firm’s initially captive consumers can still be attracted by very high quality introduces a pro-competitive element: a high investment becomes more profitable for the underdog when the captive segment of the dominant firm increases. The share of initially captive consumers therefore has a non-monotonic effect on the investment levels of both firms and on consumer surplus. We relate our findings to competition cases in digital markets.     

PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN STACKELBERG COMPETITION*

We examine the effects of price discrimination in the Stackelberg competition model for the linear demand case. We show that the leader does not use any price discrimination at all. Rather, the follower does all price discrimination. The leader directs all of its first mover preemptive advantage to attract the highest value consumers who pay a uniformly high price. We observe that profits and total welfare are larger and consumer surplus is smaller than those of the standard Stackelberg competition model.     

Transparency regulation in broadband markets: Lessons from experimental research

This article presents a research project in experimental law and economics about transparency regulation in markets for experience goods, with implications for the implementation of transparency requirements in broadband markets. European and American regulators have introduced transparency policies in the broadband sector, although their effects on market actors are not fully understood. The experiment evaluates the effects of increased transparency on various market outcomes. Four scenarios are compared in which end-users have different amounts of information about quality. Findings of this research suggest that (1) more information about quality leads to higher total surplus and higher consumer surplus; (2) quality provided by firms increases with the level of transparency; and (3) quality and efficiency are marginally higher when full information about quality is only available to some consumers, than when all consumers have imperfect information about quality. To these findings a number of conclusions are attached relevant for broadband policy.     

When cost improvements harm consumers

This paper demonstrates that improving cost efficiency in a vertical structure might sometimes be detrimental to consumers. This is in stark contrast with the standard microeconomics result which suggests that the surplus generated by any efficiency gain in production is shared between firms and final consumers, depending on the degree of market power. These new results may apply in contexts such as the diffusion of knowledge and techniques and governmental intervention through income support programs.      

Market regulation of voluntary add-on contracts

This paper analyzes contract choices and the effectiveness of consumer protection policies when firms can offer voluntary add-on insurance for their products. We develop a model in which a base product can be sold together with a voluntary extended warranty contract that insures consumers against the risk of product breakdown. Some consumers do not pay attention to extended warranties before making base product choices, but overestimate the value of such warranties at the point of sale. Under retail competition, the consumers’ option to buy multiple base products can endogenously create a base price floor that may prevent firms from redistributing the full warranty profits via loss-leadership. Inducing competition in the warranty market weakly increases consumer welfare and weakly outperforms a minimum warranty standard, which can even reduce consumer surplus. The results are consistent with the effects of recent changes regarding extended warranty regulation by UK legislators.     

Oligopoly under incomplete information: On the welfare effects of price discrimination

We study competition by firms that simultaneously post (potentially nonlinear) tariffs to consumers who are privately informed about their tastes. Market power stems from informational frictions, in that consumers are heterogeneously informed about firms’ offers. In the absence of regulation, all firms offer quantity discounts. As a result, relative to Bertrand pricing, imperfect competition benefits disproportionately more consumers whose willingness to pay is high, rather than low. Regulation imposing linear pricing hurts the former but benefits the latter consumers. While consumer surplus increases, firms’ profits decrease, enough to drive down utilitarian welfare. By contrast, improvements in market transparency increase utilitarian welfare, and achieve similar gains on consumer surplus as imposing linear pricing, although with limited distributive impact. On normative grounds, our analysis suggests that banning price discrimination is warranted only if its distributive benefits have a weight on the societal objective.     

An empirical analysis of competitive nonlinear pricing

We estimate a model of competitive nonlinear pricing with multidimensional preference heterogeneity using individual level data on advertisements bought by local businesses (e.g., doctors, electricians) from two Yellow Page Directories in one U.S. city-market. Variation in individual choices and payments allows us to identify the joint density of preferences, marginal costs of publishing and common utility parameters. Our estimates suggest substantial welfare loss due to asymmetric information. Comparing duopoly outcomes with (counterfactual) monopoly outcomes, we find that with less competition (i) producer surplus increases substantially; (ii) more “low-type” consumers are excluded; (iii) product variety increases, but benefits accrue only to the “high-type” consumers; (iv) total consumer surplus decreases; (v) but its distribution, across consumers, does not change.     

Real-Time Pricing and Imperfect Competition in Electricity Markets*

We analyze the effects of the adoption of real-time pricing (RTP) of electricity when generating firms have market power. We find that an increase in consumers on RTP contracts decreases peak prices and increases off-peak prices, increases consumer surplus (both for switching and non-switching consumers) and welfare, while decreasing industry profits, with these effects being magnified by the extent of market power. We illustrate these results by calibrating our model to the New Zealand electricity market, and find that taking into account the market power of generating firms increases the efficiency gains from RTP adoption by 41%.     

Modeling Competition over Multiple Variables under Limited Consumer Awareness*

When analyzing firm competition over two strategic variables (e.g., quality and price), it is important to decide whether to model it as a one-stage or a two-stage game. Our analysis focuses on markets in which consumers are not aware of all alternatives. We find that, if consumers are sufficiently unaware, both the one-stage and the two-stage equilibria of the game that explicitly models limited awareness are close to the one-stage equilibrium of the standard game, which assumes full awareness. Therefore, markets in which consumers have limited awareness can be studied with standard models, provided that the one-stage game is analyzed.     

