Contestability, Complementary Inputs and Contracting: The Case of Harbour Towage

It has been argued that competitive tendering for contracts can be used to overcome problems of natural monopoly and to make markets 'contestable'. The recent Productivity Commission (2002) report into harbour towage in Australia noted the potential benefits of competition for contracts. Using the example of harbour towage, we investigate these claims when competitive tendering involves one segment of a vertical production chain. We show that direct customer contracting will not result in a perfectly contestable outcome if there is a complementary input provider with market power. We consider whether this situation improves when customers delegate the contracting process. Delegation only improves the outcome from the customers' perspective if the authority is able to receive side payments from the towage operators. Such side payments a priori would appear to be against the interests of the customers. We show, however, that side payments help the port authority to overcome the problems of market power, benefiting both the port authority and the customers. Further, these contracting outcomes are socially preferred to the unregulated outcome where port authorities and towage operators set prices and quality independently. This analysis sheds light and generally supports the Productivity Commission's recommendations.     

利用统计学方法建立消费信贷评分模型

本文以消费者信用贷款客户为研究对象,从中抽取正常户与违约户的背景资料,利用SPSS统计软件包和Logistic模型探讨影响消费者信用贷款客户的关键因素,并建立消费者信用贷款信用评分模型。     

QUALITY COMPETITION WITH STOCHASTIC DEMAND AND COSTLY SEARCH: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM THE VIDEO RENTAL MARKET

A theoretical model is developed to predict optimal service rates in markets where firms compete in availability. We show that firms are more likely to stock-out of popular products as the cost of consumer search increases. Carlton (1978) showed that, in a zero-profit competitive environment, firms balance the risk of not being able to serve a particular customer against the cost of holding excess capacity and that this balancing act will result in an equilibrium in which not all customers are served. The model was later adapted to oligopolistic competition by Peters (1984) and Deneckere and Peck (1995) . This paper extends this literature on competition under stochastic demand by developing a model that incorporates 1) the possibility that customers may be able to purchase from another firm in the case of a stock-out and 2) the option for firms to offer an imperfect substitute in order to persuade some customers to make a purchase when the first choice product is out of stock. Empirical evidence is presented in support of the theoretical model using data collected from video rental outlets in a midsize southeastern US city.     

Self-Regulation and Government Oversight

Self-regulation is a feature of a number of professions. For example, in the U.S. the government delegates aspects of financial market regulation to self-regulatory organizations (SROs) like the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers. We analyse one regulatory task of an SRO, enforcing antifraud rules so agents will not cheat customers. Specifically, we model contracting/enforcement as a two-tier problem. An SRO chooses its enforcement policy: the likelihood that an agent is investigated for fraud and a penalty schedule. Given an enforcement policy, agents compete by offering contracts that maximize customers' expected utility. We assume that the SRO's objective is to maximize the welfare of its members, the agents. We show that the SRO chooses a more lax enforcement policy—meaning less frequent investigations—than what customers would choose. A general conclusion is that control of the enforcement policy governing contracts confers substantial market power to a group of otherwise competitive agents. We also investigate government oversight of the self-regulatory process. The threat of government enforcement leads to more enforcement by the SRO, just enough to pre-empt any government enforcement.     

An evolutionary analysis of insurance markets with adverse selection

The equilibrium nonexistence problem in Rothschild and Stiglitz's insurance market is reexamined in a dynamic setting. Insurance firms are boundedly rational and offer menus of insurance contracts which are periodically revised: profitable competitors' contracts are imitated and loss-making contracts are withdrawn. Occasionally, a firm experiments by withdrawing or innovating a random set of contracts. We show that Rothschild and Stiglitz's candidate competitive equilibrium contracts constitute the unique long-run market outcome if innovation experiments are restricted to contracts which are sufficiently “similar” to those currently on the market.     

Relational Political Contribution under Common Agency

Motivated by commitment problems of contracts in lobbying, this paper studies a model of a repeated common agency where monetary transfers must be voluntary. First, we show that the optimal punishment strategy for a principal takes a two‐phase scheme, which is similar to the punishment characterized by Goldlücke and Kranz. Second, we investigate whether an outcome of standard menu auctions with binding contracts can be supported by implicit contracts. We define the environment to be more preference‐diverse if an efficient decision is less attractive to each principal. We show that the discount factor must be high to support the outcome of the standard menu auction if the environment is preference‐diversified.     

