IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecmode/v110y2022ics0264999322000517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal online-payment security system and the role of liability sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Berg, Nathan
  • Kim, Jeong-Yoo

Abstract

We examine how security level and liability shares in online transactions are determined. Buyers typically bear significant hassle costs for self-authentication, but do not consider positive externalities generated for the seller. If a monopolistic seller knows the buyers' costs, it can choose a socially optimal security level by adjusting the liability share properly. Conversely, social inefficiency in the case of competition may rationalize regulation. If buyers are heterogeneous in terms of hassle costs and the seller cannot determine each individual's cost, they can attain the second-best solution by providing two options; a high security level and a high liability offer, and a low security level and a low liability offer. Contrary to full information cases, the inefficiency due to asymmetric information is eliminated by competition. The analysis has important implications on regulation policies in the security market.

Suggested Citation

  • Berg, Nathan & Kim, Jeong-Yoo, 2022. "Optimal online-payment security system and the role of liability sharing," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecmode:v:110:y:2022:i:c:s0264999322000517
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999322000517
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105805?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
    ---><---

    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. Roberds, William & Schreft, Stacey L., 2009. "Data breaches and identity theft," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 918-929, October.
    2. Creti, Anna & Verdier, Marianne, 2014. "Fraud, investments and liability regimes in payment platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 84-93.
    3. Alfredo Garcia & Barry Horowitz, 2007. "The potential for underinvestment in internet security: implications for regulatory policy," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 37-55, February.
    4. Stacey L. Schreft, 2007. "Risks of identity theft: Can the market protect the payment system?," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, vol. 92(Q IV), pages 5-40.
    5. Kahn, Charles M. & Roberds, William, 2008. "Credit and identity theft," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 251-264, March.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. Liao, Chun-Hsiung & Chen, Chun-Wei, 2014. "Network externality and incentive to invest in network security," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 398-404.
    8. Terrence August & Tunay I. Tunca, 2011. "Who Should Be Responsible for Software Security? A Comparative Analysis of Liability Policies in Network Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 934-959, May.
    9. Esther Gal-Or & Anindya Ghose, 2005. "The Economic Incentives for Sharing Security Information," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 186-208, June.
    10. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    11. Anna Creti & Marianne Verdier, 2014. "Investments and Liability Regimes in Payment Platforms," Post-Print hal-01111164, HAL.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13540 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
    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. Kyoung‐Soo Yoon & Jooyong Jun, 2019. "Liability And Antifraud Investment In Fintech Retail Payment Services," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(1), pages 181-194, January.
    2. Alessandro Fedele & Cristian Roner, 2022. "Dangerous games: A literature review on cybersecurity investments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 157-187, February.
    3. Kyoung-Soo Yoon & Jooyong Jun, 2016. "Liability, Information, and Anti-fraud Investment in a Layered Retail Payment Structure," Working Papers 2016-12, Economic Research Institute, Bank of Korea.
    4. Bajo-Buenestado, Raúl & Kinateder, Markus, 2019. "Armstrong meets Rochet–Tirole: On the equivalence of different pricing structures in two-sided markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 43-46.
    5. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2013. "The Antitrust Analysis of Multi-Sided Platform Businesses," NBER Working Papers 18783, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    7. Kind, Hans Jarle & Koethenbuerger, Marko & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2008. "Efficiency enhancing taxation in two-sided markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1531-1539, June.
    8. Creti, Anna & Verdier, Marianne, 2014. "Fraud, investments and liability regimes in payment platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 84-93.
    9. 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.
    10. Sato, Susumu, 2019. "Freemium as optimal menu pricing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 480-510.
    11. Anastasios Dosis & Wilfried Sand-Zantman, 2023. "The Ownership of Data," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 615-641.
    12. Terrence August & Duy Dao & Marius Florin Niculescu, 2022. "Economics of Ransomware: Risk Interdependence and Large-Scale Attacks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8979-9002, December.
    13. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé, 2019. "Newspapers in Times of Low Advertising Revenues," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 319-364, August.
    14. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro, 2013. "Platform Pricing under Dispersed Information," IDEI Working Papers 793, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    15. Goos Maarten & Van Cayseele Patrick & Willekens Bert, 2014. "Platform Pricing in Matching Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 437-457, February.
    16. Hermalin, Benjamin E. & Katz, Michael L., 2007. "The economics of product-line restrictions with an application to the network neutrality debate," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 215-248, June.
    17. Kremhelmer, Susanne, 2004. "Fairness, Property Rights, and the Market for Media," Munich Dissertations in Economics 2521, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    18. Jean Samuel Beuscart & Kevin Mellet, 2008. "Business Models of the Web 2.0: Advertising or The Tale of Two Stories," Post-Print hal-03459866, HAL.
    19. Aloui, Chokri & Jebsi, Khaïreddine, 2016. "Platform optimal capacity sharing: Willing to pay more does not guarantee a larger capacity share," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 276-288.
    20. Fiedler, Ingo C, 2010. "Antitrust in two-sided markets: Is competition always desirable?," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt5dp3q033, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information security; Identification cost; Liability; Online-payment security system;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:eee:ecmode:v:110:y:2022:i:c:s0264999322000517. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30411 .

    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.