IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v68y2001i3p613-631..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surplus Extraction and Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Peters

Abstract

A competitive economy is studied in which sellers offer alternative direct mechanisms to buyers who have correlated private information about their valuations. In contrast to the monopoly case where sellers charge entry fees and extract all buyers' surplus, it is shown that in the unique symmetric equilibrium with competition, sellers hold second price auctions with reserve prices set equal to their cost. Most important, it is a best reply for sellers not to charge entry fees of the kind normally used to extract surplus, even though it is feasible for them to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Peters, 2001. "Surplus Extraction and Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 613-631.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:68:y:2001:i:3:p:613-631.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-937X.00183
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2018. "A Mechanism Design Approach to the Tiebout Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 735-760.
    2. Lester, Benjamin & Visschers, Ludo & Wolthoff, Ronald, 2015. "Dynamic Relational Contracts under Complete Information," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-51, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    3. Alexey Kushnir, 2013. "On the equivalence between Bayesian and dominant strategy implementation: the case of correlated types," ECON - Working Papers 129, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Fu, Hu & Haghpanah, Nima & Hartline, Jason & Kleinberg, Robert, 2021. "Full surplus extraction from samples," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Parreiras, Sergio O., 2005. "Correlated information, mechanism design and informational rents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 210-217, August.
    6. Lester, Benjamin & Visschers, Ludo & Wolthoff, Ronald, 2017. "Competing with asking prices," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    7. Ángel Hernando Veciana, 2001. "Competition Among Auctioneers," Working Papers. Serie AD 2001-18, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Rigotti, Luca & Shannon, Chris, 2022. "Uncertainty and robustness of surplus extraction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    9. Jehiel, Philippe & Lamy, Laurent, 2014. "On discrimination in procurement auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9790, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Jansen, Marcel, 2003. "Can job competition prevent hold-ups?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we035120, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    11. Liu, Bin & Lu, Jingfeng & Wang, Ruqu & Zhang, Jun, 2018. "Optimal prize allocation in contests: The role of negative prizes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 291-317.
    12. Hernando-Veciana, Angel, 2005. "Competition among auctioneers in large markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 107-127, March.
    13. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Robust Mechanism Design: An Introduction," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 1, pages 1-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Kenneth Hendricks & Thomas Wiseman, 2021. "How To Sell (or Procure) in a Sequential Auction," Papers 2110.13121, arXiv.org.
    15. Lester, Benjamin & Visschers, Ludo & Wolthoff, Ronald, 2015. "Dynamic Relational Contracts under Complete Information," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-51, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Scotchmer, Suzanne & Shannon, Chris, 2019. "Verifiability and group formation in markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 417-477.

    More about this item

    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:oup:restud:v:68:y:2001:i:3:p:613-631.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.