Information Gathering Externalities for a Multi‐Attribute Good

Most goods and services vary in numerous dimensions. Customers choose to acquire information to assess some characteristics and not others. Their choices affect firms' incentives to invest in quality and so lead to indirect externalities in consumers' choices. We characterize a model in which a monopolist invests in the quality of a product with two characteristics, and consumers are heterogeneous ex‐ante. Consumers do not internalize their influence on the firm's investment incentives when choosing which information to acquire. Cheaper information affects consumers' information gathering and thereby firm investment. This can paradoxically reduce consumer surplus, profits, and welfare.     

Price competition when three are few and four are many

I examine price competition in a market for a homogeneous good when consumers observe prices subject to a random shock (perception error). When firms have symmetric costs, there exists a unique equilibrium in pure strategies, which is symmetric. When there are up to three sellers in the market, the sellers extract the entire consumer surplus. However, with at least four firms, assuming that the marginal cost is sufficiently low relative to consumers’ valuation, both consumers and producers may enjoy a positive surplus. The marginal-cost pricing is never observed in an equilibrium with finitely many firms. Potential policy implications are discussed.     

Buyer power through the differentiation of suppliers

This paper argues that rival retailers may choose to differentiate their supplying producers, even at the expense of downgrading the quality of the product offered to consumers, to improve their buyer power. We show that, through the differentiation of suppliers, a retailer may obtain a larger slice of a smaller pie, i.e, smaller bilateral joint profits. Thus, the “only” purpose of differentiation is to gain increasing buyer power. This result may hold (i) when retailers compete in the final market or (ii) when retailers are active in separate markets. The differentiation of suppliers, which results from a buyer power motive, may be harmful for consumer surplus and social welfare.     

Aftermarket power and foremarket competition

I revisit the issue of aftermarkets by developing an infinite period model with overlapping consumers. If the aftermarket is characterized by constant returns to scale, then social surplus and consumer surplus are invariant with respect to aftermarket power. Under increasing returns to scale, however, greater aftermarket power leads to: greater concentration in the foremarket; higher barriers to entry; higher social surplus; and possibly higher consumer surplus.     

Digital monopolies: Privacy protection or price regulation?

Increasing returns to scale in data gathering and processing give rise to a new form of monopoly, referred to here as digital monopoly. Digital monopolies create new challenges for regulators and antitrust authorities. We address two in this paper: market power arising from improved match values and from reduced privacy. The digital monopoly’s profit and social surplus always increase as privacy decreases. However, consumer surplus is non-monotone in privacy. Without privacy, the match value is perfect but completely extracted by the digital monopoly. In contrast, as privacy goes to infinity, match values and social surplus go to zero. With regulated prices, consumer surplus is maximized without privacy protection. As with natural monopolies, price regulation thus remains an appropriate tool in the digital age to capture the social benefits from increasing returns to scale without harming consumers.     

Price Discrimination with Demarketing

We study how demarketing interacts with pricing decisions to explain why and when it can be employed as the seller's optimal strategy. In our model, a monopolistic seller offers different price‐quality bundles of the product. A consumer's preference is private information. With demarketing, consumers must make a costly effort to purchase and/or utilize the product, whereas with marketing, the seller instead makes the effort so that the consumer's purchasing decision is independent of the cost of effort. Our result suggests that, for small or large effort costs, it is optimal for the seller to engage in marketing. For intermediate effort costs, however, demarketing can be optimal. With demarketing, the seller induces only the consumers with high valuation to make transaction effort. By doing so, the seller can price discriminate more effectively, thus extracting more surplus. We extend our analysis to the case where the seller can offer special deals through exclusive sales channels along with demarketing. Then, demarketing can be optimal even for large costs of effort.     

Can collusion promote sustainable consumption and production?

Several competition authorities consider the exemption of horizontal agreements among firms from antitrust liability if the agreements sufficiently promote public interest objectives such as sustainable consumption and production. We show that when consumers value sustainable products and firms choose investments in sustainability before choosing output or prices, coordination of output choices or prices boosts investments in sustainability and may even enhance consumer surplus when products are sufficiently close substitutes and the marginal cost of investment in sustainability is relatively low. By contrast, coordination of investments in sustainability leads to lower investments and harms consumers.     

An Empirical Analysis of Global Airline Alliances: Cases in North Atlantic Markets

This paper empirically investigatesthe effects on air fares, passenger volume, andconsumer surplus of four major alliances in NorthAtlantic aviation markets. The four alliances areBritish Airways/USAir, Delta/Sabena/Swissair,KLM/Northwest, and Lufthansa/United Airlines. We findthat equilibrium passenger volume increased by some36,000 passengers annually and equilibrium air faresdecreased by an average of $41 on the routes servedby the allying carriers, and that consumers weregenerally better off due to the alliances.     

Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control

This paper considers the political economy environment that an antitrust agency is operating in and asks under what circumstances a consumer surplus standard yields higher welfare than a welfare standard. In particular, we address how institutional settings—such as transparency and accountability—interact with the choice of an appropriate standard. We consider a framework in which the antitrust agency can be influenced by third parties (at a cost in terms of real resources) and in which the agency is imperfectly monitored. A welfare comparison between the two standards reveals that neither standard dominates. The consumer surplus standard is attractive relative to a welfare standard, when lobbying is efficient, when accountability is low, where mergers are large and when a marginal increase in merger size is highly profitable.