Monopolistic group design with peer effects
AbstractIn a range of settings, private firms manage peer effects by sorting agents into different groups, be they schools, communities, or product categories. This paper considers such a firm, which controls group entry by setting a series of anonymous prices. We show that private provision systematically leads to two distortions relative to the efficient solution: first, agents are segregated too finely; second, too many agents are excluded from all groups. We demonstrate that these distortions are a consequence of anonymous pricing and do not depend upon the nature of the peer effects. This general approach also allows us to assess the way the `returns to scale' of peer technology and the cost of group formation affect the optimal group structure.
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 Econometric Society in its journal Theoretical Economics.
Volume (Year): 4 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://econtheory.org
Mechanism design; peer effects; public goods; network effects;
Other versions of this item:
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - 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.:
- Armin Falk & Andrea Ichino, 2004.
"Clean Evidence on Peer Effects,"
666156000000000439, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Paul Milgrom & Ilya Segal, 2002. "Envelope Theorems for Arbitrary Choice Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 583-601, March.
- Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1993.
"Design Innovation and Fashion Cycles,"
1049, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Edward P. Lazear, 1999.
NBER Working Papers
7349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Nicola Persico, 1997.
"Information Acquisition in Auctions,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
762, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Henderson, Vernon & Mieszkowski, Peter & Sauvageau, Yvon, 1978. "Peer group effects and educational production functions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 97-106, August.
- Mas, Alexandre & Moretti, Enrico, 2006.
"Peers at Work,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
5870, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Helen F. Ladd, 2002. "School Vouchers: A Critical View," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 3-24, Fall.
- Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Jacob M. Markman & Steven G. Rivkin, 2001.
"Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?,"
NBER Working Papers
8502, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Richard Arnott & John Rowse, 1982.
"Peer Group Effects and Educational Attainment,"
497, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972.
"Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-95, December.
- Armen A. Alchian & Harold Demsetz, 1971. "Production, Information Costs and Economic Organizations," UCLA Economics Working Papers 10A, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Thomas J. Nechyba, 2000. "Mobility, Targeting, and Private-School Vouchers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 130-146, March.
- Kremer, Michael, 1993. "The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 108(3), pages 551-75, August.
- Bruce Sacerdote, 2001.
"Peer Effects With Random Assignment: Results For Dartmouth Roommates,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 116(2), pages 681-704, May.
- Bruce Sacerdote, 2000. "Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates," NBER Working Papers 7469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
- William C. Strange & Robert W. Helsley, 2000. "Social Interactions and the Institutions of Local Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1477-1490, December.
- Terence Johnson, 2009. "Matching Through Position Auctions," Working Papers 001, University of Notre Dame, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2011.
- Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Jan Eeckhout, 2012. "Matching Information," 2012 Meeting Papers 835, Society for Economic Dynamics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martin J. Osborne).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.