Socially optimal liability rules for firms with natural monopoly in contestable markets
AbstractThis article considers the problem of socially efficient liability rules for firms in contestable markets where natural monopoly prevails due to decreasing average cost. If the fixed cost that pushes the entry-limiting price above marginal cost is large relative to the level of external harm of firms, the negligence regime is socially superior to the strict liability regime. In the opposite case, the strict liability rule may be socially superior.
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 Review of Law and Economics.
Volume (Year): 31 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle
Strict liability Negligence liability Natural monopoly Contestable market;
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.:
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & William P. Rogerson, 1983.
"Products Liability, Consumer Misperceptions, and Market Power,"
Bell Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 581-589, Autumn.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & William P. Rogerson, 1982. "Products Liability, Consumer Misperceptions, and Market Power," NBER Working Papers 0937, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Polinsky, A Mitchell, 1980. "Strict Liability vs. Negligence in a Market Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 363-67, May.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.