Durable Goods Monopoly with Endogenous Quality

 Cordelia Bryan
 3 months ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Durable Goods Monopoly with Endogenous Quality JongHee Hahn Keele University (Preliminary) March 30, 2004 Abstract This paper examines the dynamic pricing problem of a durablegood monopolist when product uality is endogenous. It is shown that the relationship between the firm s uality choice and the timeinconsistency problem crucially depends on how the unit production cost varies with uality. The monopolist may use uality as a strategic commitment device to eliminate the timeinconsistency problem. Also, it may have incentives to choose a uality higher or lower than the optimal commitment level. This contrasts with the planned obsolescence literature where durable goods monopolists reduces durability (often regarded as a measure of uality) to mitigate the timeinconsistency problem. Keywords: Durable Goods, Quality, Timeinconsistency. JEL classification: D42, L2. Introduction An important proposition in economic literature on durablegood monopolies is that a seller faces a problem of time inconsistency (Coase (972), Bulow (982), and others). The problem arises because durable goods sold in the future affect the future value of units sold today, and in the absence of the ability to commit to future prices the monopolist does not internalize this externality. There have been numerous investigations on the robustness of the result in the Department of Economics, Keele University, Keele, Staffs ST5 5BG, UK.
2 literature. Bond and Samuelson (984) show that depreciation and replacement sales reduce the monopolist s tendency to cut price. Kahn (986) shows a similar result when the monopolist faces an upwardsloping marginal cost schedule. Also, there have been many studies analyzing means and practices durablegood monopolists can employ to overcome or mitigate the timeinconsistency problem, notably leasing (Bulow, 982), planned obsolescence (Bulow, 986; Waldman, 993), contractual provisions such as bestprice provisions or mostfavoredcustomer clauses (Butz, 990), and more recently productline extension using uality differentiation (Hahn, 2002; Inderst, 2002; Takeyama, 2002). However, one of the aspects that received little attention in this literature is how the timeinconsistency result is affected when uality of product is chosen endogenously by the firm, as in real world durable goods markets. In the standard durablegoods monopoly model, uality of product is exogenous and therefore its effect on firm s strategic behavior is ignored. We analyze a durablegood monopoly model in which the firm is allowed to choose uality as well as prices. Themainuestionstobeaskedinthisnewsetupare How does endogenizing uality affect the timeinconsistency problem? How does the timeinconsistency problem, if it is present, affect the monopolist s optimal choice of uality? We consider a threeperiod dynamic game where a singleproduct monopolist first decides on the uality of good in period 0, and then chooses the price of the good seuentially over periods and 2. The focus of our analysis is to investigate how the monopolist s decision on product uality is related to the timeinconsistency problem, and how the optimal uality differs from the one chosen under commitment to future prices. We show that the relationship critically depends on how the unit product cost varies with uality. The main findings of the analysis are as follows. With endogenous uality the durablegoods monopolist may be naturally immune to the timeinconsistency problem. This happens when the average cost at the optimal commitment uality is high (i.e. the elasticity of scale of uality is small) enough for the firm to find selling the goods to lowvaluation consumers in period 2 unprofitable. This result is uite different from the one observed in the standard durablegoods monopoly model with an exogenous uality and a constant unit cost. In the standard model the firm does not face timeinconsistency problems if the absolute level of the constant unit cost is sufficiently high (see Bulow, 982 for example), 2
3 while here the relevance of the timeinconsistency problem depends on the shape of the unit cost function of uality. For instance, there is no timeinconsistency problem if the elasticity of scale of uality is sufficiently small even if the unit product cost itself is high. As the average unit cost at the optimal commitment uality gets smaller (i.e. the elasticity of scale of uality increases) the timeinconsistency problem becomes relevant (i.e. the firm has the incentive to sell the good to lowvaluation consumers in period 2). The firm s optimal reaction to the problem differs depending on the level of the elasticity of scale of uality. If it is relatively small (but still high enough for time consistency to be relevant), the firm finds it optimal to eliminate the timeinconsistency problem by choosing a uality higher than the optimal commitment level (therefore increasing the average unit cost of production). So, the monopolist uses uality as a strategic device of committing to no future sales, similar to the wellknown burninghisfactory story in the standard durablegoods monopoly. Here, the firm also increases price up to a level where the euilibrium demand is smaller than the one in the commitment regime. As the elasticity of scale of uality increases further, increasing uality up to the point where the timeconsistency problem disappears is too costly and the firm chooses to sell the goods in period 2. But, still the monopolist may have incentives to increase or decrease uality relative to the optimal commitment level. With secondperiod sales, the firm s decision on uality depends on the levels of the two marginal types and the relative importance (distribution) of the first and secondperiod demands. The secondperiod marginal type is more sensitive to the change of the average unit cost than the firstperiod marginal type, i.e. the secondperiod marginal type decreases more rapidly than the firstperiod marginal type as the average unit cost gets smaller. So, if the elasticity of scale of uality is very large (i.e. the average unit cost is sufficiently small at the optimal commitment uality), the euilibrium secondperiod marginal type is too low so that the firm chooses a uality lower than the optimal commitment level. If the elasticity of scale of uality is in an intermediate level, however, the firm increases uality, partially mitigating the timeinconsistency problem. Our result is in contrast with the planned obsolescence literature (Bulow, 986; Waldman, 993) in which durable goods monopolists tends to reduce durability (often regarded as a measure of product uality) to mitigate the timeinconsistency problem. This result is also reminiscent of the reverse AverchJohnson effect established by Bulow (982), i.e. durablegood monopolists may invest less in fixed costs in order to keep their marginal costs high (a signal of lower future output and thus high future prices). 3
