Pricing inputs to induce efficient Make-or-Buy decisions

We investigate input pricing regimes that induce efficient Make-or-Buy decisions by entrants when there is constant returns in the production of the input(s) and simultaneous noncooperative price competition in downstream retail markets. Necessary and sufficient conditions for efficient Make-or-Buy decisions are derived. The necessary condition shows that input prices are relevant for Make-or-Buy decisions except under restrictive and often unverifiable assumptions on the demand structure, and that the least informationally-demanding way to ensure efficient Make-or-Buy decisions is to price inputs at marginal cost provided changes in the entrant’s cost have a “normal” effect on the entrant’s profit. The conditions also show that pricing the incumbent’s input at the entrant’s marginal cost always ensures efficient Make- or-Buy decisions. The extent to which input prices can depart from marginal cost while still inducing efficient Make-or-Buy decisions increases with the efficiency differential between the incumbent and entrant and with the demand displacement ratio.      

On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions

The most fundamental proposition about growth and competition is that there is a tradeoff between static welfare and long-term growth. This paper reconsiders this basic proposition in an expanding variety endogenous growth model with competitive markets for “old” innovative products and for a traditional good. We shed light on some implications of monopolistic distortions which tend to be ignored by standard models. First, no growth may be better than some growth, since modest positive growth potentially requires sizeable static welfare losses. Second, the economy may converge to a steady state with zero growth, even though a locally saddle-point stable steady state with positive growth exists if the initial share of “cheap” competitive markets is sufficiently high, as this implies a relatively low demand for “expensive” innovative goods. Third, such a “no-growth trap” may happen in a world economy made up of several countries engaged in free trade with each other. The policy implications are that growth-enhancing policies may be misguided and that quick deregulation as well as quick trade liberalization can lead to stagnation in the long term.      

IMPERFECT SUBSTITUTES FOR PERFECT COMPLEMENTS: SOLVING THE ANTICOMMONS PROBLEM

An integrated monopoly, where two complements forming a composite good are offered by a single firm, is typically welfare superior to a complementary monopoly. This is ‘the tragedy of the anticommons’. We analyse the robustness of such result when competition is introduced for one or both complements. Particularly, competition in only one of the two markets may be welfare superior to an integrated monopoly if and only if the substitutes differ in their quality so that, as their number increases, average quality and/or quality variance increases. Then, absent an adequate level of product differentiation, favouring competition in some sectors while leaving monopolies in others may be detrimental for consumers and producers alike. Instead, competition in both markets may be welfare superior if goods are close substitutes and their number in each market is sufficiently high, no matter the degree of product differentiation.     

Oil explains all: desirable organisation of the Russian fuel markets (on the data of three waves of antitrust cases against oil companies)

This article considers the mutual influence of antitrust enforcement in the petroleum product markets and competition legislation in Russia. An analysis of infringement decisions by the Russian competition authority allows us to understand the perceived goals of economic policy in this sector. The shift from antitrust investigations and infringement decisions to a very specific set of remedies is explained by the desire to maintain low retail prices under increasing concentration without price subsidisation or promotion of entry at the refining stage of the value chain. The article highlights the specific use of antitrust legislation to maintain low fuel prices and support independent retailing companies. We also note the limitation this policy faces. The goals and effects of antitrust enforcement in the industry explain, in turn, the specific path of competition legislation development in Russia.     

Price cap regulation of a dominant firm facing competition

Price cap regulation is typically applied to natural monopolies operating with subadditive costs. Price caps are known to provide superior incentives for the regulated monopoly to pursue cost reduction and, in a multiservice/product context, undertake welfare enhancing price discrimination. It is well known that capping a Laspeyres index of the firm’s prices induces the monopoly to charge socially optimal “Ramsey” prices in the long run. This paper examines the suitability of the Laspeyres form of regulation when the regulated firm faces competition in the market for one of its services (outputs). We present the appropriately modified Ramsey pricing rule for the regulated dominant firm and demonstrate that capping a Laspeyres index of the dominant firm’s prices leads to prices that satisfy this pricing rule in the long run.     