Cumulative offer process is order-independent

This note shows that in the matching-with contracts model, the outcome of the cumulative offer process is order-independent if every hospital has a choice function that satisfies the bilateral substitutability condition and the irrelevance of rejected contracts condition.     

Price discrimination and price dispersion in a duopoly

This paper analyses the problem of price discrimination in a market where consumers have heterogeneous preferences both over a horizontal parameter (brand) and a vertical one (quality). Discriminatory contracts are characterized for different market structures. It is shown that price dispersion, i.e. the observed range of prices for each class of customers, increases almost everywhere as competition is introduced in the market.     

Do consumers pay voluntarily? The case of online music

The paper analyses the payment behaviour of customers of the online music label Magnatune. Customers may pay what they want for albums, as long as the payment is within a given price range ($5–$18). Magnatune's comprehensive pre-purchase access facilitates music discovery and allows an informed buying decision setting it apart from conventional online music stores.On average customers pay $8.20, far more than the minimum of $5 and even higher than the recommended price of $8. We analyse the relationship between artists/labels and customers in online music. We consider social preferences, in particular concerns for reciprocity. The resulting sequential reciprocity equilibrium corresponds to the observed pattern of behaviour.We conclude that Magnatune's open contracts design can encourage people to make voluntary payments and may be a viable business option.     

Switching costs and implicit contracts

When firms can discriminate between old and new customers and when multiperiod binding commitments are too costly, the effects of switching costs may be mitigated thanks to implicit contracts offered (competitively) by firms in equilibrium and backed by reputation.     

Double Moral Hazard,Monitoring, and the Nature of Contracts

generalized double-sided moral-hazard model, with risk-averse parties who mutually monitor each other (to get a reasonable idea of outcome/effort). The model considers trade-off between monitoring costs and moral hazard costs, which are endogenously determined by the extent of monitoring. Using this model, we formally prove a generalized version of Coase's conjecture – that the optimal contract minimizes the agency and risk costs. We then show how varying assumptions about the feasibility or cost of monitoring of the outcome or the worker's effort lead to different contracts being optimal. The analysis is then used to explain the nature of contracts observed in practice under many different situations. We will give an explanation as to why industrial workers typically work under wage contracts, while share contracts are common in agriculture and will explain why profit sharing is more common for senior managers than for the production workers. Received September 19, 2000; revised version received October 30, 1997     

Sequential Equilibrium and Competition in a Diamond–Dybvig Banking Model

Within the framework of a Diamond–Dybvig model [J. Polit. Econ.91(1983), 401–419], but with explicitly modelling the autarky choice during the planning period, we demonstrate that a mixed strategy bank run equilibrium that does not rely on sunspots may coexist with the sunspot run equilibrium previously studied in the literature. In a version of the model with multiple banks, there exist sequential equilibria that imply positive profits. However, the zero-profit contract in which runs never occur can be supported as the unique equilibrium outcome if the agents play pure strategies only and their beliefs are restricted to be consistennt with a forward induction argument.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C72, G21     

Efficient political contributions with conditional Coasian contracts

The externalities associated with political contributions imply agents choose a socially inefficient level. A typical market solution to these externalities would involve Coase bargaining where agents form contracts with payments conditional on the actions of others. These contracts, however, are hard to enforce because political contributions can be unobservable or unmeasurable. In this study, we modify these Coasian contracts, making the payments conditional on the outcome of the political election. We show the agents that form these contracts contribute the socially efficient amount.     

A GAME THEORETIC FOUNDATION OF COMPETITIVE EQUILIBRIA WITH ADVERSE SELECTION

We construct an extensive form game that captures competitive markets with adverse selection. It allows firms to offer any finite set of contracts, so that cross‐subsidization is not ruled out. Moreover, firms can withdraw from the market after initial contract offers have been observed. We show that a subgame perfect equilibrium always exists. In fact, when withdrawal is costless, the set of equilibrium outcomes may correspond to the entire set of feasible contracts. We then focus on robust equilibria that continue to exist for small withdrawal costs. We show that the Miyazaki–Wilson contracts are the unique robust equilibrium outcome.     

