IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea26/404621.html

Testing Vertical Relationships in the US Infant Formula Market: Implications for Government Costs and Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Yi
  • Sesmero, Juan
  • Ma, Meilin

Abstract

The U.S. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides free infant formula to low-income households, serving around 39% of U.S. infants. As WIC’s single most expensive benefit, infant formula accounts for around half of the total WIC food costs. To reduce government costs, WIC awards exclusive contracts to manufacturers offering the lowest net price (i.e., wholesale price minus rebate) to the government in each state via public auction, effectively creating monopolies in the WIC market. The broader implications of this policy hinge on vertical relationships between manufacturers and retailers, which remain poorly understood. I identify the vertical relationship as best characterized by two-part tariffs (TPT), where retailers decide retail prices and pay fixed fees to manufacturers and wholesale markups are zero. This finding challenges the common but untested resale price maintenance (RPM) assumption in the literature. Counterfactual simulations show that TPT is more efficient than RPM, yielding higher consumer and total surplus while reducing government costs through lower total markups at equivalent net prices. Specifically, under RPM, average retail prices would be 3.8% higher, consumer surplus would be 7.4% lower, and producer surplus would be 2.2% higher under the current design of WIC. These findings demonstrate that conduct assumptions critically shape welfare outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Yi & Sesmero, Juan & Ma, Meilin, 2026. "Testing Vertical Relationships in the US Infant Formula Market: Implications for Government Costs and Welfare," 2026 Annual Meeting, July 26 - 28, 2026, Kansas City, Missouri 404621, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea26:404621
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404621/files/177600_194141_115232_2026_AAEA_submission_yw.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404621?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prell, Mark A., 2004. "An Economic Model Of Wic, The Infant Formula Rebate Program, And The Retail Price Of Infant Formula," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33879, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Jones, Jordan W. & Toossi, Saied, 2024. "The Food and Nutrition Assistance Landscape: Fiscal Year 2023 Annual Report," Economic Information Bulletin 344130, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Oliveira, Victor & Prell, Mark & Smallwood, David & Frazão, Elizabeth, 2001. "Infant Formula Prices and Availability: Final Report to Congress," Miscellaneous Publications 347662, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David M., 2011. "The Infant Formula Market: Consequences of a Change in the WIC Contract Brand," Economic Research Report 118020, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    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. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David, 2013. "Trends in Infant Formula Rebate Contracts: Implications for the WIC Program," Economic Information Bulletin 161130, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Hodges, Leslie & Toossi, Saied & Todd, Jessica E. & Ryan-Claytor, Cayley, 2024. "The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2024 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 341637, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Ariel Pakes & Jack Porter, 2024. "Moment inequalities for multinomial choice with fixed effects," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Zhang, Yuxiang & Liu, Yizao, 2023. "Reducing Added Sugar Intake: The Impact of Updated Nutrition Facts Panel," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335813, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Michael Cohen & Rui Huang, 2012. "Corporate Social Responsibility for Kids’ Sake: A Dynamic Model of Firm Participation," Working Papers 12, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    6. Ensar Yılmaz & Zeynep Kaplan, 2022. "Heterogeneity of market power: firm-level evidence," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 1207-1228, May.
    7. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Trindade, Andre & Yoshida, Renan C., 2020. "Direct-to-Consumer Sales by Manufacturers and Bargaining," MPRA Paper 105773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ho, Chun-Yu, 2012. "Market structure, welfare, and banking reform in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 291-313.
    9. Jeremy T. Fox, 2010. "Estimating the Employer Switching Costs and Wage Responses of Forward-Looking Engineers," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 357-412, April.
    10. Haerang Park, 2021. "Testing for Pricing Behavior in the Mortgage Loan Market," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 270-293, September.
    11. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    12. Brissimis, Sophocles N. & Delis, Manthos D., 2011. "Bank-level estimates of market power," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 508-517, August.
    13. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    14. Putsis, William Jr. & Dhar, Ravi, 2001. "An empirical analysis of the determinants of category expenditure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 277-291, June.
    15. Hovhannisyan, Vardges & Stiegert, Kyle W. & Bozic, Marin, 2013. "On Endogeneity Of Retail Market Power In An Equilibrium Analysis: A Control Function Approach," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    17. Julie Holland Mortimer, 2007. "Price Discrimination, Copyright Law, and Technological Innovation: Evidence from the Introduction of DVDs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1307-1350.
    18. Redding, Stephen J. & Weinstein, David E., 2016. "A unified approach to estimating demand and welfare," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67681, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Pietro Tebaldi, 2015. "Estimating Equilibrium in Health Insurance Exchanges: Analysis of the Californian Market under the ACA," Discussion Papers 15-012, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    20. Xiong, Siqin & Yuan, Yi & Yao, Jia & Bai, Bo & Ma, Xiaoming, 2023. "Exploring consumer preferences for electric vehicles based on the random coefficient logit model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea26:404621. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.