4 2 The model We incorporate a uality dimension into the classical durablegoods monopoly model of Bulow (982). There is a monopolist selling durable goods over two periods. The good is characterized by a onedimensional uality index 0. The unit cost of production is constant and is given by c(), where c(0) = 0,c 0 ( ) > 0, and c 00 ( ) > 0. There is no economies of scale or learningbydoing over time. Before production begins (say, in period 0) the firm chooses uality of the good () it will sell in periods and 2. We assume constant fixed costs of production independent of uality, and also assume that the fixed cost corresponding to producing goods of a single uality (such as costs of setting up production lines) is too large so that the firm has no incentives to produce multiple ualities or alter the uality of the good later. So, we confine ourselves to a singleuality monopolist, i.e. the firm is constrained to produce goods of the single uality determined in period 0 and the uality choice is virtually irreversible. On the demand side, there are a large number of consumers who live two periods. The total number of consumers is normalized to. Consumers have unit demands, and each consumer is indexed by a type parameter θ. The perperiod (nondiscounted) gross surplus a typeθ consumer derives from the consumption of a good of uality is given by v(θ) =θ. So, the marginal utility of uality is linear and increasing in type parameter θ. Consumertype is private information. The good purchased and used during period can be used again in period 2 without depreciation. After period 2 the good becomes obsolete or is replaced by a new product. Consumers purchase if they are indifferent between buying and not buying. We assume that there is no upgrade or technological innovation during the time horizon considered. Consumers and the firm have a common discount factor denoted δ [0, ]. All agents have complete and perfect information (except consumer type), and have perfect foresight on future outcomes. The solution concept we are using is subgame perfection. 3 Two types of buyers Consumers come in two types: θ {θ l,θ h } where θ h >θ l >c 0 (0). There is a continuum of consumers for each type with mass µ for type θ h and µ for type θ l. So, consumers act as a 4
5 price taker and all the bargaining power is given to the firm. First, consider the benchmark case where the firm can commit to future prices. The firm has two options. If it sells to only typeh consumers at a high price the total profit is π h max : µ[( + δ)θ h c()], and the optimal uality h is given by the first order condition, ( + δ)θ h = c 0 ( h ). () If it sells to both types of consumers at a low price the total profit is π l max and the optimal uality l is given by :[(+δ)θ l c()], ( + δ)θ l = c 0 ( l ). (2) Note that both profit functions are concave, and therefore h and l given above are the true optimal uality in each case. The firm will choose to serve typeh consumers only if π h π l,i.e. µ[( + δ)θ h h c( h )] ( + δ)θ l l c( l ), (3) and choose to serve both types of consumers otherwise. It is easily observed that h > l from the convexity of c( ). In order to highlight the timeconsistency issue in the classical durablegoods monopoly pricing, we will focus on the cases where condition (3) holds, i.e. the firm optimally chooses the intertemporal sales rather than the immediate market clearing and achieves the optimal commitment profit π h with the optimal uality h. Condition (3) simply says that the marginal utility of uality is sufficiently differentiated between the two types of consumers and or the proportion of typeh consumers is sufficiently large relative to typel consumers. Next, consider the case where the firm cannot commit to future prices. Let us first define e such that θ l e = c(e), which denotes the level of uality where the price the firm can charge for a typel consumer is just eual to the unit cost of production. Note that if the firm chooses e The assumption of a continuum of buyers rules out the perfectly discriminating euilibria proposed by Bagnoli, Salant, and Swierzbinski (989, 995). See von der Fehr and Kühn (995) for more details on how the relative commitment power between the seller and buyers affects the euilibrium outcome. 5
6 it does not have incentives to sell in period 2 and therefore does not face the timeinconsistency problem. But, for < e it is optimal for the firm to sell to type l consumers in period 2, which constrains the firstperiod price the firm can charge according to the typeh consumers intertemporal incentive constraint, ( + δ)θ h p δ(θ h θ l ). Given, thefirm s profit isgivenby ( µ[θ h + δθ l c()] + δ( µ)[θ l c()] if <e π() = µ[θ h + δθ h c()] if e. The profit function is discontinuous and nondifferentiable at = e, but it is differentiable and concave elsewhere. 2 In fact, it jumps up at = e. 3 Now we examine the firm s optimal choice of product uality without commitment. First, suppose that h e, i.e. θ l is small relative to θ h and or the unit cost of production is sufficiently large at the optimal commitment uality (subject to condition (3)). Then, from the concavity of the profit function (except for = e) andthefactthat limπ() <π(e) and lim e e π0 () <π 0 (e), it is optimal for the firm to choose the optimal commitment uality h. In this case, there is no timeinconsistency problem since it is optimal for the firm not to serve typel consumers in period 2 (θ l h <c( h )), and therefore the firm can achieve the optimal commitment outcome even without commitment power. Next, suppose that h < e, i.e. θ l is close to θ h (subject to condition (3)) and or the unit cost of production is sufficiently small at the optimal commitment uality. Then, the concavity of the profit function in [e, ] implies that lim e+ π0 (e) < 0. Also, from condition (), the definition of e, the convexity of c( ), and the fact that θ h >θ l we have lim e π0 () = µ[θ h + δθ l c 0 (e)] + δ( µ)[θ l c 0 (e)] < 0. So, we need to compare π(e) andπ() where is such that µ[θ h + δθ l c 0 ()] + δ( µ)[θ l c 0 ()] = 0, ( 2 π 0 µ[θ h + δθ l c 0 ()] + δ( µ)[θ l c 0 ()] if <e () = and µ[θ h + δθ h c 0 ()] if e ( π 00 µc 00 () δ( µ)c 00 () if <e () = µc 00 () if e. 3 lim π() =µ[θ he + δθ l e c(e)] <π(e) =µ[θ h e + δθ h e c(e)]. e 6
7 and the optimal uality is given by =argmax{π(e),π()}. Here, two ualitatively different euilibria can emerge. If the optimal uality is determined at = e > h, the demand is exactly the same as in the commitment case, but the firm, by increasing uality, commits itself to not serving typel consumers in period 2 and effectively avoids the timeinconsistency problem. 4 This strategic commitment, however, comes with costs: the optimal profit π(e) is smaller than the commitment profit π h. If the optimal uality is determined at =, on the other hand, the firm chooses to serve typel consumers in period 2 and therefore the total demand increases. Let us compare with h in this case. Recall that h satisfies condition (). Evaluating the derivative of the profit function π( ) at = h,wehave π 0 ( h )=µ[θ h + δθ l c 0 ( h )] + δ( µ)[θ l c 0 ( h )] < 0. So, it is clear that < h,i.e. thefirm decreases uality in this case. This is because the marginal revenue of uality is smaller than in the commitment regime due to the expanded demand and the timeconsistency constraint. With the general cost function c( ) itisabitcumbersometo characterize the exact situations under which the firm chooses a particular level of uality. But, from the following numerical example we can clearly see that it depends on the structure of the unit cost function of uality, more specifically the elasticity of scale of the technology with respect to uality, which measures how the unit cost of production varies with uality. 