Open Source Software: Competition with A Public Good

This paper looks at price and quality competition in software markets under two different forms of competition—one where two proprietary firms first choose quality and then engage in price competition, and second where a proprietary firm faces competition from an open source software (OSS) firm that allows its users to determine quality level and provides the software at zero price. We find that OSS competition never improves quality for consumers who value quality highly. However, it may provide greater quality to users with a low valuation for quality. In addition, we find that although OSS has a zero market price, the public good nature of OSS competition can lessen price competition, making the proprietary firm better-off with increased profit but leaving consumers worse-off with lower surplus.     

Faux Predation in Markets with Imperfect Information on Product Quality

When consumers and producers are asymmetrically informed about product quality, faux predation is shown to be a profitable method of inducing a rival firm to exit. A successful episode of faux predation persuades an efficient rival to exit without requiring the faux predator to price below cost and recoup losses with higher prices in the future. Cost-based rules for establishing presumptive evidence of predatory intent and behavior—such as the Areeda–Turner rule—will fail to detect faux predation since pricing below unit costs is not necessary. Faux predation can damage competition yet go undetected and undeterred under present antitrust law.     

Entry deterrence when the potential entrant is your competitor in a different market

In this article, we present a two‐period model in which one firm operates in two markets: a monopoly and a duopoly. Assuming that this firm has private information on the cross‐price elasticity of demand between the products sold in both markets, it limits its quantity supplied in the monopoly market in order to make its rival in the other market believe that entry into the monopolized market is unprofitable. As a result of this strategy, the average prices observed in both markets increase. This result suggests that the detrimental effects of entry deterrence on consumers' welfare are stronger than those predicted by previous literature.     

Is Real Earnings Smoothing Harmful? Evidence from Firm‐Specific Stock Price Crash Risk

This study examines whether and when real earnings smoothing influences firm‐specific stock price crash risk. Using a sample of U.S. public firms for the years 1993 through 2014, we find real earnings smoothing to be positively associated with firm‐specific stock price crash risk. This finding is consistent with the view that real earnings smoothing helps managers withhold bad news, keep poor‐performing projects, conceal resource diversion, and engage in ineffective risk management, which increases crash risk. Further, we find a stronger relation between crash risk and real earnings smoothing when firm uncertainty is higher, product market competition is lower, and balance sheet constraint is higher. Overall, our study suggests that real earnings smoothing destroys shareholder value in that it increases stock price crash risk.     

Joint product signals of quality

Summary The relationship between product quality, signals, and the firm's optimal pricing policy has been given much attention in economics. The literature is extended in this paper by considering the signaling problem of a firm that jointly produces two commodities—one of known quality to consumers (a search good) and one of unknown quality (an experience good). The model presented employs a stylized reputation function, a linear cost structure, and linear demand schedules to produce two interesting insights. First, the search good's price can potentially be used as a signal of the quality of the experience good. Second, the price of a search good will depend upon whether it is jointly produced with another search good or an experience good or whether it is produced in isolation by a single product firm. Furthermore, evidence from a paper on gasoline pricing seems to support this contention.     

Brand familiarity and product knowledge in customization

I adopt Hotelling's model with two firms. Each consumer has a most preferred variety and possesses a certain level of category‐specific knowledge. When a firm offers customization, consumers must interact with the firm to create their products. Consumers familiar with the brand can do this seamlessly, whereas consumers unfamiliar with the brand have difficulty expressing their individual needs (the difficulty decreases with consumers' knowledge). The firms first simultaneously decide whether to customize, then engage in price competition. Although customization makes the products less differentiated, the frictions caused by consumer co‐design activities relax price competition. Customization by one of the firms occurs in equilibrium.     

Corruption Via Media Capture: The Effect of Competition

In this article, we compare a government's optimal choice of whether to engage in corruption by capturing the media outlets through bribery in two alternative media market structures: monopoly versus duopoly. While there is an extra bribe claimant in a media duopoly relative to monopoly, it may also be harder for each firm to individually expose corruption when the rival co‐opts with the government. We find that when the latter effect is stronger than the former, media is captured at lower bribes under duopoly relative to monopoly and in such instances media competition facilitates rather than hindering corruption.     

Impact of Competition and Taxes on Responsibility Center Organization and Transfer Prices*

We show that a firm can use its decentralized organizational structure and transfer price as commitment devices to obtain strategic advantage in the product market only when there are nonstrategic reasons to decentralize and to distort transfer prices away from marginal costs, such as the sales office's local knowledge about market conditions and the presence of tax rate differentials across the two tax jurisdictions. Surprisingly, an increase in the sales office's tax rates may help a firm increase overall profits. An increase in the sales office's tax rates causes the firm to increase its transfer price, which in turn dampens the sales office's competition and may more than offset the effect of increased tax rates on the firm's overall profits.     