Bertrand Games and Sharing Rules

We consider asymmetric Bertrand games with arbitrary payoffs at ties or sharing rules, and identify sufficient conditions for the zero-profit outcome and the existence of Nash equilibria. Subject to some technical conditions on non-tied payoffs the following hold. If the sharing rule is strictly tie-decreasing all players but one receive zero equilibrium payoffs, while everybody does so if non-tied payoffs are symmetric. Mixed (pure) strategy Nash equilibria exist if the sharing rule is (norm) tie-decreasing and coalition-monotone. I would like to thank Fernando Branco, the audience at Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona), ISEG (Lisbon), University of Mannheim, ESEM 2003 (Venice), EARIE 2005 (Porto), two anonymous referees, and the editor Dan Kovenock for very useful comments. This research received financial support under project POCTI/ECO/37925/2001 of FCT and FEDER.     

Unobservable Contracts as Precommitments

It is well known that signing publicly observable contracts with third parties is a means of credibly committing to certain actions and hence may yield strategic advantages. Previous work on the commitment value of unobservable contracts has been limited to normal form games and extensive form games in which only one party has the option to sign a contract. In this paper, we extend the analysis to extensive form games in which both players can sign contracts, and characterize the set of sequential equilibria. We show that any Nash equilibrium outcome of the original game in which both players receive more than their individually rational payoffs can be supported as a sequential equilibrium outcome. Therefore, delegation acts not only as a commitment device to gain advantage over the opponent, but also as a cooperative device to attain Pareto improvements over the subgame perfect equilibrium outcome. I would like to thank Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Jean-Pierre Benoit, Alberto Bisin, Boyan Jovanovic, Ehud Kalai, Giuseppe Lopomo, George Mailath, Efe Ok, Ariel Rubinstein, Andy Schotter, seminar participants at various universities and conferences, and anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. Support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Program for Economic Research at Columbia University is also gratefully acknowledged.     

Strategic Delegation By Unobservable Incentive Contracts

Many strategic interactions in the real world take place among delegates empowered to act on behalf of others. Although there may be a multitude of reasons why delegation arises in reality, one intriguing possibility is that it yields a strategic advantage to the delegating party. In the case where only one party has the option to delegate, we analyse the possibility that strategic delegation arises as an equilibrium outcome under completely unobservable incentive contracts within the class of two-person extensive form games. We show that delegation may arise solely due to strategic reasons in quite general economic environments even under unobservable contracts. Furthermore, under some reasonable restrictions on out-of-equilibrium beliefs and actions of the outside party, strategic delegation is shown to be the only equilibrium outcome.     

Strategic network formation through peering and service agreements

We introduce a game theoretic model of network formation in an effort to understand the complex system of business relationships between various Internet entities (e.g., Autonomous Systems, enterprise networks, residential customers). In our model we are given a network topology of nodes and links where the nodes act as the players of the game, and links represent potential contracts. Nodes wish to satisfy their demands, which earn potential revenues, but may have to pay their neighbors for links incident to them. We incorporate some of the qualities of Internet business relationships, including customer–provider and peering contracts. We show that every Nash equilibrium can be represented by a circulation flow of utility with certain constraints. This allows us to prove bounds on the prices of anarchy and stability. We also focus on the quality of equilibria achievable through centralized incentives.     

Matching markets with adverse selection

This paper considers a market with adverse selection in the spirit of Rothschild and Stiglitz (Quart. J. Econ. 90 (1976) 629). The major departure from existing approaches is that we model a decentralized market that is open-ended and constantly refilled by new participants, e.g., by new workers and firms in the case of a labor market. The major novelty of this approach is that the distribution of types in the market becomes an endogenous variable, which is jointly determined with equilibrium contracts. As frictions become small, we show that the least-cost separating contracts are always supported as an equilibrium outcome, regardless of the distribution of types among entrants. Moreover, we derive conditions under which this outcome is also unique.