5 Example : Suppose that θ h =,θ l = 2,δ =,µ = 2, and c() =α (α>). Note that the parameter α is the elasticity of scale of uality of the cost function. 6 From the firstorder conditions () and (2), we find that h =( α 2 ) α and l =( α ) α. The average cost of uality is k( h )= 2 α at h and k( l )= α at l, which are decreasing in α. So, we can regard α as a (indirect) measure of the average cost of uality at the commitment euilibrium. Given that α >, condition (3) is always satisfied, i.e. ( 2 ) α α 2 for all α >. Also, we have e =( 2 ) α. The condition for no timeinconsistency problem (h e) reduces to 4 This demand rigidity is in fact an artifact of the two type model and is not generally true. In the next section, using a continuous type model we characterize how the (firstperiod) demand is affected by the firm s attempt of changing uality in order to avoid the timeconsistency problem. 5 In the present context, the elasticity of scale of the technology measures the percent increase in cost due to a one percent increase in uality. 6 Note that α also represents the degree of homogeneity of the cost function. 7
8 ( 2 α ) α ( 2 ) α,whichholdsforα 4. If α>4, then h < e and we need to compare π(e) and π() where =( α ) α <h =( 2 α ) α < e, i.e. π(e) = 3 2 ( 2 ) α α and π() =(α )( α ) α α, and it turns out that the optimal uality is e for α and for α Hence, we have three different euilibria depending upon the parameter α. Forα 4, the cost function increases more steadily as uality increases, leading to a relatively high level of unit production cost at the optimal commitment uality. In this case, there is no timeinconsistency problem and the firm can achieve exactly the same outcome as in the commitment regime. For 4 α , the timeinconsistency problem becomes relevant but the firm increases uality relative to the optimal commitment level in order to avoid the timeinconsistency problem. For α , the firm finds it more profitable to accept the timeinconsistency problem and serve typel consumers in period 2, but decrease uality as the marginal revenue of uality is smaller than the commitment regime. 4 A continuumoftypes case In this section we generalize our analysis to a situation with a continuum of consumer types. For simplicity, we assume that there is a continuum of consumers with unit mass, and the type parameter θ is uniformly distributed on the unit interval [0, ]. 4. Euilibrium with commitment Suppose the firm can commit to prices it will charge in the future. Then, the firm s optimal pricing policy is to sell the goods in period at its (twoperiod) monopoly price and sell nothing in period 2. Given uality and price p, consumers of type θ such that ( + δ)θ p will buy the good in period and others will not. It is convenient to solve the firm s profitmaximization problem in two stages. We first find the optimal marginal type (which is euivalent to choosing the optimal price) for a given uality, and the optimal uality is determined later. Given, the firm chooses θ in order to maximize profits: max : ( θ)[( + δ)θ k()] θ subject to 0 θ, where k() = c() is the average cost of uality at the given. The corresponding optimal price is then determined by the euation ( + δ)θ = p. The profit 8
9 function is concave in θ, and therefore from the firstorder condition the optimal marginal type is given as θ () = 2 + for 0 <k() +δ. 7 k() 2(+δ) (4) Plugging in the optimal marginal type in (4), the firm s uality choice problem is as follows: max : 4(+δ) [( + δ) k()]2. Note that the profit function is uasiconcave (singlepeaked) for the relevant region where 0 <k() +δ. Then, from the firstorder condition the optimal uality is given by k( )+2 k 0 ( )=+δ (5) = 2c 0 ( ) c( ) =+δ. Robustness of the timeconsistency problem: In order to examine the relevance of the timeinconsistency problem when the firm can not commit to future prices, we consider the firm s incentive to sell the goods in period 2 after serving consumers of type greater than or eual to θ (the optimal marginal type at the commitment euilibrium) in period. The marginal consumers willingnesstopay for the good for the secondperiod consumption is h i v(θ )=θ = 2 + k( ) 2(+δ). The firm would not face the timeinconsistency problem even without commitment if the euilibrium uality under commitment is chosen so that serving consumers of type θ θ in period 2isnotprofitable, i.e. v(θ ) c( )= k( ) +δ, (6) which simply says that the average cost of uality is sufficiently large at the commitment euilibrium level of uality. This clearly shows that when uality is endogenous the relevance of the timeinconsistency problem in durable goods monopoly crucially depends on how the unit production cost varies with uality, and in some cases a durablegood monopolist is naturally immune to the timeinconsistency problem. For example, for c() =β α (α>,β > 0) condition (6) holds if 7 We ignore the cases of k() +δ in which the firm gets zero profits. 9
10 α +δ, which does not depend upon the scaling index β. This means that the condition for no timeinconsistency problem hinges on the shape of the unit cost function of uality (i.e. the elasticity of scale of uality) rather than its absolute level. It should be noted that this result is uite different from the one observed in the standard (exogenousuality) durablegoods monopoly model with a constant unit cost where the firm does not face timeinconsistency problems if the constant unit cost is sufficiently large. For example, in the twoperiod durablegoods model of Bulow (986) there is no timeinconsistency problems if the constant marginal cost c is greater than +δ. But, here with endogenous uality the firm is immune to the timeinconsistency problem when the average cost of uality is larger than +δ at the optimal commitment uality, i.e. the elasticity of scale of uality is sufficiently large, even if the unit cost of production is very low (a low β). 4.2 Euilibrium without commitment We now consider the monopolist s choice of uality when the firm cannot commit to future prices. The firm problem is to choose uality in period 0 and a seuence of the firstperiod and secondperiod prices p and p 2 in periods and 2 to maximize total profits, given consumers rational expectation about secondperiod outcomes. Given and (p,p 2 ), θ [0, ] denotes the type of consumers who are indifferent between buying in the first period and waiting to buy in the second period, i.e. ( + δ)θ p = δ(θ p 2 ), and similarly θ 2 [0,θ ] denotes the type of consumers who are indifferent between buying in the second period and buying nothing, i.e. θ 2 p 2 =0. We find a subgame perfect Nash euilibrium by solving the problem backward. It is useful to express the monopolist s profits in terms of θ and θ 2 rather than p and p 2. First, given and θ the firm s secondperiod problem is max : (θ θ 2 )[θ 2 k()] θ 2 subject to θ 2 θ.sincek( ) is monotone increasing (from the convexity of c( )), for a given we can treat k() as a constant unit cost in solving the problem at this stage. The solution is ( θ2(, θ for θ k() θ )= 2 [θ + k()] for θ >k(). 0