THE ECONOMICS OF IMPORT PARITY PRICING: A PEDAGOGICAL NOTE

This paper demonstrates that pricing to import parity is not necessarily prima facie evidence of the exercise of market power. It is shown that in the presence of imports both market structures, perfect competition and monopoly, can price to import parity. If markets can be segmented enabling the firm to discriminate between the export and domestic market it is shown that the imperfectly competitive firm can differentially price. Furthermore, as the number of domestic firms is increased, and if these firms are able to segment the market, the differential between domestic and foreign prices is reduced. The import parity price may or may not be charged in the domestic market. A measure of the exercise of market power is therefore the differential between export parity and the domestic price.     

Regulation, competition, and the structure of prices

Many competition policy issues in regulated industries concernthe structure of prices charged by multi-product firms - forexample price discrimination, non-linear pricing, cross-subsidies,and network access pricing. This article first sets out the(Ramsey) principles of optimal pricing to recover fixed costs.The sometimes conflicting aims of promoting competition andpursuing social objectives are brought into the analysis. Questionsof whether to allow pricing structure discretion to the firm,and how much, are considered next. With asymmetric information,some discretion is often desirable, but its optimal form ishard to characterize. The article then turns to the controversialnetwork access pricing problem - on what terms should an integrateddominant firm be required to supply inputs required by its rivals?Finally, there is discussion of pricing structure regulationin the transition from more to less regulation, which, it isto be hoped, is in prospect in parts of the regulated industriesas effective competition develops.     

Exporting versus Direct Investment under Local Sourcing

This paper examines a setting where foreign direct investment (FDI) shifts demand for an intermediate good from the source to the host country. A domestic and a foreign firm choose between exports or FDI, always sourcing the intermediate locally. We show that by increasing the price of the intermediate, outward FDI can act as a cost-raising strategy for a firm and that attracting FDI can raise host country welfare. Two-way FDI is the equilibrium when the countries have similar market sizes. However, such FDI reduces global welfare relative to two-way exporting since it eliminates indirect competition between suppliers. JEL no. F12, F13, F23, L13     

Endogenous Price Leadership and the Strategic Acquisition of Information

We model a differentiated Bertrand duopoly in which a firm's earlier knowledge of market demand than its competitor results in endogenous price leadership with the information advantaged firm leading. In such a setting with second‐mover advantage, we then study the firms’ incentives to acquire information and analyze an information acquisition game. Both (i) neither firm acquiring information and (ii) one firm acquiring information can arise as subgame perfect equilibrium, but both firms acquiring information is never an equilibrium outcome, even if information is free. Information may have a negative value if it causes a change in the timing of price competition.     

EQUIVALENCE OF COMPETITION MODE IN A VERTICALLY DIFFERENTIATED DUOPOLY WITH DELEGATION

This paper aims to examine the equivalence of competition mode in a vertically differentiated product market with the relative performance delegation. It demonstrates the equivalence of product quality and social welfare in this delegation game, irrespective of modes of product competition. In addition, in a three‐stage game of quality‐delegation‐quantity (or price), it shows that the delegation coefficient is different between high‐quality and low‐quality firms in an asymmetric vertical differentiated model, and a high‐quality firm makes better use of the delegation than a low‐quality firm.     

Market Performance Implications of the Transfer Price Rule

The “transfer price rule” (TPR) defines a vertical price squeeze as an input price, output price combination set by a vertically‐integrated firm monopoly producer of an essential input that would not allow the firm's downstream unit to earn at least a normal rate of return on investment in the “as‐if” case that it had to purchase the input at the price charged independent firms. In its 2009 linkLine decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the TPR for the purpose of enforcing the anti‐monopolization prohibition of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In contrast, a vertical price squeeze, defined by a TPR‐like standard, is an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this article, we model the impact of the TPR on market performance. We find that the TPR increases consumer surplus and net social welfare if all firms remain active in the downstream market. It sometimes induces the upstream firm to refuse to supply the downstream firm, and in such cases, consumer surplus and net social welfare are reduced. The impact of the TPR on market performance thus depends on whether or not an upstream firm can refuse to supply downstream firms on terms that would offer it at least a normal rate of return on investment.     

