IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cbu/jrnlec/y2019v5p29-35.html

What Does Improved Spectrum Management Mean For The Philippines?

Author

Listed:
  • JASON PATALINGHUG

    (SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, USA)

  • EPICTETUS PATALINGHUG

    (UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES)

Abstract

This paper analyzes spectrum management practices in the Philippines. It examines the literature on what the Philippines and other countries have done when it comes to allocating spectrum rights. The regulatory body in the Philippines allocates available spectrum via an administrative approach which lacks transparency and due process. This paper recommends that the regulatory body adopts the auction method in allocating spectrum. This method hasbeen proven to be transparent, fair, and cost-effective method if a suitable design is adopted. There are very few studies that look at spectrum management in the Philippines. This paper offers some policy recommendations that can help the Philippines in allocating spectrum rights more efficiently and increase its government’s revenues.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Patalinghug & Epictetus Patalinghug, 2019. "What Does Improved Spectrum Management Mean For The Philippines?," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 29-35, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbu:jrnlec:y:2019:v:5:p:29-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2019-05/04_Patalinghug.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721, January.
    2. World Bank, 2005. "Philippines : Meeting the Infrastructure Challenges," World Bank Publications - Reports 8459, The World Bank Group.
    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. David Grether & David Porter & Matthew Shum, 2011. "Intimidation or Impatience? Jump Bidding in On-line Ascending Automobile Auctions," Working Papers 11-07, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Josheski Dushko & Karamazova Elena, 2021. "Auction theory and a note on game mechanisms," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 43-59, May.
    3. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Paul Milgrom, 2004. "The Lovely but Lonely Vickrey Auction," Discussion Papers 03-036, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Christian Kroemer & Martin Bichler & Andor Goetzendorff, 2016. "(Un)expected Bidder Behavior in Spectrum Auctions: About Inconsistent Bidding and Its Impact on Efficiency in the Combinatorial Clock Auction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 31-63, January.
    5. Joyce Delnoij & Kris Jaegher, 2020. "Competing first-price and second-price auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 183-216, February.
    6. Amadou Boly & Robert Gillanders & Topi Miettinen, 2016. "Deterrence, peer effect, and legitimacy in anti-corruption policy-making: An experimental analysis," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Fabrizio Barca, 2008. "An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_06, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    8. Vasiliki Skreta, 2011. "On the informed seller problem: optimal information disclosure," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 15(1), pages 1-36, March.
    9. Oishi Takayuki, 2010. "Collusive Behavior of Bidders in English Auctions: A Cooperative Game Theoretic Analysis," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Amadou Boly & Robert Gillanders & Topi Miettinen, 2016. "Deterrence, peer effect, and legitimacy in anti-corruption policy-making: An experimental analysis," WIDER Working Paper Series 137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Jeremy Bulow & Jonathan Levin & Paul Milgrom, 2009. "Winning Play in Spectrum Auctions," NBER Working Papers 14765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Brunner, Christoph & Hu, Audrey & Oechssler, Jörg, 2014. "Premium auctions and risk preferences: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 467-484.
    13. Sylvain Mignot & Stéphanie Saba & Annick Vignes, 2016. "To trust or to bid: an empirical analysis of social relationships on a fish market," Working Papers halshs-01298872, HAL.
    14. Frank Kelly & Peter Key & Neil Walton, 2016. "Efficient Advert Assignment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 822-837, August.
    15. Peter Cramton, 2009. "Innovation and Market Design," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 9, pages 113-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Lamprirni Zarpala & Dimitris Voliotis, 2022. "A core-selecting auction for portfolio's packages," Papers 2206.11516, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    17. Michael Padilla & Benjamin Van Roy, 2012. "Intermediated Blind Portfolio Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1747-1760, September.
    18. Yokote, Koji, 2021. "Consistency of the doctor-optimal equilibrium price vector in job-matching markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    19. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2020. "On the Benefits of Set-Asides," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1655-1696.
    20. Kirchkamp, O. & Reiss, J.P. & Sadrieh, A., 2008. "A pure variation of risk in private-value auctions," Research Memorandum 050, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cbu:jrnlec:y:2019:v:5:p:29-35. 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: Ecobici Nicolae The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Ecobici Nicolae to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fetgjro.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.