11 Given the secondperiod euilibrium outcome, in period the firm chooses θ maximize total profits: π() max : {( θ )[θ + δθ2 k()] + δ(θ θ2)[θ 2 k()]} θ subject to 0 θ. Again we focus on the cases where 0 <k() +δ. The solution is given by 2+δ θ() 4+δ + 2( δ) 2+δ 4+δ k() for 0 <k() = k() for 2+δ +δ k() π() = 2 + 2(+δ). +δ k() for k() +δ Plugging in the optimal marginal types, the total profit is then rewritten as 4(4+δ) {4[ ( δ)k()][(2 + δ) 2 (4 + δ 2 )k()] 2 + δ[2 + δ (2 + 3δ)k()] 2 } δ[ k()]k() for 2+δ for 0 <k() 2+δ k() +δ. 4(+δ) [( + δ) k()]2 for +δ k() +δ The profit functionπ() is continuous and differentiable except at = k ( +δ )and = k ( 2+δ )(k ( ) is the inverse function of k( )) where it is continuous but nondifferentiable. Also, note that it is uasiconcave in each of the three regions. Differentiating the profit function where it is possible, we have π 0 () = 4(4+δ) 2 {4[ ( δ)k()][(2 + δ) 2 (4 + δ 2 )k()] + δ[2 + δ (2 + 3δ)k()] 2 + k 0 ()[(32 24δ +32δ 2 +0δ 3 )k() 2(4 + δ)(4 + δ 2 )]} δ{[ k()]k()+k 0 ()[ 2k()]} for 2+δ for 0 <k() < 2+δ <k() < +δ. 4(+δ) [( + δ) k()][( + δ) k() 2k0 ()] for +δ <k() +δ We now analyze how the monopolist optimal choice of uality is affected by the lack of commitment power, and how it is related to the structure of the unit cost function. +δ First, if k( ) < +δ, i.e. the average cost of uality is sufficiently high at the optimal commitment uality, the monopolist does not face the timeconsistency problem and
12 can achieve exactly the same outcome as in the commitment regime. Note that this condition for no timeinconsistency problem is identical to condition (6) derived in the previous subsection. 2+δ Second, if k( ) < +δ, i.e. the average cost of uality at the optimal commitment uality is in an intermediate range, the derivative of the profit function evaluated at = is always positive in the region, i.e. π 0 ( )= δ 2 [(δ +) ( + 2δ)k( )] > 0, where the use was made of condition (5). This means that it is optimal for the monopolist to commit to not selling in period 2 by increasing uality from the optimal commitment level. With a continuum of consumer types we can now see how this strategic commitment using uality affects the euilibrium demand, an aspect that has not been analyzed in the previous discrete type case. Since the convexity of c( ) implies that θ () =k() isincreasingin, the firstperiod demand is smaller than the euilibrium demand in the commitment regime. Increasing both uality and the firstperiod marginal type immediately implies an increase of the firstperiod price relative to the optimal price in the commitment regime. So, in this case the monopolist finds it profitable to increase uality as well as price up to a level where the firstperiod demand is smaller than the euilibrium demandinthecommitmentregimeinorder to avoid the timeinconsistency problem. Last, if 0 <k( ) < 2+δ, i.e. the average cost of uality is sufficiently low at the optimal commitment uality, increasing uality to commit to not selling in period 2 is too costly and therefore the firm finds it more profitable to accept the timeinconsistency problem and sell to some low types of consumers in period 2. But, the monopolist may wish to increase or decrease uality relative to the optimal commitment level. Let denote the optimal uality in this case, where is given by the firstorder condition, 4[ ( δ)k()][(2 + δ) 2 (4 + δ 2 )k()] + δ[2 + δ (2 + 3δ)k()] 2 + k 0 ()[(32 24δ +32δ 2 +0δ 3 )k() 2(4 + δ)(4 + δ 2 )] = 0. Evaluating the first derivative of profit function at = we have π 0 ( )= 5δ3 4(4+δ) [k( ) 5 ]. So, given the uasiconcavity of the profit function the monopolist will decrease uality if 0 < k( ) < 5 and increase uality if 5 k( ) < 2+δ. The intuition for this result is as follows. 2
13 The firm s decision on uality basically depends on the levels of the two marginal types and the relative importance (distribution) of the first and secondperiod demands. In this case of 0 <k( ) < 2+δ, the two marginal types are given as and θ = 2+δ 4+δ + 2( δ) 4+δ k() θ 2 = 2 [θ + k()] = 2+δ 2(4+δ) + 6 δ 2(4+δ) k(). Note that the secondperiod marginal type is more sensitive to the level of the average unit cost than the firstperiod marginal type. 8 This implies that the secondperiod marginal type decreases more rapidly than the firstperiod marginal type as the average unit cost gets smaller. In the former case, with a relatively small average unit cost the euilibrium secondperiod marginal type is too low so that the optimal uality is determined lower than the optimal commitment level. In the latter case, however, the average unit cost is relatively high and therefore the firm increases uality, partially mitigating the timeinconsistency problem. Combining the above results leads to the following proposition. Proposition Compared with the commitment euilibrium, the monopolist i) decreases uality if 0 <k( ) < 5, ii) increases uality if 5 k( ) < 2+δ with secondperiod sales (still subject 2+δ to the timeinconsistency problem), iii) increases uality if k( ) < +δ without secondperiod sales (avoiding the timeinconsistency problem), and iv) offers the same uality as in the +δ commitment case if k() < +δ. Example 2: Suppose c() = α (α>). From condition (5), the optimal commitment uality is given by =( 2α +δ ) α, which initially decreases and then increases after some critical value of α (e.g. α = for δ = ). The average unit cost at the optimal commitment uality is then given by k( )= +δ 2α, which is monotone decreasing for α>. Recall that α is the elasticity of scale of uality. So, the average unit cost of production at the optimal commitment uality is higher when the cost function is more elastic to uality change. If 0 < +δ 2α < 6+5δ 5 α> 2, the monopolist decreases uality. If 5 +δ 2α < 2+δ 4+6δ+3δ2 2(2+δ) < α 6+5δ 2+δ 2,thefirm increases uality but chooses to sell the good in period 2. If 2α +δ < 8 For instance, for δ = (no time discounting) the firstperiod marginal type (θ 2)isconstantindependentof the average unit cost. 3
14 +δ 4+6δ+3δ2 +δ<α 2(2+δ),thefirm increases uality in order to commit to no sales in period +δ 2 (avoiding the timeinconsistency problem). Finally, if 2α +δ < +δ α<+δ, the firm is free from the timeinconsistency problem and offers the optimal commitment uality, achieving the same outcome as in the commitment case. The following figure exhibits the range of parameters corresponding to each of the above four cases. α 6 5 Decrease uality with the timeinconsistency problem 4 3 Decrease uality with the timeinconsistency problem 2 Increase uality to eliminate the timeinconsistency problem No timeinconsistency problem δ Fig : The optimal uality without commitment. 5 Concluding remarks This paper has examined how a firm s choice of uality interacts with the timeinconsistency problem in a durablegood monopoly framework. It has been shown that the relationship depends on the structure of unit production function of uality. Durablegoods monopolists may have incentives to raise uality in order to eliminate or ameliorate the timeconsistency problem, and the euilibrium level of uality can be higher or lower than the one in the commitment regime. The basic model can be extended in several lines. The most demanding is probably is to extend the model to a finite (but more than two period) or infinite horizon setup. Also interesting is to examine the robustness of the result to allowing the firm to produce multiple ualities or alter the uality of the good later at some fixed costs. 4
