Markets,torts, and social inefficiency

We provide a model wherein oligopolists produce differentiated products that also have a safety attribute. Consumption of these products may lead to harm (to consumers and/or third parties), lawsuits, and compensation, either via settlement or trial. Firm‐level costs reflect both safety investment and production activities, as well as liability‐related costs. Compensation is incomplete, both because of inefficiencies in the bargaining process and (possibly) because of statutorily established limits on awards. We compare the market equilibrium safety effort and output levels to what a planner who is able to set safety standards, but takes the market equilibrium output as given, would choose.     

Communicating quality: a unified model of disclosure and signalling

Firms communicate product quality to consumers through a variety of channels. Economic models of such communication take two alternative forms when quality is exogenous: (i) disclosure of quality through a credible direct claim; or (ii) signalling of quality via producer actions that influence buyers' beliefs about quality. In general, these two literatures have ignored one another. We argue that firms should be viewed as choosing which means of communication they will employ. We show that integration of these two alternatives leads to new implications about disclosure, signalling, firm preferences over type, and the social efficiency of the channel of communication employed.     

Imperfect competition and quality signalling

We examine the interplay of imperfect competition and incomplete information in the context of price competition among firms producing horizontally and vertically differentiated substitute products. Incomplete information about vertical quality (consumer satisfaction) signalled via price softens price competition. Low‐quality firms always prefer the incomplete information game to the full‐information analog. Moreover, for “high‐value” markets with a sufficiently high proportion of high‐quality firms, these firms also prefer incomplete information to full information. We find that an increase in the loss to consumers associated with the low‐quality product may perversely benefit low‐quality firms; we consider applications to tort reform and professional licensing.     

On the economics of trials: adversarial process, evidence, and equilibrium bias

The adversarial provision of evidence is modeled as a game inwhich two parties engage in strategic sequential search. Anaxiomatic approach is used to characterize a court's decisionbased on the evidence provided. Although this process treatsthe evidence submissions in an unbiased way, the equilibriumoutcome may still exhibit bias. Bias arises from differencesin the cost of sampling or asymmetry in the sampling distribution.In a multistage model, a prodefendant bias arises in the firststage from a divergence between the parties' stakes. Finally,the adversarial process generates additional costs that screenout some otherwise meritorious cases.     

Hidden Talents: Entrepreneurship and Pareto-Improving Private Information

Two entrepreneurs, each privately informed about her own talent, simultaneously and noncooperatively choose their efforts in producing a new product. Product quality depends on both entrepreneurs' talents and efforts, but is unobservable by potential buyers prior to purchase; however, buyers can observe the entrepreneurs' individual efforts. Because the entrepreneurs share the payoff, each is tempted to shirk. However, the need to signal quality to potential buyers serves as a credible commitment to provide greater effort. Thus, the "problem" of adverse selection mitigates the problem of moral hazard, so that a new venture can perform better than the corresponding mature market.     

A MODEL OF SEARCH AND SHOPPING BY HOMOGENEOUS CUSTOMERS WITHOUT PRICE PRECOMMITMENT BY FIRMS

Price setting by firms and search by customers is analyzed, relaxing two basic attributes of most search models: price precommitment and agent heterogeneity. Customers are characterized by individual demand functions for a homogeneous good and can choose to employ a threat to search. Firms noncooperatively make pricing decisions by using the individual demand curves under conditions of constant marginal cost. Firms adopt pricing rules that optimally respond to customer search histories. Bargaining power is endogenously assigned. Firms know their common marginal cost; customers, the cost distribution. The unique separating equilibrium is characterized by a lumpy distribution of prices and by heterogeneous shopping behavior by customers giving rise to "shoppers" and "nonshoppers"     

Search,bargaining, and signalling in the market for legal services

Over the last eight centuries, lawyers in common law countries have generally been precluded from buying their clients’ cases. Recently, a number of economists and lawyers have argued that sale should be allowed so as to eliminate moral hazard, particularly when contingent fees are used; this argument is based on full‐information reasoning. However, if the lawyer has private information about the case value, then compensation demands potentially signal this value when the client can search over lawyers. We provide a formal model and a family of computational examples that show that allowing (possibly partial) purchase can reduce expected social efficiency.     

A dynamic model of lawsuit joinder and settlement

We model the dynamic process wherein two privately informed plaintiffs may file and combine related lawsuits in order to lower trial costs and/or improve the likelihood of winning. The equilibrium resembles a “bandwagon”: some plaintiff types file early, whereas others wait and only file suit if they observe a previous filing. Finally, some plaintiff types never file and some early filers drop their suits if not joined by another plaintiff. We then consider the effect of allowing preemptive settlement offers by the defendant aimed at discouraging follow‐on suits. Preemptive settlement results in a “gold rush” of cases into the first period.     

Market Structure and the Demand for Free Trade

We examine a heterogenous goods duopoly model, wherein governments simultaneously and noncooperatively choose whether or not to provide subsidies for their firms and then firms noncooperatively choose output levels, either sequentially or simultaneously. We find that government trade policy and market structure are interdependent. First, the trade regime alters traditional firm preferences over sequential versus simultaneous play. Second, different market structures influence governments' preferences about free trade versus subsidies. Further, if one of the firms is a potential leader, allowing for endogenous market structure generates equilibrium outcomes that sometimes reinforce, and sometimes counter, traditional results in the strategic trade literature .