Economic Growth and (Re-)Distributive Policies in a Non-cooperative World

Many models show that redistribution is bad for growth. This paper argues that in a non-cooperative world optimizing, redistributing (“left-wing”) governments mimic non-redistributing (“right-wing”) policies for fear of capital loss if capital markets become highly integrated and the countries are technologically similar. “Left-right” competition leads to more redistribution and lower GDP growth than “left-left” competition. Efficiency differences allow for higher GDP growth and more redistribution than one's opponent. Irrespective of efficiency differences, however, “left-wing” governments have higher GDP growth when competing with other “left-wing” governments. The results may explain why one observes a positive correlation between redistribution and growth across countries, and why capital inflows and current account deficits may be good for relatively high growth.     

FDI and environmental regulation: pollution haven or a race to the top?

Increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) flows accompanied with globalization have raised the concern of a “race to the bottom” phenomenon in environmental protection. This is because footloose investors of “dirty” industries tend to relocate to “pollution havens” of the developing world. However when pollutant is transboundary (as in the case of greenhouse gases), the source country’s incentive to relocate and the recipient country’s willingness to host such industries are not straightforward. This article studies the relationship between FDI and environmental regulation using a North–South market share game model in a two-country setting, when pollution is transboundary. Contrary to the pollution haven hypothesis, our model shows that if market sizes of the two countries are small, FDI will raise the emission standard of the host country, resulting in a “race-to-the-top” phenomenon; but if market sizes are large enough, FDI will not change the emission standard of the South (from its laxest form), a finding that is consistent with the “regulatory chill” argument. Equilibrium FDI is contingent on the fixed cost of FDI, as the traditional proximity–concentration tradeoff theory predicts.     

Competition in telecommunication networks with call externalities

This paper describes a model involving two interconnected networks offering different degrees of quality. In these networks, there are call externalities enabling consumers to assess the quality of the calls they send and receive. Networks compete in two-part tariffs. Our aim is to show that the “profit neutrality” result no longer applies due to network asymmetry and call externalities. In the case of non reciprocal access charges, call externalities generate private incentives enabling each competitor to charge low access prices. This reduces the risk of tacit collusion as competitors are free to negotiate their access charges.      

A modified yardstick competition mechanism

This paper expands Shleifer’s (Rand J Econ 16:319–327, 1985) theory of yardstick competition and develops a modified yardstick competition mechanism (MYC), where the yardstick employed consists of a tariff basket and total costs. This mechanism has a significant information advantage: the regulator “only” needs to observe total costs, prices and output of all firms. The MYC mechanism can ensure a socially optimal outcome when allowing for spatial and second degree price discrimination. We also introduce regulatory lags to the model. In addition, we compare the two approaches for the case of unobserved firm heterogeneity, and provide numerical estimations of the effects. The MYC mechanism fares better in the case of unobserved heterogeneity, and may thus be a useful extension of Shleifer’s yardstick mechanism.      

Is more competition conducive to the macroeconomic performance in the euro area?

One of the main goals of the European Union, laid down, inter alia, in the Lisbon Strategy and in the “Europe 2020” Strategy, is to raise employment. One important means of supporting the creation of new jobs is to increase competition. In this paper, it is shown that on average the mark-up, i.e. the deviation of prices from marginal cost in the euro area still exceeds the levels observed in the UK and in the US. After completion of the Single Market Programme in 1993, the mark-up has declined in the euro area and even more in the UK. Nevertheless, there is a strong cross-country variation between Member States, with a particularly high mark-up ratio found for Italy. Panel estimations show that total factor productivity growth, labour productivity growth and the labour market performance in the euro area could be improved by reducing the mark-up. This could be achieved by a proper institutional design. More competition could indeed improve the macroeconomic performance.     

Over- and under-investment according to different benchmarks

In a two-stage oligopoly, with investment in the first stage and quantity or price competition in the second stage, there is a “Common Wisdom” Theorem which states that we find over-investment if the goods are substitutes and competition is in strategic substitutes, or if goods are complements and competition is in strategic complements, and that we find under-investment if we have complements and strategic substitutes or substitutes and strategic complements. The existing literature, however, lacks a proof of this theorem and, in particular, it lacks a systematic comparison of the different benchmarks for over- and under-investment. A “naive” benchmark is the cost efficient investment with respect to the subgame perfect (closed loop) equilibrium quantities. Alternative benchmarks (which are more often proposed) are the open loop equilibrium investment or the welfare maximizing investment. The chosen benchmark is critical because the Common Wisdom Theorem applies (under certain conventional conditions) only for the naive benchmark. The other two benchmarks give rise to subcases.     

