Partial Privatization Upstream with Spatial Price Discrimination Downstream
Tóm tắt
We consider a mixed duopoly selling to downstream retailers that are engaged in spatial price discrimination. We show that the optimal degree of privatization falls below—often far below—the level that is implied in the absence of the vertical chain. The size of this reduction in privatization reflects the extent to which increasing transport cost (differentiation) increases double marginalization in contested market regions—as opposed to simply reducing demand in uncontested market regions. Moreover, we show that despite higher costs of production, a fully public monopoly upstream can be welfare-superior to the optimal mixed duopoly. This would not be the case in the absence of downstream differentiation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Belleflamme, P., & Peitz, M. (2010). Industrial organization: Markets and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bortolotti, B., Fantini, M., & Siniscalco, D. (2003). Privatization around the world: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 305–322.
Bowley, A. (1924). The mathematical groundwork of economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cellini, R., & Lambertini, L. (2009). The make or buy choice in a mixed oligopoly: A theoretical investigation. In L. Lambertini (Ed.), Firms’ objectives and internal organization in a global economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Cournot, A. A. (1838). Researches into the mathematical principles of the theory of wealth, English translation by N.T. Bacon reprinted with notes by I. Fisher, New York: Macmillan 1927.
Fjell, K., & Pal, D. (1996). A mixed oligopoly in the presence of foreign private firms. Canadian Journal of Economics, 29, 737–743.
Florio, M. (2014). The return of public enterprise. Working Paper Series. Centre for Industrial Studies, University of Milan 2014/01.
Fujiwara, K. (2007). Partial privatization in a differentiated mixed oligopoly. Journal of Economics, 92, 51–65.
Gelves, J. A., & Heywood, J. S. (2013). Privatizing by merger: The case of an inefficient public leader. International Review of Economics and Finance, 27, 69–79.
Greenhut, M. L. (1981). Spatial pricing in the United States, West Germany and Japan. Economica, 48(189), 79–86.
Gupta, B., Katz, A., & Pal, D. (1994). Upstream monopoly, downstream competition and spatial price discrimination. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24, 529–542.
Hamilton, J. H., Thisse, J. F., & Weskamp, A. (1989). Spatial discrimination: Bertrand vs. Cournot in a model of location choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 19, 87–102.
Heywood, J. S., Wang, S., & Ye, G. (2018). Resale price maintenance and spatial price discrimination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 57, 147–174.
Heywood, J. S., & Ye, G. (2009a). Mixed oligopoly, sequential entry and spatial price discrimination. Economic Inquiry, 47, 589–597.
Heywood, J. S., & Ye, G. (2009b). Partial privatization in a mixed oligopoly with an R&D rivalry. Bulletin of Economic Research, 61, 165–178.
Heywood, J. S., & Ye, G. (2010). Optimal privatization in a mixed duopoly with consistent conjectures. Journal of Economics, 101, 231–246.
Hsu, C. C. (2016). Partial privatization in upstream mixed oligopoly with free entry. Modern Economy, 7, 1444–1454.
Johnson, C. (Ed.). (1987). Business Strategy and Retailing. New York: Wiley.
Lee, S. H., Nakamura, T., & Park, C. H. (2017). Optimal privatization policy in a mixed eco-industry in the presence of commitments on abatement technologies. Working Paper, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 80902.
Matsumura, T. (1998). Partial privatization in mixed duopoly. Journal of Public Economics, 70(3), 473–483.
Matsumura, T., & Kanda, O. (2005). Mixed oligopoly at free entry markets. Journal of Economics, 84, 27–48.
Matsumura, T., & Matsushima, N. (2004). Endogenous cost differentials between public and private enterprises: A mixed duopoly approach. Economica, 71, 671–688.
Matsumura, T., Ohkawa, T., & Shimizu, D. (2005). Partial agglomeration or dispersion in spatial Cournot competition. Southern Economic Journal, 72, 224–235.
Matsumura, T., & Tomaru, Y. (2015). Mixed duopoly, location choice, and shadow cost of public funds. Southern Economic Journal, 82, 416–429.
Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies of privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 321–389.
Pal, D. (1998). Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly. Economics Letters, 61, 181–185.
Pal, R., & Saha, B. (2015). Pollution tax, partial privatization and environment. Resource and Energy Economics, 40, 19–35.
Sato, S. & Matsumura, T. (2017). Shadow cost of public funds and privatization policies. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Working Paper No. 81054.
Sato, S., & Matsumura, T. (2018). Dynamic privatization policy. Manchester School, Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1111/manc.12217.
Shaffer, G. (1991). Slotting allowances and resale price maintenance: A comparison of facilitating practices. Rand Journal of Economics, 22, 120–135.
Spengler, J. (1950). Vertical integration and antitrust policy. Journal of Political Economy, 58, 347–352.
Thisse, J. F., & Vives, X. (1988). On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. American Economic Review, 78, 122–137.
Wang, L. F. S., & Chen, T. L. (2011). Mixed oligopoly, optimal privatization, and foreign penetration. Economic Modelling, 28, 1465–1470.
Wang, L. F. S., & Mukherjee, A. (2012). Undesirable competition. Economics Letters, 114, 175–177.
Waterman, D., & Weiss, A. A. (1996). The effects of vertical integration between cable television systems and pay cable networks. Journal of Econometrics, 72, 357–395.
Wu, S. J., Chang, Y. M., & Chen, H. Y. (2016). Imported inputs and privatization in downstream mixed oligopoly with foreign ownership. Canadian Journal of Economics, 49, 1179–1207.
Xu, L. L., Cho, S. M., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Emission tax and optimal privatization in Cournot–Bertrand comparison. Economic Modelling, 66, 73–82.
Yang, Y. P., Wu, S. J., & Hu, J. L. (2014). Market structure, production efficiency, and privatization. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 55, 89–108.