15 References [] Bagnoli, M., S. Salant, and J. Swierzbinski (989), DurableGoods Monopoly with Discrete Demand, Journal of Political Economy 97, [2] Bagnoli, M., S. Salant, and J. Swierzbinski (995), Intertemporal SelfSelection with Multiple Buyers, Economic Theory 5, [3] Bond, E. and L. Samuelson (984), Durable Good Monopolies with rational Expectations and Replacement Sales, RAND Journal of Economics 5, [4] Bulow, J. (982), Durable Goods Monopolists, Journal of Political Economy 90, [5] Bulow, J. (986), An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence, Quarterly Journal of Economics 5, [6] Butz, D. (990), Durable Good Monopoly and Best Price Provisions, American Economic Review 80, [7] Coase, R. (972), Durability and Monopoly, Journal of Law and Economics 5, [8] Hahn, J. (2002), damaged durable Goods, Keele University, mimeo. [9] Inderst, R. (2002), Why Durable Goods May Be Sold Below Costs, University College London, mimeo. [0] Kahn, C. (986), The Durable Goods Monopolist and Consistency with Increasing Costs, Econometrica 54, [] Takeyama, L. (2002), Strategic Vertical Differentiation and Durable Goods Monopoly, JournalofIndustrialEconomics50(), [2] von der Fehr, N.H. and K.U. Kühn (995), Coase versus Pacman: Who Eats Whom in the DurableGoods Monopoly?, Journal of Political Economy 03, [3] Waldman, M. (993), A New Perspective on Planned Obsolescence, Quarterly Journal of Economics 58,
Durable goods with quality differentiation
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Economics Letters 00 (2008) 73 77 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Durable goods with quality differentiation Roman Inderst University of Frankfurt (IMFS), Germany
More information1. INTRODUCTION IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE COPPER MARKET? MATTI LISKI AND JUANPABLO MONTERO *
Cuadernos de Economía, Año 40, Nº 121, pp. 559565 (diciembre 2003) IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE COPPER MARKET? MATTI LISKI AND JUANPABLO MONTERO * 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the question whether
More informationPrice Discrimination: Exercises Part 2
Price Discrimination: Exercises Part Sotiris Georganas Royal Holloway University of London Problem 1 An economics journal is considering offering a new service which will send articles to readers by email.
More information14.01 Principles of Microeconomics, Fall 2007 ChiaHui Chen November 7, Lecture 22
Monopoly. Principles of Microeconomics, Fall ChiaHui Chen November, Lecture Monopoly Outline. Chap : Monopoly. Chap : Shift in Demand and Effect of Tax Monopoly The monopolist is the single supplyside
More informationAdvanced Microeconomic Theory. Chapter 7: Monopoly
Advanced Microeconomic Theory Chapter 7: Monopoly Outline Barriers to Entry Profit Maximization under Monopoly Welfare Loss of Monopoly Multiplant Monopolist Price Discrimination Advertising in Monopoly
More informationChapter 28: Monopoly and Monopsony
Chapter 28: Monopoly and Monopsony 28.1: Introduction The previous chapter showed that if the government imposes a tax on some good that there is a loss of surplus. We show a similar result in this chapter
More informationFINALTERM EXAMINATION FALL 2006
FINALTERM EXAMINATION FALL 2006 QUESTION NO: 1 (MARKS: 1)  PLEASE CHOOSE ONE Compared to the equilibrium price and quantity sold in a competitive market, a monopolist Will charge a price and sell a quantity.
More informationAdvance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability
Advance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability Oksana Loginova October 27, 2016 Abstract This paper studies the impact of competition on the benefits of advance selling. I construct a twoperiod
More informationReverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market
Reverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market Qihong Liu Jie Shuai January 18, 2014 Abstract Advancing in information technology has empowered firms with unprecedented flexibility when interacting
More informationDurable Goods Pricing in the Presence of Volatile Demand
2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Durable Goods Pricing in the Presence of Volatile Demand Xiaobo Zheng University of Rochester xiaobo.zheng@simon.rochester.edu Vera Tilson University
More informationEcn Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2009 Instructor: John Parman. Final Exam
Ecn 100  Intermediate Microeconomic Theory University of California  Davis December 10, 2009 Instructor: John Parman Final Exam You have until 12:30pm to complete this exam. Be certain to put your name,
More informationMarket structures. Why Monopolies Arise. Why Monopolies Arise. Market power. Monopoly. Monopoly resources
Market structures Why Monopolies Arise Market power Alters the relationship between a firm s costs and the selling price Charges a price that exceeds marginal cost A high price reduces the quantity purchased
More informationPrice competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects
Price competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects Krina Griva Nikolaos Vettas February 005 Abstract We examine price competition under productspecific network effects, in a
More informationAsset Price Bubbles and Endogenous Growth [PRELIMINARY DRAFT] Abstract
Asset Price Bubbles and Endogenous Growth [PRELIMINARY DRAFT] Jong Kook Shin 1 Chetan Subramanian 2 Abstract This paper extends a simple Schumpeterian growth model to demonstrate that bubbles can generate
More informationINTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS LECTURE 13  MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY. Monopolistic Competition
131 INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS LECTURE 13  MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY Monopolistic Competition Pure monopoly and perfect competition are rare in the real world. Most realworld industries
More informationJournal of Industrial Organization Education. ThirdDegree Price Discrimination
An Article Submitted to Journal of Industrial Organization Education Manuscript 1030 ThirdDegree Price Discrimination Qihong Liu Konstantinos Serfes University of Oklahoma, qliu@ou.edu Drexel University,
More informationEcon Microeconomic Analysis and Policy
ECON 500 Microeconomic Theory Econ 500  Microeconomic Analysis and Policy Monopoly Monopoly A monopoly is a single firm that serves an entire market and faces the market demand curve for its output. Unlike
More informationBeliefs, Market Size and Consumer Search
Beliefs, Market Size and Consumer Search (PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE) Maarten Janssen and Sandro Shelegia February 15, 2014 Abstract We analyze two unexplored aspects of the Wolinsky model (Wolinsky (1986)
More informationMonopoly. Cost. Average total cost. Quantity of Output
While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. its product does not have close substitutes. The
More informationChapter 13 MODELS OF MONOPOLY. Copyright 2005 by SouthWestern, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved.
Chapter 13 MODELS OF MONOPOLY Copyright 2005 by SouthWestern, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Monopoly A monopoly is a single supplier to a market This firm may choose to produce
More informationMarket structure 1: Perfect Competition The perfectly competitive firm is a price taker: it cannot influence the price that is paid for its product.