Economic theory and econometric dynamics in modelling wages and prices in the United Kingdom

We show that a “competing claims” model of imperfect competition can explain the movements of wages and prices in the United Kingdom, using quarterly data covering 1976–93. We argue that careful attention both to economic theory and to the interaction between dynamics and identification is crucial in the building of the model and to dynamic econometric models in general. We use a small numerical example with simulated cointegrated data to illustrate the potential pitfalls. First version received: January 1998/final version received: November 1998     

Are the antiglobalists right? Gains-from-trade without a Walrasian auctioneer

We show that the “fear” of globalisation can be rationalised by economic theory in the standard AD/AS equilibrium model, if we substitute the coordinational role of the Auctioneer by an implementation device based on learning (Guesnerie in Am Econ Rev 82, 1254–1278, 1992). When endowing producers with a learning ability to forecast market prices, individual profit-maximizing production decisions become interdependent in a strategic sense (strategic substitutes). Performing basic comparative statics exercises, we show that “competitiveness” matters in a precise sense: as foreign producers gain access to the home market, home producers’ ability to forecast market prices is undermined, so being their ability to forecast the profit consequences of their production decisions. A standard open economy exercise shows that the efficiency gains triggered by increased competition have to be traded-off against higher uncertainty (a lower likelihood to coordinate upon the welfare enhancing free-trade equilibrium). We interpret it as a new rationale for the existence of barriers to trade targeting coordination, rather than protecting mere inefficient sectors or industries (political economy driven). Finally, we show that classical measures evaluating ex-ante the desirability of economic integration (net welfare gains) do not always advice free trade. I wish to specially thank Roger Guesnerie, Thierry Verdier and an anonymous referee for their helpful suggestions. Comments by Facundo Albornoz, Pol Antràs, Gregory Corcos, Maurice Kugler, Robin Mason, Victor Norman, Emmanuel Ornelas and Susanna Thede are sincerely acknowledged. Audiences at the U. of Alicante, U. Autonoma de Barcelona, ETSG 2005 (Dublin), FGV-EPGE (RJ, Brazil), LACEA 2005 (Paris), the Miwest Trade Meeting at Minneapolis 2007, the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH), SBE 2005 (Natal, Brazil), U. of Southampton and T2M 2005 are acknowledged. The contents constitute chapter 4 of my PSE-EHESS PhD thesis, extended while I visited the NYU Economics department, sponsored by A. Bisin. Financial support from the Bank of Spain and CNRS is sincerely acknowledged.     

Two is not too many for monopoly

Many research contributions have investigated the identity of the leader in oligopolistic markets. As a general rule, this literature points to the leader being either the most efficient, the largest or the best informed player. However, there tend to be exceptions to this rule and it is unclear who will become the leader when firms at the same time are different in size, efficiency of production and/or the quality of the information they have. The present paper reveals insights regarding this last question. As such, it points to the elements that really matter to explain for leadership when firms are different from each other in more than one respect. It turns out that the most efficient firm becomes the leader, regardless whether or not its rival has invested in more capacity. While this result tends to be in line with the previous findings regarding the identity of the leader being the relatively more efficient firm, it contradicts the dominant firm scenario regarding price leadership. This is the result of enlarging the strategy space of the players, by including a buyout option. As such, the paper provides the foundations and hence a theoretical justification for price leadership out of a collusive motive. Since a priori the model also does not exclude a barometric price leadership outcome, it is appropriate to conclude that the buyout option truly is a collusive device strong enough to suppress other reasons for price leadership. Therefore, the arrangements observed in reality aiming at the implementation of buyout possibilities have to be watched very closely from an antitrust perspective.     

Is there a Laffer curve between aggregate output and public sector employment?

