IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v215y2022ics0165176522001288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Condorelli inequality for log-concave demand

Author

Listed:
  • Gui, Qingyun
  • Huang, Yi C.

Abstract

In this note we give a simple and direct proof of Condorelli’s lower-bound on monopoly profit for log-concave demand, that is, a monopolist obtains at least 1/e of the area under the log-concave demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Gui, Qingyun & Huang, Yi C., 2022. "On Condorelli inequality for log-concave demand," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:215:y:2022:i:c:s0165176522001288
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176522001288
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Condorelli, Daniele, 2022. "A lower-bound on monopoly profit for log-concave demand," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Mark Bagnoli & Ted Bergstrom, 2006. "Log-concave probability and its applications," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Charalambos D. Aliprantis & Rosa L. Matzkin & Daniel L. McFadden & James C. Moore & Nicholas C. Yann (ed.), Rationality and Equilibrium, pages 217-241, Springer.
    3. Neeman, Zvika, 2003. "The effectiveness of English auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 214-238, May.
    4. Kremer, Michael, 2018. "Worst-Case Bounds on R&D and Pricing Distortions: Theory and Disturbing Conclusions if Consumer Values Follow the World Income," CEPR Discussion Papers 13241, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Michael Kremer & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Worst-Case Bounds on R&D and Pricing Distortions: Theory with an Application Assuming Consumer Values Follow the World Income Distribution," NBER Working Papers 25119, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Condorelli, Daniele, 2022. "A lower-bound on monopoly profit for log-concave demand," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Condorelli, Daniele & Szentes, Balazs, 2020. "Surplus Bounds in Cournot Monopoly and Competition," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1292, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    3. Condorelli, Daniele & Szentes, Balazs, 2020. "Surplus Bounds in Cournot Monopoly and Competition," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 62, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    4. Manara, Martina & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "Ask a local: improving the public pricing of land titles in urban Tanzania," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117856, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Manara, Martina & Regan, Tanner, 2020. "Eliciting demand for title deeds: lab-in-the-field evidence from urban Tanzania," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 107538, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Juan Pablo Atal & José Ignacio Cuesta & Felipe González & Cristóbal Otero, 2024. "The Economics of the Public Option: Evidence from Local Pharmaceutical Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 615-644, March.
    7. Péter Eso & Balázs Szentes, 2004. "The Price of Advice," Discussion Papers 1416, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    8. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Alexandre de Corniere, 2013. "Search Advertising," Economics Series Working Papers 649, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    10. Andrew Rhodes & Jidong Zhou, 2019. "Consumer Search and Retail Market Structure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2607-2623, June.
    11. Chakravarty, Surajeet & Kaplan, Todd R. & Myles, Gareth, 2018. "When costly voting is beneficial," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 33-42.
    12. Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2015. "A quantitative version of Myerson regularity," Working Paper Series in Economics 76, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    13. Péter Eső & Balázs Szentes, 2007. "The price of advice," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 863-880, December.
    14. Rhodes, Andrew, 2011. "Multiproduct pricing and the Diamond Paradox," MPRA Paper 32511, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Nocke, Volker & Peitz, Martin & Rosar, Frank, 2011. "Advance-purchase discounts as a price discrimination device," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 141-162, January.
    16. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 144-165, March.
    17. Allen Blackman, 2001. "Why don't Lenders Finance High-Return Technological Change in Developing-Country Agriculture?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 1024-1035.
    18. Albrecht, James & Anderson, Axel & Vroman, Susan, 2010. "Search by committee," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(4), pages 1386-1407, July.
    19. Madeleine Cule & Richard Samworth & Michael Stewart, 2010. "Maximum likelihood estimation of a multi‐dimensional log‐concave density," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(5), pages 545-607, November.
    20. Jianpei Li & Yi Xue & Weixing Wu, 2013. "Partnership dissolution and proprietary information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 495-527, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monopoly profit; Log-concave demand; Grünbaum inequalities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:215:y:2022:i:c:s0165176522001288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.