IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jincot/v15y2015i2p155-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Product Bans May Benefit Consumers: Implications from a New Model Of Vertical Product Differentiation

Author

Listed:
  • Toker Doganoglu
  • Firat Inceoglu

Abstract

We formulate a model of vertical differentiation to evaluate the welfare effects of removing a low quality product from the market. The mechanism through which a welfare improvement might arise is simple: Once the low quality low cost alternative is banned, entry into the high quality segment becomes more likely. This in turn may lead to a significant reduction in the price of the high quality product. We find that such a ban might improve consumer as well as aggregate welfare when consumers value the higher quality more, the marginal cost of producing high quality is lower, the price of low quality is higher, and the price sensitivity for high quality is not too high. The key feature of our model is that it allows elastic demands by individual consumers. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Toker Doganoglu & Firat Inceoglu, 2015. "Product Bans May Benefit Consumers: Implications from a New Model Of Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 155-180, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:155-180
    DOI: 10.1007/s10842-014-0179-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10842-014-0179-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10842-014-0179-z?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. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    2. Leland, Hayne E, 1979. "Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing: A Theory of Minimum Quality Standards," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(6), pages 1328-1346, December.
    3. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    4. Crampes, Claude & Hollander, Abraham, 1995. "Duopoly and quality standards," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 71-82, January.
    5. Rachel Griffith & Lars Nesheim, 2008. "Household willingness to pay for organic products," CeMMAP working papers CWP18/08, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Valletti, Tommaso M, 2000. "Minimum Quality Standards under Cournot Competition," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 235-245, November.
    7. Uri Ronnen, 1991. "Minimum Quality Standards, Fixed Costs, and Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 490-504, Winter.
    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. Min Chen & Konstantinos Serfes, 2012. "Minimum quality standard regulation under imperfect quality observability," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 269-291, April.
    2. Buehler, Benno & Schuett, Florian, 2014. "Certification and minimum quality standards when some consumers are uninformed," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 493-511.
    3. Stefan Lutz & Mario Pezzino, 2012. "International Strategic Choice of Minimum Quality Standards and Welfare," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 594-613, July.
    4. Paolo Garella & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2008. "Minimum quality standards and consumers’ information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(2), pages 283-302, August.
    5. Schmidt, Robert C., 2009. "Welfare in differentiated oligopolies with more than two firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 501-507, July.
    6. John R. Bowblis & Andrew Ghattas, 2017. "The Impact of Minimum Quality Standard Regulations on Nursing Home Staffing, Quality, and Exit Decisions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(1), pages 43-68, February.
    7. Olivier Bonroy, 2006. "Le standard de qualité minimale est-il un instrument socialement optimal ?. Une revue de littérature," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(1), pages 35-53.
    8. Lutz, Stefan H., 2002. "The Effects of Quotas on Vertical Intra-Industry Trade," ZEW Discussion Papers 02-61, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Garella, Paolo G. & Lambertini, Luca, 2014. "Bidimensional vertical differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Stefan Lutz & Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2003. "Mutual Recognition of National Minimum Quality Standards may Support International Convergence," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 293-311, December.
    11. Soham Baksi & Pinaki Bose & Di Xiang, 2017. "Credence Goods, Misleading Labels, and Quality Differentiation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 377-396, October.
    12. Ioana Chioveanu, 2012. "Price and quality competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(1), pages 23-44, September.
    13. Haizhen Lin, 2010. "Do Minimum Quality Standards Improve Quality? A Case Study of the Nursing Home Industry," Working Papers 2010-01, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    14. Peter Michaelis & Thomas Ziesemer, 2015. "On dynamic standards for energy efficiency in differentiated duopoly," Discussion Paper Series 325, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    15. Elodie Rouviere & Raphael Soubeyran, 2011. "Competition vs. quality in an industry with imperfect traceability," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3052-3067.
    16. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    17. Ahmed, Rasha & Segerson, Kathleen, 2011. "Collective voluntary agreements to eliminate polluting products," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 572-588, September.
    18. Stefan Napel & Gunnar Oldehaver, 2011. "A dynamic perspective on minimum quality standards under Cournot competition," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 29-49, February.
    19. Stefan Napel & Gunnar Oldehaver, 2007. "Static Costs vs. Dynamic Benefits of a Minimum Quality Standard under Cournot Competition," Discussion Papers 23, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    20. Pei‐Cheng Liao, 2008. "A Note On Market Coverage In Vertical Differentiation Models With Fixed Costs," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 27-44, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vertical product differentiation; Product ban; Standards; Quality; L1; L11; L50; D43;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection

    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:kap:jincot:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:155-180. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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.