IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2104.10281.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nonlinear Pricing with Misspecified and Arbitrary Perception of the Marginal Price

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Alejandro Murillo Taborda

Abstract

In the context of nonlinear prices, the empirical evidence suggests that the consumers have cognitive biases represented in a limited understanding of nonlinear price structures, and they respond to some alternative perceptions of the marginal prices. In particular, consumers usually make choices based more on the average than the marginal prices, which can result in a suboptimal behavior. Taking the misspecification in the marginal price as exogenous, this document analyzes how is the optimal quadratic price scheme for a monopolist and the optimal quadratic price scheme that maximizes welfare when there is a continuum of representative consumers with an arbitrary perception of the marginal price. Under simple preferences and costs functional forms and very straightforward hypotheses, the results suggest that the bias in the marginal price doesn't affect the maximum welfare attainable with quadratic price schemes, and it has a negligible effect over the efficiency cost caused by the monopolist, so the misspecification in the marginal price is not relevant for welfare increasing policies. However, almost always the misspecification in the marginal price is beneficial for the monopolist. An interesting result is that under these functional forms, more misspecification in the marginal price is beneficial for both the consumers and the monopolist if the level of bias is low, so not always is socially optima to have educated consumers about the real marginal price. Finally, the document shows that the bias in the marginal price has a negative effect on reduction of aggregate consumption using two-tier increasing tariffs, which are commonly used for reduction of aggregate consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Alejandro Murillo Taborda, 2021. "Nonlinear Pricing with Misspecified and Arbitrary Perception of the Marginal Price," Papers 2104.10281, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2104.10281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.10281
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ignacio Esponda & Demian Pouzo, 2016. "Berk–Nash Equilibrium: A Framework for Modeling Agents With Misspecified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1093-1130, May.
    2. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2004. "Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 353-402.
    4. David Martimort & Lars A. Stole, 2020. "Nonlinear Pricing with Average-Price Bias," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 375-396, September.
    5. de Bartolome, Charles A. M., 1995. "Which tax rate do people use: Average or marginal?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 79-96, January.
    6. Koichiro Ito, 2014. "Do Consumers Respond to Marginal or Average Price? Evidence from Nonlinear Electricity Pricing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 537-563, February.
    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. Phuong Ho, 2023. "Nonlinear pricing, biased consumers, and regulatory policy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 149-164, March.
    2. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats & Peiseler, Florian, 2019. "Attention-driven demand for bonus contracts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-24.
    3. John Y. Campbell, 2016. "Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Michele Dell'Era & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Overconfidence, Self-Financing and Capital Market Efficiency," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 11.06, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie, revised Nov 2012.
    5. Michel, Christian, 2017. "Market regulation of voluntary add-on contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 239-268.
    6. Haisken-DeNew, John & Hasan, Syed & Jha, Nikhil & Sinning, Mathias, 2018. "Unawareness and selective disclosure: The effect of school quality information on property prices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 449-464.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Marieke Bos & Chloé Le Coq & Peter van Santen, 2022. "Scarcity and consumers’ credit choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 105-139, February.
    9. Jidong Zhou, 2011. "Reference Dependence and Market Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 1073-1097, December.
    10. Lukas, Moritz & Nöth, Markus, 2022. "Voluntary minimum repayments and borrower heterogeneity: Evidence from revolving consumer credit," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2004. "The Doubtful Profitability of Foggy Pricing," Working Papers 04-07, NET Institute.
    12. David Martimort & Lars A. Stole, 2020. "Nonlinear Pricing with Average-Price Bias," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 375-396, September.
    13. Alex Rees-Jones & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2018. "Taxing Humans: Pitfalls of the Mechanism Design Approach and Potential Resolutions," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 107-133.
    14. Binswanger, Johannes & Prüfer, Jens, 2012. "Democracy, populism, and (un)bounded rationality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 358-372.
    15. Oren Bar-Gill, 2015. "Price Caps in Multiprice Markets," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 453-476.
    16. Steffen Altmann & Armin Falk & Paul Heidhues & Rajshri Jayaraman & Marrit Teirlinck, 2019. "Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 808-826, December.
    17. Malmendier, Ulrike M. & Shanthikumar, Devin, 2004. "Are Investors Naive about Incentives?," Research Papers 1867, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Emmanuel Farhi & Xavier Gabaix, 2020. "Optimal Taxation with Behavioral Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(1), pages 298-336, January.
    19. Garcia Gonzalez, Javier, 2018. "Effects of Consumer Financial Protection Introduced after the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008," MPRA Paper 89226, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Kenan Kalaycı, 2016. "Confusopoly: competition and obfuscation in markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 299-316, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2104.10281. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.