Complementary Monopoly And Welfare: Is Splitting Up So Bad?
We derive an original measure of dead-weight loss (DWL) in an m-sector complementary monopoly and show that with non-collusive pricing DWL may be seriously understated if demand complementarities are ignored, even when m is small. Since DWL generally increases with m and with less collusive pricing, separating monopoly into complementary monopoly (risking reduced price collusion) may be a bad static move. To illustrate, separating Microsoft into two non-collusive complementary monopolies may increase DWL from $4 billion to $7 billion (for 2002-3). However, we show that such a policy may be welfare improving with even relatively modest post-separation entry and Cournot quantity competition. Copyright � 2006 The Author; Journal compilation � Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The University of Manchester 2006.
Volume (Year): 74 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (06)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (0)161 275 4868
Fax: (0)161 275 4812
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1463-6786
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=1463-6786|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:manchs:v:74:y:2006:i:3:p:334-349. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.