IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/randje/v48y2017i2p467-484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu Wang
  • Julian Wright

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:randje:v:48:y:2017:i:2:p:467-484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rand.2017.48.issue-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Iñaki Aguirre & Simon Cowan & John Vickers, 2010. "Monopoly Price Discrimination and Demand Curvature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1601-1615, September.
    3. Stephen F. Hamilton, 2009. "Excise Taxes with Multiproduct Transactions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 458-471, March.
    4. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "The efficiency of indirect taxes under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 231-251, August.
    5. E. Glen Weyl & Michal Fabinger, 2013. "Pass-Through as an Economic Tool: Principles of Incidence under Imperfect Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 528-583.
    6. Simon Loertscher & Andras Niedermayer, 2012. "Fee-Setting Mechanisms: On Optimal Pricing by Intermediaries and Indirect Taxation," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1162, The University of Melbourne.
    7. 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.
    8. Johannes Muthers & Sebastian Wismer, 2012. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Working Papers 115, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    9. Liran Einav & Theresa Kuchler & Jonathan Levin & Neel Sundaresan, 2015. "Assessing Sale Strategies in Online Markets Using Matched Listings," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 215-247, May.
    10. 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).
    11. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2012. "Regulated Prices, Rent Seeking, and Consumer Surplus," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 160-186.
    12. Oz Shy & Zhu Wang, 2011. "Why Do Payment Card Networks Charge Proportional Fees?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1575-1590, June.
    13. D. B. Suits & R. A. Musgrave, 1953. "Ad Valorem and Unit Taxes Compared," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 67(4), pages 598-604.
    14. E. Glen Weyl & Jean Tirole, 2012. "Market Power Screens Willingness-to-Pay," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(4), pages 1971-2003.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Honglin Li & Xiaolu Liu, 2021. "Ad valorem versus per unit taxation: a perspective from price signaling," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 27-47, September.
    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. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2018. "Should platforms be allowed to charge ad valorem fees?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 739-760, September.
    4. Leonardo Gambacorta & Leonardo Madio & Bruno Maria Parigi, 2023. "Platform lending and innovation," BIS Working Papers 1142, Bank for International Settlements.
    5. Michele Bisceglia & Jorge Padilla, 2023. "On sellers' cooperation in hybrid marketplaces," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 207-222, January.
    6. Andrei Hagiu & Julian Wright, 2019. "The Optimality of Ad Valorem Contracts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5219-5233, November.
    7. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2022. "The pricing of ancillary goods when selling on a platform," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Mark J. Tremblay, 2020. "The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination," Working Papers 20-10, NET Institute.
    9. 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.
    10. Johnson, Justin P., 2020. "The agency and wholesale models in electronic content markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    11. John S. Heywood & Lu Xu & Guangliang Ye, 2019. "How does a public innovator license a foreign rival?," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 78-95, March.
    12. Gokhan Guven & Eren Inci & Antonio Russo, 2017. "Apparent Competition in Two-Sided Platforms," CESifo Working Paper Series 6660, CESifo.
    13. Tetsuya Shinkai & Naoshi Doi, 2023. "Menu-pricing and Quality Decisions of a Platform Monopolist," Discussion Paper Series 252, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University.
    14. Johannes Muthers & Sebastian Wismer, 2012. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Working Papers 115, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    15. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Tobias Kretschmer & Deepak Somaya & Brian Wu, 2023. "Hyperspecialization and hyperscaling: A resource‐based theory of the digital firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 1391-1424, June.
    16. Yao Tang & Xu Guan, 2022. "Seller Organization and Percentage Fee Design in the Daily Deal Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1287-1302, December.
    17. Doh-Shin Jeon & Yassine Lefouili & Leonardo Madio, 2021. "Platform Liability and Innovation," Working Papers 21-05, NET Institute.
    18. Sushil Bikhchandani, 2020. "Intermediated surge pricing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 31-50, January.
    19. Li, Bin Grace & McAndrews, James & Wang, Zhu, 2020. "Two-sided market, R&D, and payments system evolution," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 180-199.
    20. Zhu Wang, 2018. "Why Do Platforms Use Ad Valorem Fees? Evaluating Two Alternative Explanations," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue 4Q, pages 153-171.
    21. Muthers Johannes & Wismer Sebastian, 2022. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 83-110, August.
    22. Borys Grochulski & Zhu Wang, 2024. "Real Estate Commissions and Homebuying," Working Paper 24-01, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    23. Anna D'Annunzio & Antonio Russo, 2022. "Negative Tax Incidence with Multiproduct Firms," CESifo Working Paper Series 9881, CESifo.
    24. Jan Frederic Nerbel & Markus Kreutzer, 2023. "Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, December.
    25. Tetsuya Shinkai & Naoshi Doi, 2023. "Price and quality decision of a monopoly platform for transaction with shipping," Discussion Paper Series 252-2, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jul 2023.

    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. Adachi, Takanori & Fabinger, Michal, 2022. "Pass-through, welfare, and incidence under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    2. Zhu Wang, 2018. "Why Do Platforms Use Ad Valorem Fees? Evaluating Two Alternative Explanations," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue 4Q, pages 153-171.
    3. 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.
    4. Ellalee, Haider & Alali, Walid Y., 2022. "A Welfare and Pass-Through Effects of Regulations within Imperfect Competition," MPRA Paper 116512, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2018. "Should platforms be allowed to charge ad valorem fees?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 739-760, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Laszlo Goerke, 2011. "Commodity tax structure under uncertainty in a perfectly competitive market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 203-219, July.
    8. Henrik Vetter, 2016. "Tax Reform in Monopolistic Competition with Increasing Preferences for Variety," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(2), pages 245-262, March.
    9. Christos Kotsogiannis & Konstantinos Serfes, 2014. "The Comparison of ad Valorem and Specific Taxation under Uncertainty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 48-68, February.
    10. Henrik Vetter, 2017. "Commodity taxes and welfare under endogenous market conduct," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 137-154, October.
    11. Valido, Jorge & Pilar Socorro, M. & Hernández, Aday & Betancor, Ofelia, 2014. "Air transport subsidies for resident passengers when carriers have market power," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 388-399.
    12. 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.
    13. Martin Peitz & Markus Reisinger, 2014. "Indirect Taxation in Vertical Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 709-755, December.
    14. Takanori Adachi & Michal Fabinger, 2017. "Multi-Dimensional Pass-Through and Welfare Measures under Imperfect Competition," Papers 1702.04967, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2018.
    15. de Rus, Ginés & Socorro, M. Pilar, 2022. "Subsidies in air transport markets: The economic consequences of choosing the wrong mechanism," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Takanori Adachi & Muhammad 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.
    17. 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.
    18. X. Wang & Jingang Zhao, 2009. "On the efficiency of indirect taxes in differentiated oligopolies with asymmetric costs," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 223-239, April.
    19. Laszlo Goerke, 2012. "The Optimal Structure of Commodity Taxation in a Monopoly with Tax Avoidance or Evasion," Public Finance Review, , vol. 40(4), pages 519-536, July.
    20. 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.

    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:randje:v:48:y:2017:i:2:p:467-484. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/randdus.html .

    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.