Conflicting Transfer Pricing Incentives and the Role of Coordination

Our study evaluates the role of coordination, at both the government and the firm level, on the transfer prices set by U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) when income taxes and duties cannot be jointly minimized with a single transfer price. We find that either the presence of a coordinated income tax and customs enforcement regime or coordination between the income tax and customs functions alters transfer prices for these firms. Our analyses have implications for both firms and taxing authorities. Specifically, our findings suggest that MNCs might decrease their aggregate tax burdens by increasing coordination within the firm or that governments might increase their aggregate revenues by improving coordinating enforcement across taxing authorities. Our study is novel in that we document, in a specific setting, how coordination influences MNCs’ tax reporting behavior.     

Pricing to market, firm heterogeneity and the role of quality

We build a pricing-to-market (PTM) model with firm heterogeneity, which allows for imperfect competition and market segmentation in the presence of flexible exchange rates, horizontal and vertical differentiation and different tastes of consumers in destination markets. We derive firm’s pricing behaviour in response to price and quality competition shocks. We show that there is PTM heterogeneity across firms if quality has a role. We empirically assess the main predictions of our theoretical framework on Italian firm-level data. We document that export-domestic price margins are significantly affected by price and quality competitiveness factors even controlling for foreign demand conditions, size, export intensity, destination markets and unobservables. Finally, we provide evidence of strong heterogeneity across firms in their reaction to price and quality competitiveness.     

A Portion of Profits to Charity: Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Profitability

I develop a model in which a firm can choose to donate a portion of its profits to the provision of a public good. Consumers value this public good and are willing to pay a price premium to a firm which makes such a donation. When this price premium is sufficiently large, the firm can raise its net profits by pledging a portion of those profits to provision of the public good. This is more likely when the consumer's marginal valuation of contributions to the public good is high and when the firm (in the absence of donations) has a high ratio of fixed costs to operating profits. I also identify circumstances under which corporate social responsibility makes consumers worse off.     

Price Discrimination and Efficient Distribution

This paper focuses on third‐degree price discrimination by an upstream firm with some degree of monopoly power. Downstream firms fall into two categories: efficient and inefficient, according to their relative costs of transforming a unit of the upstream good into a unit of final product. Under ordinary static conditions, price discrimination favors the inefficient firms, which have more elastic demands. We consider, however, the possibility that discrimination in the opposite direction can alter the downstream market structure toward greater efficiency. Discriminatory pricing, then, involves charging a higher price to the less efficient firms. Such pricing is shown to be both potentially profitable for the upstream firm and welfare improving as average consumer prices fall.     

The Effect of Environmental Risk on the Efficiency of Negotiated Transfer Prices

This study investigates whether environmental risk affects the efficiency of negotiated transfer prices. We analyze a setting where the buyer faces environmental risk but the seller does not. From the risk‐neutral firm's perspective, the transfer should be made in our setting because the expected value of the buyer's profit is greater than the certain opportunity cost of the seller from the transfer. We develop hypotheses to predict that, as environmental risk increases, it becomes more difficult for buyers and sellers to reach agreement. Such difficulty reduces efficiency in terms of both firm profit and negotiation time. We test our hypotheses via an experiment in which buyer and seller dyads negotiate over the transfer of a resource at six levels of environmental risk. Results show that, as predicted, environmental risk decreases efficiency. Specifically, as environmental risk increases, the frequency of agreement decreases, thereby reducing expected firm profit. Further, environmental risk increases negotiation time for those dyads that are able to reach an agreement. Data suggest that the cause of the decreased efficiency is that buyers and sellers use different reference points for determining a fair transfer price and environmental risk exacerbates the effects of such differences.     

The Effects of Competition from S Corporations on the Organizational Form Choice of Rival C Corporations

Subchapter C of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code levies an entity‐level tax on corporate profits, whereas Subchapter S allows corporations meeting specific criteria to elect out of this tax. Despite these differences, C and S corporations regularly compete for customers and capital. We examine whether and the extent to which competition from S corporations influences the future organizational form choice of rival C corporations and explore outcomes of this choice. Using data for 4,462 private U.S. commercial banks grouped by Metropolitan Statistical Area during 1997–2010, we find that greater competition from S corporation banks increases the likelihood that rival C corporation banks convert to Subchapter S status. We estimate that the aggregate first‐year tax savings from S conversion exceed $372 million. Consistent with these savings being used to maintain competitive parity with rivals, we find that converting banks increase their interest rates on customer deposits and advertising intensity. Our findings provide insight into whether competition from tax‐advantaged firms influences the organizational form choice of rival tax‐disadvantaged firms.