Market structure 1: Perfect Competition The perfectly competitive firm is a price taker: it cannot influence the price that is paid for its product. This arises due to consumers indifference between the
More informationConsumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets
Consumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets Hend Ghazzai Assistant Professor College of Business and Economics Qatar University P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar. Abstract Consumers' choice
More informationECON 115. Industrial Organization
ECON 115 Industrial Organization 1. Linear (3rd Degree) Price Discrimination First Hour QUIZ Second Hour Introduction to Price Discrimination Thirddegree price discrimination Two Rules Examples of price
More informationMonopoly CHAPTER. Goals. Outcomes
CHAPTER 15 Monopoly Goals in this chapter you will Learn why some markets have only one seller Analyze how a monopoly determines the quantity to produce and the price to charge See how the monopoly s decisions
More informationDISCUSSION PAPERS IN ECONOMICS
DISCUSSION PAPERS IN ECONOMICS Working Paper No. 1406 Why Branded Firms May Benefit from Counterfeit Competition Yucheng Ding University of Colorado Boulder October 2014 Department of Economics University
More informationTYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS
TYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS by Dennis W. Carlton Booth School of Business University of Chicago 5807 South WoodLawn Chicago, IL 60637 and NBER (773) 7026694, dennis.carlton@chicagogsb.edu and
More informationMonopolistic competition, endogenous markups, and growth
ELSEVIER European Economic Review 38 (1994) 748756 EUROPEAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Monopolistic competition, endogenous markups, and growth Jordi Gali Gruduute School of Business, Columbia University, 607 Uris
More informationInformation Design: Murat Sertel Lecture
nformation Design: Murat Sertel Lecture stanbul Bilgi University: Conference on Economic Design Stephen Morris July 2015 Mechanism Design and nformation Design Mechanism Design: Fix an economic environment
More informationNetworks, Network Externalities and Market Segmentation
Networks, Network Externalities and Market Segmentation A. Banerji Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India, (a.banerji@econdse.org) and Bhaskar Dutta Department of Economics,
More informationTwo Lectures on Information Design
Two Lectures on nformation Design 10th DSE Winter School Stephen Morris December 2015 nformation Design Usually in information economics, we ask what can happen for a xed information structure... nformation
More informationUsing LastMinute Sales for Vertical Differentiation on the Internet
Abstract Number 0110050 Using LastMinute Sales for Vertical Differentiation on the Internet Ori Marom RSM Erasmus University Burgmeester Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands omarom@rsm.nl Abraham
More informationIntroduction to Economics II: Producer Theory
Introduction to Economics II: Producer Theory Leslie Reinhorn Durham University Business School October 2014 Plan of the Lecture Introduction The Case of Perfect Competition pro t maximization problem
More informationProduct bundling and tying in competition
Product bundling and tying in competition Eugen Kováč (CERGEEI and Bonn University) June 2006 Abstract This paper explores tying in the situation where a multiproduct firm without monopoly power competes
More informationCountervailing Power and Product Diversity
Countervailing Power and Product Diversity by Zhiqi Chen Carleton University Work in Progress December 6, 2003 Abstract To analyse the effects of countervailing power on product variety, I construct a
More informationModeling of competition in revenue management Petr Fiala 1
Modeling of competition in revenue management Petr Fiala 1 Abstract. Revenue management (RM) is the art and science of predicting consumer behavior and optimizing price and product availability to maximize
More informationPerfect Competition & Welfare
Perfect Competition & Welfare Outline Derive aggregate supply function Short and Long run euilibrium Practice problem Consumer and Producer Surplus Dead weight loss Practice problem Focus on profit maximizing
More informationOPTIMAL R&D POLICY AND ENDOGENOUS QUALITY CHOICE
MS # 1949 OPTIMAL R&D POLICY AND ENDOGENOUS QUALITY CHOICE Tsuyoshi TOSHIMITSU * Kwansei Gakuin University Final version March 2003 Abstract In a qualitydifferentiated duopoly where (i) quality is endogenously
More informationSolutions to Final Exam
Solutions to Final Exam AEC 504  Summer 2007 Fundamentals of Economics c 2007 Alexander Barinov 1 Veni, vidi, vici (30 points) Two firms with constant marginal costs serve two markets for two different
More informationCompetitive Strategy: Week 6. Dynamic Pricing
Competitive Strategy: Week 6 Dynamic Pricing Simon Board Eco380, Competitive Strategy 1 Capacity Choice Consider a building a stadium for the olympics. Demand is given by p(q) = a q. Firm chooses capacity
More informationTargeted Advertising on Competing Platforms
Targeted Advertising on Competing Platforms Sii Pan and Huanxing Yang Department of Economics, Ohio State University February 26, 2014 Abstract This paper studies targeted advertising in two sided markets.
More informationWireless Network Pricing Chapter 5: Monopoly and Price Discriminations
Wireless Network Pricing Chapter 5: Monopoly and Price Discriminations Jianwei Huang & Lin Gao Network Communications and Economics Lab (NCEL) Information Engineering Department The Chinese University
More informationMonopoly. PowerPoint Slides prepared by: Andreea CHIRITESCU Eastern Illinois University
15 Monopoly PowerPoint Slides prepared by: Andreea CHIRITESCU Eastern Illinois University 1 Market power Why Monopolies Arise Alters the relationship between a firm s costs and the selling price Monopoly
More informationSample. Final Exam Sample Instructor: Jin Luo
Final Exam Instructor: Jin Luo Multiple Choice (2 *30 = 60) Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. Price takers refer to buyers and sellers in a.
