Monopoly Behavior, Decentralized Regulation, and Contestable Markets: An Experimental Evaluation
AbstractThis study provides a comparative experimental evaluation of several alternative approaches to the (single-product) monopoly problem. We contrast incentive-compatible decentralized regulatory mechanisms with notions of market contestability in a decreasing-cost environment. The decentralized regulatory mechanisms are found to be significantly more effective at restraining monopoly power than is allowing direct contestability. But the regulatory mechanisms examined require that the regulatory agency know the market demand curve (though not the industry cost curve). Since this is significantly more information than is required to implement direct contestability, an interesting tradeoff is suggested: does the greater efficiency in monopoly restraint provided by the regulatory mechanism relative to direct contestability outweigh the former's greater informational requirements?
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by The RAND Corporation in its journal RAND Journal of Economics.
Volume (Year): 16 (1985)
Issue (Month): 1 (Spring)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.rje.org
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2009.
"Potential competition in the presence of sunk entry costs: an experiment,"
New Zealand Economic Papers,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 203-225.
- Dasgupta, Utteeyo, 2009. "Potential Competition in the Presence of Sunk Entry Costs: An Experiment," MPRA Paper 21945, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kelly, Frank S., 1995. "Laboratory subjects as multiproduct monopoly firms: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 401-420, August.
- Yan, Huibin & Friedman, Daniel, 2008. "An Experiment on the Coreâˆ—," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0jq48184, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
- Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2002.
"Buyer Countervailing Power versus Monopoly Power: Evidence from Experimental Posted-Offer Markets,"
2002-W14, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley J Ruffle, 2002. "Buyer Countervailing Power versus Monopoly Power: Evidence from Experimental Posted-Offer Markets," Economics Series Working Papers 2002-W14, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Jamie Brown-Kruse & Steven R Elliot & Rob Godby, 1995. "Strategic Manipulation of Pollution Permit Markets: An Experimental Approach," Department of Economics Working Papers 1995-03, McMaster University.
- Kritikos, Alexander & Bolle, Friedel, 2004. "Punishment as a public good. When should monopolists care about a consumer boycott?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 355-372, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.