Markets: State Franchise Laws, Dealer Terminations, and the Auto Crisis
In fall 2008, General Motors and Chrysler were both on the brink of bankruptcy, and Ford was not far behind. As the government stepped in and restructuring began, GM and Chrysler announced their plan to terminate about 2,200 dealerships. In this paper, we first provide an overview of franchising in car distribution, how it came about, and the legal framework within which it functions. States earn about 20 percent of all state sales taxes from auto dealers. As a result, new car dealerships, and especially local or state car dealership associations, have been able to exert influence over local legislatures. This has led to a set of state laws that almost guarantee dealership profitability and survival -- albeit at the expense of manufacturer profits. Available evidence and theory suggests that as a result of these laws, distribution costs and retail prices are higher than they otherwise would be; and this is particularly true for Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers -- which is likely a factor contributing to their losses in market share vis-�-vis other manufacturers. After discussing the evidence on the effects of the car franchise laws on dealer profit and car prices, we turn to the interaction of the franchise laws and manufacturers' response to the auto crisis. Last, we consider what car distribution might be like if there were no constraints on organization. We conclude that although the state-level franchise laws came about for a reason, the current crisis perhaps provides an opportunity to reconsider the kind of regulatory framework that would best serve consumers, rather than carmakers or car dealers.
Volume (Year): 24 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (Summer)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.aeaweb.org/jep/Email: |
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.aeaweb.org/subscribe.html|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Benito Arruñada & Luis Garicano & Luis Vázquez, 1999.
"Contractual allocation of decision rights and incentives: The case of automobile distribution,"
Economics Working Papers
424, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Arrunada, Benito & Garicano, Luis & Vazquez, Luis, 2001. "Contractual Allocation of Decision Rights and Incentives: The Case of Automobile Distribution," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 257-84, April.
- Benito Arruñada & Luis Vázquez & Giorgio Zanarone, 1999.
"Institutional constraints on organizations: The case of Spanish car dealerships,"
Economics Working Papers
348, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jun 2007.
- Benito Arruñada & Luis Vázquez & Giorgio Zanarone, 2009. "Institutional constraints on organizations: the case of Spanish car dealerships," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 15-26.
- John Kwoka, 2001. "Automobiles: The Old Economy Collides with the New," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 55-69, August.
- Smith, Richard L, II, 1982. "Franchise Regulation: An Economic Analysis of State Restrictions on Automobile Distribution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 125-57, April.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521772525 is not listed on IDEAS
- Stanworth, John & Curran, James, 1999. "Colas, burgers, shakes, and shirkers: Towards a sociological model of franchising in the market economy," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 323-344, July.
- Debra J. Holt, 2003. "The Internet and Auto Sales : Benefits and Barriers," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 19(Fall 2003), pages 21-37.
- Klein, Benjamin, 1980. "Transaction Cost Determinants of "Unfair" Contractual Arrangements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 356-62, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:24:y:2010:i:3:p:233-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jane Voros)or (Michael P. Albert)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.