More informationThe Role of Price Floor in a Differentiated Product Retail Market 1
The Role of Price Floor in a Differentiated Product Retail Market 1 Barna Bakó 2 Corvinus University of Budapest Hungary 1 I would like to thank the anonymous referee for the valuable comments and suggestions,
More informationCommerce 295 Midterm Answers
Commerce 295 Midterm Answers October 27, 2010 PART I MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS Each question has one correct response. Please circle the letter in front of the correct response for each question. There
More informationGame Theory & Firms. Jacob LaRiviere & Justin Rao April 20, 2016 Econ 404, Spring 2016
Game Theory & Firms Jacob LaRiviere & Justin Rao April 20, 2016 Econ 404, Spring 2016 What is Game Theory? Game Theory Intuitive Definition: Theory of strategic interaction Technical Definition: Account
More information7 The Optimum of Monopoly, Price Discrimination
Microeconomics I  Lecture #7, March 31, 2009 7 The Optimum of Monopoly, Price Discrimination 7.1 Monopoly Up to now we have analyzed the behavior of a competitive industry, a market structure that is
More informationUsing LastMinute Sales for Vertical Differentiation on the Internet
Using LastMinute Sales for Vertical Differentiation on the Internet Ori Marom RSM Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands omarom@rsmnl Abraham Seidmann University of Rochester Rochester, NY, USA
More informationECON 2100 Principles of Microeconomics (Summer 2016) Monopoly
ECON 21 Principles of Microeconomics (Summer 216) Monopoly Relevant readings from the textbook: Mankiw, Ch. 15 Monopoly Suggested problems from the textbook: Chapter 15 Questions for Review (Page 323):
More informationECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPER. Department of Economics Tufts University Medford, MA (617)
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPER 2016 Department of Economics Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 (617) 6273560 http://ase.tufts.edu/economics/ The Veblen Effect, Targeted Advertising and Consumer Welfare
More informationBeliefs, Market Size and Consumer Search
Beliefs, Market Size and Consumer Search Maarten Janssen and Sandro Shelegia March 30, 2014 Abstract We analyze how the market power of firms in consumer search markets depends on how consumers form beliefs
More informationMonopoly. 3 Microeconomics LESSON 5. Introduction and Description. Time Required. Materials
LESSON 5 Monopoly Introduction and Description Lesson 5 extends the theory of the firm to the model of a Students will see that the profitmaximization rules for the monopoly are the same as they were
More informationBACHELOR OF BUSINESS. Sample FINAL EXAMINATION
BACHELOR OF BUSINESS Sample FINAL EXAMINATION Subject Code : ECO201 Subject Name : LABOUR ECONOMICS This examination carries 50% of the total assessment for this subject. Examiner(s) Moderator(s) Joyce
More informationAmerican Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings
American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings Year 2004 Paper 31 MERGERS IN DURABLEGOODS INDUSTRIES: A REEXAMINATION OF MARKET POWER AND WELFARE EFFECTS Ari D. Gerstle Michael Waldman U.S. Dept.
More informationNonlinear pricing of a congestible network good. Abstract
Nonlinear pricing of a congestible network good haïreddine Jebsi LEGI, Ecole Polytechnique, La Marsa and Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Economiques et Politiques de Sousse, Tunisia Lionel Thomas CRESE,
More informationEXTERNALITIES AND PRICING ON MULTIDIMENSIONAL. MATCHING PLATFORMS: Online Appendix
EXTERNALITIES AND PRICING ON MULTIDIMENSIONAL MATCHING PLATFORMS: Online Appendix Melati Nungsari Davidson College Sam Flanders UNCChapel Hill Job Market Paper September 21, 2015 Abstract We study multidimensional
More informationChapter 6. Competition
Chapter 6 Competition Copyright 2014 McGrawHill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGrawHill Education. 11 Chapter 6 The goal of this
More informationPerfect price discrimination (PPD) 1 Graph. Monopolist sells product with downwardsloping demand curve Each consumer demands one unit: demand curve
Price discrimination Up to now, consider situations where each firm sets one uniform price Consider cases where firm engages in nonuniform pricing: 1. Charging customers different prices for the same
More informationCONTENTS. Introduction to the Series. 1 Introduction to Economics 5 2 Competitive Markets, Demand and Supply Elasticities 37
CONTENTS Introduction to the Series iv 1 Introduction to Economics 5 2 Competitive Markets, Demand and Supply 17 3 Elasticities 37 4 Government Intervention in Markets 44 5 Market Failure 53 6 Costs of
More informationECONOMICS. Paper 3 : Fundamentals of Microeconomic Theory Module 28 : Non collusive and Collusive model
Subject Paper No and Title Module No and Title Module Tag 3 : Fundamentals of Microeconomic Theory 28 : Non collusive and Collusive model ECO_P3_M28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction
More informationAnalysis of Preorder Strategies with the Presence of Experienced Consumers
Analysis of Preorder Strategies with the Presence of Experienced Consumers Chenhang Zeng February 19, 2014 Abstract We study preorder strategies in a twoperiod, continuousvaluation model with the presence
More informationEconomics 352: Intermediate Microeconomics. Notes and Sample Questions Chapter Ten: The Partial Equilibrium Competitive Model
Economics 352: Intermediate Microeconomics Notes and Sample uestions Chapter Ten: The artial Euilibrium Competitive Model This chapter will investigate perfect competition in the short run and in the long
More informationSearch markets: Introduction
Search markets: Introduction Caltech Ec106 (Caltech) Search Feb 2010 1 / 16 Why are prices for the same item so different across stores? (see evidence) A puzzle considering basic economic theory: review
More informationThis is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed
Advances in Environmental Biology, 6(4): 14001411, 2012 ISSN 19950756 1400 This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed ORIGINAL ARTICLE Joint Production and Economic
More informationConsumer Basket Information, Supermarket Pricing and Loyalty Card Programs
Consumer Basket Information, Supermarket Pricing and Loyalty Card Programs Nanda Kumar SM 3, School of Management The University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 83688 Richardson, TX 7583688 Email: nkumar@utdallas.edu
More informationCapacity Dilemma: Economic Scale Size versus. Demand Fulfillment
Capacity Dilemma: Economic Scale Size versus Demand Fulfillment ChiaYen Lee (cylee@mail.ncku.edu.tw) Institute of Manufacturing Information and Systems, National Cheng Kung University Abstract A firm
More informationBasic Monopoly Pricing and Product Strategies
Chapter 3 Basic Monopoly Pricing and Product Strategies Industrial 1 Introduction A monopolist has the power to set prices Consider how the monopolist exercises this power Focus in this section on a singleproduct
More informationECN 3103 INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION
ECN 3103 INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION 5. Game Theory Mr. Sydney Armstrong Lecturer 1 The University of Guyana 1 Semester 1, 2016 OUR PLAN Analyze Strategic price and Quantity Competition (Noncooperative Oligopolies)
More informationLecture 2: Market Structure I (Perfect Competition and Monopoly)
Lecture 2: Market Structure I (Perfect Competition and Monopoly) EC 105. Industrial Organization Matt Shum HSS, California Institute of Technology October 1, 2012 EC 105. Industrial Organization ( Matt
More informationGames with Time Inconsistent Players
Games with Time Inconsistent Players Yianis Sarafidis February 22, 2006 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Comments are more than welcome Abstract We embed time inconsistent agents (players) in noncooperative games. To
More information1. Supply and demand are the most important concepts in economics.
