IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v16y1985ispringp51-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monopoly Behavior, Decentralized Regulation, and Contestable Markets: An Experimental Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn W. Harrison
  • Michael McKee

Abstract

This study provides a comparative experimental evaluation of several alternative approaches to the (single-product) monopoly problem. We contrast incentive-compatible decentralized regulatory mechanisms with notions of market contestability in a decreasing-cost environment. The decentralized regulatory mechanisms are found to be significantly more effective at restraining monopoly power than is allowing direct contestability. But the regulatory mechanisms examined require that the regulatory agency know the market demand curve (though not the industry cost curve). Since this is significantly more information than is required to implement direct contestability, an interesting tradeoff is suggested: does the greater efficiency in monopoly restraint provided by the regulatory mechanism relative to direct contestability outweigh the former's greater informational requirements?

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn W. Harrison & Michael McKee, 1985. "Monopoly Behavior, Decentralized Regulation, and Contestable Markets: An Experimental Evaluation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 51-69, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:16:y:1985:i:spring:p:51-69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0741-6261%28198521%2916%3A1%3C51%3AMBDRAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. van Damme, E.E.C. & Larouche, P. & Müller, W., 2006. "Abuse of a Dominant Position : Cases and Experiments," Discussion Paper 2006-020, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    2. Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2009. "Potential competition in the presence of sunk entry costs: an experiment," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 203-225.
    3. Dasgupta Utteeyo, 2011. "Are Entry Threats Always Credible?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-41, December.
    4. Nicolaus Tideman & Florenz Plassmann, 2017. "Efficient collective decision-making, marginal cost pricing, and quadratic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 45-73, July.
    5. Jamie Brown-Kruse & Steven R Elliot & Rob Godby, 1995. "Strategic Manipulation of Pollution Permit Markets: An Experimental Approach," Department of Economics Working Papers 1995-03, McMaster University.
    6. Beckman & Gregory DeAngelo & Smith, 2015. "Dictator monopolies and essential goods: experimental evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(59), pages 6461-6478, December.
    7. Kelly, Frank S., 1995. "Laboratory subjects as multiproduct monopoly firms: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 401-420, August.
    8. Yan, Huibin & Friedman, Daniel & Munro, David, 2016. "An experiment on a core controversy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-144.
    9. Christoph March, 2019. "The Behavioral Economics of Artificial Intelligence: Lessons from Experiments with Computer Players," CESifo Working Paper Series 7926, CESifo.
    10. Yan, Huibin & Friedman, Daniel, 2008. "An Experiment on the Core∗," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0jq48184, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    11. Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2002. "Buyer Countervailing Power versus Monopoly Power: Evidence from Experimental Posted-Offer Markets," Economics Papers 2002-W14, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    12. Switgard Feuerstein, 2005. "Collusion in Industrial Economics—A Survey," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 163-198, December.
    13. Kritikos, Alexander & Bolle, Friedel, 2004. "Punishment as a public good. When should monopolists care about a consumer boycott?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 355-372, June.
    14. March, Christoph, 2021. "Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Sherman, Roger, 1989. "Institutional design for monopoly regulation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 5(2-3), pages 245-257.
    16. Durham, Yvonne, 2000. "An experimental examination of double marginalization and vertical relationships," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 207-229, June.
    17. Pfeffer, Jonas & Huckenbeck, Jan, 2020. "Regulating Monopolies - A Case Example of Google," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 201-210.

    More about this item

    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:rje:randje:v:16:y:1985:i:spring:p:51-69. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    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.