"Planned antiobsolescence" occurs when consumers engage in maintenance
AbstractThis paper examines whether the built-in durability chosen by a durable-good monopolist and the actual durability associated with consumer maintenance are excessive or insufficient. Our research indicates that only in situations where both the consumer maintenance market and the secondhand market exist can the monopolist select a socially excessive durability level: that is, planned antiobsolescence requires both markets. However, overinvestment in built-in durability does not necessarily lead to a socially excessive level of actual durability. We also show that the existence of maintenance may enhance built-in durability, even though maintenance activity can partially recover the depreciation in durability.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal International Journal of Industrial Organization.
Volume (Year): 28 (2010)
Issue (Month): 5 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551
Durable goods monopoly Built-in durability Actual durability Maintenance Planned antiobsolescence;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rust, John, 1986. "When Is It Optimal to Kill Off the Market for Used Durable Goods?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 65-86, January.
- Swan, Peter L, 1970. "Durability of Consumption Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(5), pages 884-94, December.
- Igal Hendel & Alessandro Lizzeri, 1999. "Interfering with Secondary Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 1-21, Spring.
- Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
- Eric W. Bond & Larry Samuelson, 1984. "Durable Good Monopolies with Rational Expectations and Replacement Sales," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 336-345, Autumn.
- Kinokuni, Hiroshi, 1999. "Repair Market Structure, Product Durability, and Monopoly," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 343-53, December.
- Schmalensee, Richard, 1974. "Market Structure, Durability, and Maintenance Effort," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 277-87, April.
- Hodaka Morita & Michael Waldman, 2004. "Durable Goods, Monopoly Maintenance, and Time Inconsistency," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 273-302, 06.
- Su, Teddy T, 1975. "Durability of Consumption Goods Reconsidered," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 148-57, March.
- Bulow, Jeremy, 1986. "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 729-49, November.
- Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-49, April.
- Waldman, Michael, 1996. "Durable Goods Pricing When Quality Matters," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(4), pages 489-510, October.
- Gregory E. Goering, 2012. "Taxation and Durable-Goods Monopoly: Does a Current Tax Influence Firm Behavior?," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 20-28, August.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.