The role of an intermediate market within the barbell model
AbstractThis paper extends Hwang and Mai (Am Econ Rev 80:567–575, 1990 ) with an intermediate market to discuss the spatial pricing and social welfare. It is shown that the monopoly will always locate at this intermediate market under discriminatory pricing. Under simple mill pricing, the intermediate market will be the optimal location if the slope of the demand function at this market is large enough. Moreover, in contrast to Hwang and Mai (Am Econ Rev 80:567–575, 1990 ), the total outputs under discriminatory pricing may be either greater or less than those under simple mill pricing, and social welfare under simple mill pricing is lower (higher) than that under discriminatory pricing if the transport rate is large (low) enough. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
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 Springer in its journal Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences.
Volume (Year): 6 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 (November)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/12076
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- R30 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - General
- L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
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.:
- Hong Hwang & Chao-Cheng Mai & Hiroshi Ohta, 2010. "Who Benefits From Pricing Regulations When Economic Space Matters?," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 61(2), pages 218-233.
- Martin J. Beckmann, 1976. "Spatial Price Policies Revisited," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(2), pages 619-630, Autumn.
- Stefano Colombo, 2011.
"Taxation and predatory prices in a spatial model,"
Papers in Regional Science,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(3), pages 603-612, 08.
- Stefano Colombo, 2010. "Taxation and Predatory Prices in a Spatial Model," DISCE - Quaderni dell'Istituto di Economia e Finanza ief0092, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
- Schmalensee, Richard, 1981.
"Output and Welfare Implications of Monopolistic Third-Degree Price Discrimination,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 242-47, March.
- Schmalensee, Richard., 1980. "Output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination," Working papers 1095-80., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Varian, Hal R, 1985. "Price Discrimination and Social Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 870-75, September.
- Greenhut, M L & Ohta, H, 1972. "Monopoly Output Under Alternative Spatial Pricing Techniques," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 705-13, September.
- Holahan, William L, 1975. "The Welfare Effects of Spatial Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 498-503, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.