IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v43y1997i10p1364-1371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the Domestic Distribution Network for Illicit Drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan P. Caulkins

    (Carnegie Mellon University, Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

Abstract

This paper presents a simple economic model of a drug dealer's decision about how many customers to supply. The model relates the number of customers (i.e., the branching factor of the distribution network) to a quantity discount factor describing the extent to which prices are marked up from one distribution level to the next and the ratio of selling costs to product costs. Solving the model allows one to infer characteristics of the domestic distribution network from more readily observable characteristics of the markets and, thereby, to gain insight into how drug control interventions might work.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan P. Caulkins, 1997. "Modeling the Domestic Distribution Network for Illicit Drugs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(10), pages 1364-1371, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:43:y:1997:i:10:p:1364-1371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.10.1364
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sylvaine Poret, 2006. "L'impact des politiques répressives sur l'offre de drogues illicites. Une revue de la littérature théorique," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(5), pages 1065-1091.
    2. Pacula Rosalie Liccardo & Kilmer Beau & Grossman Michael & Chaloupka Frank J, 2010. "Risks and Prices: The Role of User Sanctions in Marijuana Markets," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-38, February.
    3. Sylvaine Poret, 2005. "Structure verticale d'un réseau de distribution de drogues illicites et politique répressive optimale," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 71(4), pages 391-412.
    4. Jeremy Arkes & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula & Susan M. Paddock & Jonathan P. Caulkins & Peter Reuter, 2008. "Why the DEA STRIDE Data are Still Useful for Understanding Drug Markets," NBER Working Papers 14224, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Hao, Haijing, 2008. "Modelling drug market supply disruptions: Where do all the drugs not go?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 251-270.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:43:y:1997:i:10:p:1364-1371. 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: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.