IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v70y2022i4p999-1032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proportional Fee vs. Unit Fee: Competition, Welfare, and Incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Dingwei Gu
  • Zhiyong Yao
  • Wen Zhou

Abstract

This paper compares social welfare for a unit versus a proportional fee on competing networks. When demand is sub‐convex or isoelastic, proportional fee welfare dominates unit fee and the comparison is independent of network competition. When demand is super‐convex, however, unit fee welfare dominates proportional fee if network competition is sufficiently weak. Dominance of unit fee is more likely when network competition weakens or if merchants must single‐home. For competing networks, proportional fee is each network’s dominant strategy but often leads to a Prisoners’ Dilemma that hurts not only networks but also merchants.

Suggested Citation

  • Dingwei Gu & Zhiyong Yao & Wen Zhou, 2022. "Proportional Fee vs. Unit Fee: Competition, Welfare, and Incentives," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 999-1032, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:70:y:2022:i:4:p:999-1032
    DOI: 10.1111/joie.12279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12279
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joie.12279?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delipalla, Sofia & Keen, Michael, 1992. "The comparison between ad valorem and specific taxation under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 351-367, December.
    2. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Cooperation Among Competitors: Some Economics Of Payment Card Associations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 549-570, Winter.
    3. Rabah Amir & Val E. Lambson, 2000. "On the Effects of Entry in Cournot Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 235-254.
    4. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    5. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, 2016. "The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(1), pages 45-73.
    6. Robert A. Pollak, 1971. "Additive Utility Functions and Linear Engel Curves," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(4), pages 401-414.
    7. Aiura, Hiroshi & Ogawa, Hikaru, 2013. "Unit tax versus ad valorem tax: A tax competition model with cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 30-38.
    8. Gaudin, Germain & White, Alexander, 2014. "On the antitrust economics of the electronic books industry," DICE Discussion Papers 147 [rev.], Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    9. Dingwei Gu & Zhiyong Yao & Wen Zhou & Rangrang Bai, 2019. "When is upstream collusion profitable?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(2), pages 326-341, June.
    10. Skeath, Susan E. & Trandel, Gregory A., 1994. "A Pareto comparison of ad valorem and unit taxes in noncompetitive environments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-71, January.
    11. Robert L. Bishop, 1968. "The Effects of Specific and Ad Valorem Taxes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 82(2), pages 198-218.
    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. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    2. Anna D'Annunzio & Mohammed Mardan & Antonio Russo, 2020. "Multi‐part tariffs and differentiated commodity taxation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(3), pages 786-804, September.
    3. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2022. "The pricing of ancillary goods when selling on a platform," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Hiroshi Aiura & Hikaru Ogawa, 2019. "Indirect taxes in a cross-border shopping model: a monopolistic competition approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 147-175, October.
    5. Lisa Grazzini, 2006. "A Note on Ad Valorem and Per Unit Taxation in an Oligopoly Model," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 59-74, October.
    6. Anderson, Simon & Bedre-Defolie, Özlem, 2022. "Online trade platforms: Hosting, selling, or both?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 84, pages 1-15.
    7. Luca Bossi, 2007. "Per Unit Versus As Valorem Taxes Under Dynamic Monopoly," Working Papers 0703, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    8. Sushil Bikhchandani, 2020. "Intermediated surge pricing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 31-50, January.
    9. Claudio Agostini, 2010. "Tributación a Los Cigarrillos: Análisis y Propuestas," ILADES-UAH Working Papers inv246, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business.
    10. Claudio Agostini, 2012. "Incidencia Tributaria en el Mercado de las Gasolinas en Chile," Revista de Analisis Economico – Economic Analysis Review, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business, vol. 27(2), pages 55-73, October.
    11. Ramón Torregrosa, 2008. "Macroeconomic effects of an indirect tax substitution," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 199-221, September.
    12. Andrei Hagiu & Julian Wright, 2019. "The Optimality of Ad Valorem Contracts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5219-5233, November.
    13. Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland, 2012. "The distribution of harm in price-fixing cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 265-276.
    14. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "Tax incidence in differentiated product oligopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 173-192, August.
    15. Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    16. Sanz Labrador, Ismael & Sanz-Sanz, José Félix, 2013. "Política fiscal y crecimiento económico: consideraciones microeconómicas y relaciones macroeconómicas," Macroeconomía del Desarrollo 5367, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    17. Takanori Adachi & Michal Fabinger, 2017. "Multi-Dimensional Pass-Through, Incidence, and the Welfare Burden of Taxation in Oligopoly," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1040, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    18. Stefan Szymanski, 2021. "On the Incidence of an Ad Valorem Tax: The Adoption of VAT in the UK and Cost Pass Through by English Football Clubs," De Economist, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 37-61, February.
    19. Laszlo Goerke, 2011. "Commodity tax structure under uncertainty in a perfectly competitive market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 203-219, July.
    20. Blackorby, Charles & Murty, Sushama, 2007. "Unit versus ad valorem taxes: Monopoly in general equilibrium," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 817-822, April.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jindec:v:70:y:2022:i:4:p:999-1032. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    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.