This paper develops a model of the relationship between public sector employment, total output and aggregate real demand in market prices, where public employment has a positive productivity effect on private output. Public employment crowds out private employment and output because its increase induces higher wages and taxes. The valuation of government output is also taken into account. While public employment affects total output and aggregate real demand in an a priori ambiguous way, numerical simulations suggest that the relationship may be nonlinear; positive, when public sector is “small” and negative, when it is “large”. Using the annual data from 22 OECD countries over the period 1960–1996 and estimating and testing for threshold models and more commonly used specifications with multiplicative interaction terms give support to this nonlinearity hypothesis between public employment and private sector output. First version received: October 1996/Final version received: April 2000     

Institutional competition among jurisdictions: An evolutionary approach

The purpose of this paper is to outline an evolutionary approach to the process of competition among institutions. We shall focus, in particular, on two issues: first, the role of the competitive process as a knowledge-creating process; and, second, the issue of what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the nature of this process regarding the desirability of its outcomes. In discussing both issues we will draw a parallel between ordinary market competition and competition in the realm of institutions. Some clarifying comments in order to narrow down what we mean by “evolutionary approach” and “institutional competition” precede the analysis. The authors wish to thank Richard Wagner for helpful criticism.     

An experimental investigation of soft price caps in uniform price auction markets for wholesale electricity

This paper presents the results from an auction experiment using industry professionals and student participants who compete in a simulated wholesale market for electricity. Motivated by the intervention by FERC in response to the “meltdown” of the California spot market, we investigate the effect of including a “soft” price cap in a uniform price auction as a means of mitigating high prices. When prices are driven above the soft cap, offer curves become flat, in contrast to the hockey stick shape observed in a typical uniform price auction for electricity. This flat offer curve leads to market prices that are relatively insensitive to both generation costs and demand reductions.      

The Arrow-Debreu model: How math can hide a fatal conceptual error

I argue that math, like love, can cover a multitude of sins, and I use the neoclassical object of adoration, the Arrow-Debreu model, as the case in point. It is commonplace that the Arrow-Debreu (AD) model of general equilibrium does not describe the real world, but it is equally commonplace to accept it as representing the pure logic of the competitive capitalist economy in an idealized world free of transactions costs. I show that the AD model fails even as an idealized model; it actually mistakes the logic of pure capitalism. Unlike McKenzie’s model of idealized general equilibrium under constant returns to scale, Arrow and Debreu claim to have shown the existence of competitive equilibrium under decreasing returns to scale and positive pure profits. The AD model (again unlike the McKinzie model) needs to assign the profits to individuals and this is done using the notion of “ownership of the production set.” But this notion suffers from a fatal ambiguity. If Arrow and Debreu interpret it to mean “ownership of a corporation” then a simple argument in the form “labor can hire capital or capital can hire labor” defeats the alleged necessity of assigning residual claimancy to the corporation. A given corporation may or may not end up exploiting a set of production opportunities (represented by a production set) depending on whether it hires in labor and undertakes production or hires out its capital to others (all by assumption at the parametrically given prices). In the latter case, residual claimancy is elsewhere. There is no such property right as “ownership of a production set” in a private property market economy. The legal party which purchases or already owns all the inputs used up in production has the defensible legal claim on the outputs: there is no need to also “purchase the production set.” At any set of prices that allow positive pure profits, anyone in the idealized AD model could bid up the price of the inputs and thus try to reap a smaller but still positive profit. Therefore,pace Arrow and Debreu, there could be no equilibrium with positive pure profits. In the Appendix, the property rights fallacy that afflicts the AD model is shown to also afflict orthodox capital theory and corporate finance theory. World Bank The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations or to the members of its Board of Directors or the countries they represent.     

Commitment to a strategy of uniform pricing in a two-period duopoly with switching costs

This paper studies decisions by firms of whether to attempt “behavior-based” price discrimination in markets with switching costs by using a two-period duopoly model. When both firms commit themselves to a pricing policy and consumers are “sophisticated” and have rational expectations, there is a dominant strategy equilibrium with both firms engaging in uniform pricing. Both firms are better off in the uniform pricing equilibrium, compared with the discriminatory equilibrium.