IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v75y2021ics016771872030117x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The information paradox in a monopolist’s credence goods market

Author

Listed:
  • Jost, Peter-J.
  • Reik, Steffen
  • Ressi, Anna

Abstract

Credence good markets, such as those for car repairs and medical treatments, are generally characterized by an ex-ante and ex-post information asymmetry between the uninformed customers and the informed expert. In this paper, we allow for both uninformed as well as informed customers to exist in a monopolist credence goods market. We analyze the implications of this kind of informational heterogeneity for the expert’s pricing decisions, incentives to commit fraud, as well as market efficiency and social welfare under different institutional arrangements. Most importantly, our approach enables us to evaluate endeavours to improve the level of customers’ information. Contrary to basic intuition, we find that recent developments and policy measures originally aimed at improving social welfare by increasing the level of information might actually backfire.

Suggested Citation

  • Jost, Peter-J. & Reik, Steffen & Ressi, Anna, 2021. "The information paradox in a monopolist’s credence goods market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:75:y:2021:i:c:s016771872030117x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2020.102694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016771872030117X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2020.102694?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. Timothy J. Feddersen & Thomas W. Gilligan, 2001. "Saints and Markets: Activists and the Supply of Credence Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 149-171, March.
    2. Hyndman, Kyle & Ozerturk, Saltuk, 2011. "Consumer information in a market for expert services," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 628-640.
    3. Yuk-fai Fong, 2005. "When Do Experts Cheat and Whom Do They Target?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    4. Wolfgang Pesendorfer & Asher Wolinsky, 2003. "Second Opinions and Price Competition: Inefficiency in the Market for Expert Advice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 417-437.
    5. Yongmin Chen & Jianpei Li & Jin Zhang, 2022. "Efficient Liability In Expert Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1717-1744, November.
    6. Pitchik, Carolyn & Schotter, Andrew, 1988. "Honesty in a Model of Strategic Information Transmission: Correction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1164-1164, December.
    7. Bester, Helmut & Ouyang, Yaofu, 2018. "Optimal procurement of a credence good under limited liability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-129.
    8. Loukas Balafoutas & Adrian Beck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2013. "What Drives Taxi Drivers? A Field Experiment on Fraud in a Market for Credence Goods," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 876-891.
    9. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2011. "The Economics of Credence Goods: An Experiment on the Role of Liability, Verifiability, Reputation, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 526-555, April.
    10. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter, 2017. "The Economics of Credence Goods – a Survey of Recent Lab and Field Experiments," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 63(1), pages 1-23.
    11. Asher Wolinsky, 1993. "Competition in a Market for Informed Experts' Services," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(3), pages 380-398, Autumn.
    12. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    13. Pitchik, Carolyn & Schotter, Andrew, 1987. "Honesty in a Model of Strategic Information Transmission," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1032-1036, December.
    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. Yongmin Chen & Jianpei Li & Jin Zhang, 2022. "Efficient Liability In Expert Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1717-1744, November.
    2. Cao, Yiran & Chen, Yongmin & Ding, Yucheng & Zhang, Tianle, 2022. "Search and competition in expert markets," MPRA Paper 114170, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Jost, Peter-J. & Reik, Steffen & Ressi, Anna, 2019. "Information in a Monopolist's Credence Good Market," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203555, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Schneider, Tim & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2021. "Consumer information in a market for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Liu, Ting & Ma, Ching-to Albert, 2024. "Equilibrium information in credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 84-101.
    4. Bester, Helmut & Ouyang, Yaofu, 2018. "Optimal procurement of a credence good under limited liability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-129.
    5. Helmut Bester & Matthias Dahm, 2018. "Credence Goods, Costly Diagnosis and Subjective Evaluation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1367-1394, June.
    6. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2020. "Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    7. Wu, Cheng-Tai & Tsai, Tsung-Sheng, 2025. "Mandate or delegate? the optimal contract for credence goods with the expert’s endeavor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    8. Cao, Yiran & Chen, Yongmin & Ding, Yucheng & Zhang, Tianle, 2022. "Search and competition in expert markets," MPRA Paper 114170, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. David Bardey & Denis Gromb & David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet, 2020. "Controlling Sellers Who Provide Advice: Regulation and Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 409-444, September.
    10. Yongmin Chen & Jianpei Li & Jin Zhang, 2022. "Efficient Liability In Expert Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1717-1744, November.
    11. Agarwal, Ritu & Liu, Che-Wei & Prasad, Kislaya, 2019. "Personal research, second opinions, and the diagnostic effort of experts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 44-61.
    12. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2022. "Seller Opportunism in Credence Good Markets – The Role of Market Conditions," Working Papers 2022-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Maarten Janssen & Alexei Parakhonyak, 2011. "Sårvice Refusal in Regulated Markets for Credence Goods," HSE Working papers WP BRP 08/EC/2011, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    14. Dominik Erharter, 2012. "Credence goods markets, distributional preferences and the role of institutions," Working Papers 2012-11, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Alexander Konovalov, 2024. "Too Much or Too Little? Price Discrimination in a Market for Credence Goods," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 180(1), pages 106-143.
    16. Ouyang, Yaofu, 2016. "Credence Goods, Risk Averse, and Optimal Insurance," MPRA Paper 70392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Schneider, Tim & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Consumer information in a market for expert services: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 285, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Joachim Heinzel, 2019. "Credence Goods Markets with Fair and Opportunistic Experts," Working Papers CIE 119, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    19. Fong, Yuk-fai & Liu, Ting, 2018. "Liability and reputation in credence goods markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 35-39.
    20. Fang Liu & Alexander Rasch & Marco A. Schwarz & Christian Waibel, 2020. "The role of diagnostic ability in markets for expert services," Working Papers 2020-07, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Credence goods; Liability; Verifiability; Information improvements;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care 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:indorg:v:75:y:2021:i:c:s016771872030117x. 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/505551 .

    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.