Page 1 1. Supply and demand are the most important concepts in economics. 2. Markets and Competition a. Def: Market is a group of buyers and sellers of a particular good or service. P. 66. b. Def: A competitive
More information2007 NATIONAL ECONOMICS CHALLENGE NCEE/Goldman Sachs Foundation
2007 NATIONAL ECONOMICS CHALLENGE NCEE/Goldman Sachs Foundation National Round I: Microeconomics David Ricardo Division 1. If your income tax liability is $15,000 and your income is $60,000, your A. average
More informationJANUARY EXAMINATIONS 2008
No. of Pages: (A) 9 No. of Questions: 38 EC1000A micro 2008 JANUARY EXAMINATIONS 2008 Subject Title of Paper ECONOMICS EC1000 MICROECONOMICS Time Allowed Two Hours (2 Hours) Instructions to candidates
More informationNote on webpage about sequential ascending auctions
Econ 805 Advanced Micro Theory I Dan Quint Fall 2007 Lecture 20 Nov 13 2007 Second problem set due next Tuesday SCHEDULING STUDENT PRESENTATIONS Note on webpage about sequential ascending auctions Everything
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013 Monopolistic markets and pricing with market power (PR 10.110.4 and 11.111.4) Module 4 Sep. 20, 2014
More informationMonopolistic Competition. Chapter 17
Monopolistic Competition Chapter 17 The Four Types of Market Structure Number of Firms? Many firms One firm Few firms Differentiated products Type of Products? Identical products Monopoly Oligopoly Monopolistic
More informationProduct Development Capability and Marketing Strategy for New Durable Products
Product Development Capability and Marketing Strategy for New Durable Products Sumitro Banerjee 1 and David A. Soberman 2 January 17, 2013 1 Sumitro Banerjee (the corresponding author) is Associate Professor
More informationMonopolistic Markets. Causes of Monopolies
Monopolistic Markets Causes of Monopolies The causes of monopolization Monoplositic resources Only one firm owns a resource which is crucial for production (e.g. diamond monopol of DeBeers). Monopols created
More informationPrice Discrimination through Corporate Social Responsibility
Price Discrimination through Corporate Social Responsibility Suman Ghosh Kameshwari Shankar Abstract A common form of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by firmsistoagreetodonatea fixed portion of private
More informationThe Analysis of Competitive Markets
C H A P T E R 12 The Analysis of Competitive Markets Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn Quijano CHAPTER 12 OUTLINE 12.1 Monopolistic Competition 12.2 Oligopoly 12.3 Price Competition 12.4 Competition versus
More informationExtra Credit. Student:
Extra Credit Student: 1. A glass company making windows for houses also makes windows for other things (cars, boats, planes, etc.). We would expect its supply curve for house windows to be: A. Dependent
More informationCHAPTER NINE MONOPOLY
CHAPTER NINE MONOPOLY This chapter examines how a market controlled by a single producer behaves. What price will a monopolist charge for his output? How much will he produce? The basic characteristics
More information23 Perfect Competition
23 Perfect Competition Learning Objectives After you have studied this chapter, you should be able to 1. define price taker, total revenues, marginal revenue, shortrun shutdown price, shortrun breakeven
More informationEcon 2113: Principles of Microeconomics. Spring 2009 ECU
Econ 2113: Principles of Microeconomics Spring 2009 ECU Chapter 12 Monopoly Market Power Market power is the ability to influence the market, and in particular the market price, by influencing the total
More informationVIII 1 TOPIC VIII: MONOPOLY AND OTHER INDUSTRY STRUCTURES. I. Monopoly  Single Firm With No Threat of Close Competition. Other Industry Structures
TOPIC VIII: MONOPOLY AND OTHER INDUSTRY STRUCTURES I. Monopoly  Single Firm With No Threat of Close Competition II. Other Industry Structures CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES MONOPOLY We now consider the opposite
More informationUmbrella Branding Can Leverage Reputation, but only with Market Power. May 19, Eric B. Rasmusen
Umbrella Branding Can Leverage Reputation, but only with Market Power May 19, 2012 Eric B. Rasmusen Dan R. and Catherine M. Dalton Professor, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Kelley
More informationPerfect competition: occurs when none of the individual market participants (ie buyers or sellers) can influence the price of the product.
Perfect Competition In this section of work and the next one we derive the equilibrium positions of firms in order to determine whether or not it is profitable for a firm to produce and, if so, what quantities
More informationSignaling Quality Through Prices in an Oligopoly.
Signaling Quality Through Prices in an Oligopoly. Maarten C.W. Janssen University of Vienna, Austria and Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Santanu Roy Southern Methodist University, Dallas,
More informationMonopoly. While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
Monopoly Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. Monopoly A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. its product does not
More informationChapter 10: Monopoly
Chapter 10: Monopoly Answers to Study Exercise Question 1 a) horizontal; downward sloping b) marginal revenue; marginal cost; equals; is greater than c) greater than d) less than Question 2 a) Total revenue
More information1 of 14 5/1/2014 4:56 PM
1 of 14 5/1/2014 4:56 PM Any point on the budget constraint Gives the consumer the highest level of utility. Represent a combination of two goods that are affordable. Represents combinations of two goods
More information2010 Pearson Education Canada
What Is Perfect Competition? Perfect competition is an industry in which Many firms sell identical products to many buyers. There are no restrictions to entry into the industry. Established firms have
More informationMonopoly. Chapter 15
Monopoly Chapter 15 Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. Monopoly u A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. its product
More informationIntegrating Production Costs in Channel Decisions
Journal of Retailing 87 1, 2011) 101 110 Integrating Production Costs in Channel Decisions Ruhai Wu a,1, Suman Basuroy b,, Srinath Beldona c,2 a DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main
More informationThe Limits of Price Discrimination. April 14, 2014
Princeton University  Economic Theory Center Research Paper No. 050 The Limits of Price Discrimination April 4, 04 Dirk Bergemann Yale University Benjamin Brooks Princeton University Stephen Morris Princeton
More informationJournal of Industrial Organization Education
Journal of Industrial Organization Education Volume 2, Issue 1 2007 Article 1 Simulating Tariffs vs. Quotas with Domestic Monopoly John Gilbert, Utah State University Reza Oladi, Utah State University
More informationMonopolistic Markets. Regulation
Monopolistic Markets Regulation Comparison of monopolistic and competitive equilibrium output The profits of a monopolist are maximized when MC(Q M ) = P(Q M ) + Q P (Q M ) negative In a competitive market:
More informationUnequal Effects of Trade on Workers with Different Abilities
Unequal Effects of Trade on Workers with Different Abilities Elhanan Helpman Harvard University and CIFAR Oleg Itskhoki Princeton University Stephen Redding London School of Economics August 1, 2009 Abstract
More informationHow to Commit to a Future Price
How to Commit to a Future Price Keisuke Hattori Amihai Glazer July 22, 2013 Abstract JEL Classification: L14 Keywords: Pricing commitment; durable goods 1 Introduction Consider a monopolist that sells
More informationIntroduction Question Bank
Introduction Question Bank 1. Science of wealth is the definition given by 2. Economics is the study of mankind of the ordinary business of life given by 3. Science which tells about what it is & what
More information