The effect of prices on fixed and mobile telephone penetration: Using price subsidies as natural experiments
A natural experiment, unintentionally conducted by the price subsidy program Lifeline Assistance, underpins our innovative strategy to estimate consumer demand for communications services. Using a national household panel containing demographic and billing information, we estimate own and cross-elasticities of demand for fixed and mobile services and find moderate substitution between the two. We control for the role of income effects by showing the subsidy has little effect on consumption of similar products and services. To account for potential bias due to endogeneity of program participation, a difference-in-differences analysis of re-sampled households results in estimates similar to the cross-sectional analysis. An asymmetry in the response to Lifeline participation arose depending on whether a household added or dropped Lifeline between samplings. We use the estimated demand parameters to simulate the impact of making the Lifeline program universal, or eliminating it altogether. In either case we find the net impact on combined fixed and mobile penetration is small.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002.
"How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?,"
NBER Working Papers
8841, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275, February.
- Jerry A. Hausman, 1997. "Valuing the Effect of Regulation on New Services in Telecommunications," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 28(1997 Micr), pages 1-54.
- Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 2000.
"Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(467), pages F672-94, November.
- Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 1994. "Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies," NBER Working Papers 4956, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rodini, Mark & Ward, Michael R. & Woroch, Glenn A., 0. "Going mobile: substitutability between fixed and mobile access," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5-6), pages 457-476, June.
- Nakil Sung & Yong-Hun Lee, 2002. "Substitution between Mobile and Fixed Telephones in Korea," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 367-374, June.
- Burton Mark & Macher Jeffrey & Mayo John W, 2007. "Understanding Participation in Social Programs: Why Don't Households Pick up the Lifeline?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, November.
- Vogelsang, Ingo, 2010. "The relationship between mobile and fixed-line communications: A survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 4-17, March.
- Hausman, Jerry, 2000. "Efficiency Effects on the U.S. Economy from Wireless Taxation," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 3), pages 733-42, September.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521296762 is not listed on IDEAS
- Eriksson, Ross C & Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W, 1998. "Targeted and Untargeted Subsidy Schemes: Evidence from Postdivestiture Efforts to Promote Universal Telephone Service," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 477-502, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:iepoli:v:22:y:2010:i:1:p:18-32. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.