IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cge/wacage/45.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scale Scale Economies in Nonprofit Provision, Technology Adoption and Entry

Author

Listed:
  • Scharf, Kimberley

    (University of Warwick; CEPR)

Abstract

We study competition between nonprofit providers that supply a collective service through increasing-returns-to-scale technologies under conditions of free entry. When providers adopt a not-for-profit mission, the absence of a residual claimant can impede entry, protecting the position of an inefficient incumbent. Moreover, when providers supply goods that are at least partly public in nature, they may be unable to sustain the adoption of more efficient technologies that feature fixed costs, because buyers (private donors) face individual incentives to divert donations towards charities that adopt inferior, lower-fixed-cost technologies. These incentives may give rise to a technological race to the bottom, where nonprofit providers forgo opportunities to exploit scale economies. In these situations, government grants in support of core costs can have a nonneutral effect on entry, technology adoption, and industry performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Scharf, Kimberley, 2011. "Scale Scale Economies in Nonprofit Provision, Technology Adoption and Entry," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 45, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cge:wacage:45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/45.2011_scharf.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Glaeser, Edward L. & Shleifer, Andrei, 2001. "Not-for-profit entrepreneurs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 99-115, July.
    3. Henry Hansmann, 1981. "Nonprofit Enterprise in the Performing Arts," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 341-361, Autumn.
    4. William J. Baumol & Robert D. Willig, 1981. "Fixed Costs, Sunk Costs, Entry Barriers, and Sustainability of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 96(3), pages 405-431.
    5. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas & Newey, Whitney & Rosen, Harvey S, 1988. "Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1371-1395, November.
    6. David Easley & Maureen O'Hara, 1983. "The Economic Role of the Nonprofit Firm," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 531-538, Autumn.
    7. PESTIEAU, Pierre & SATO, Motohiro, 2006. "Limiting the number of charities," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2006074, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    8. Tomas J. Philipson & Richard A. Posner, 2009. "Antitrust in the Not-for-Profit Sector," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
    10. Lakdawalla, Darius & Philipson, Tomas, 2006. "The nonprofit sector and industry performance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1681-1698, September.
    11. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    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. Perroni, Carlo & Pogrebna, Ganna & Sandford, Sarah & Scharf, Kimberley, 2014. "Are Donors Afraid of Charities’ Core Costs? Scale Economies in Non-profit Provision and Charity Selection," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 201, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    2. Scharf, Kimberley & Perroni, Carlo & Pogrebna, Ganna & Sandford, Sarah, 2014. "Are Donors Afraid of Charities' Core Costs? Scale Economies in Non-profit Provision," CEPR Discussion Papers 10179, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Lapointe, Simon & Perroni, Carlo & Scharf, Kimberley & Tukiainen, Janne, 2018. "Does market size matter for charities?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 127-145.
    4. Jens Prüfer, 2011. "Competition And Mergers Among Nonprofits," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 69-92.
    5. Scharf, Kimberley, 2010. "Entry and fixed costs in charitable sectors," CEPR Discussion Papers 7978, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Patrick HERBST & Jens PRUFER, 2016. "Firms, Nonprofits, And Cooperatives: A Theory Of Organizational Choice," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 87(3), pages 315-343, December.
    7. Jill R. Horwitz & Austin Nichols, 2007. "What Do Nonprofits Maximize? Nonprofit Hospital Service Provision and Market Ownership Mix," NBER Working Papers 13246, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Scharf, Kimberley & Tukiainen, Janne, 2015. "Does Market Size Matter Also for Charities?," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 226, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    9. Lakdawalla, Darius & Philipson, Tomas, 2006. "The nonprofit sector and industry performance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1681-1698, September.
    10. Ghatak, Maitreesh & Mueller, Hannes, 2011. "Thanks for nothing? Not-for-profits and motivated agents," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 94-105, February.
    11. Scharf, Kimberley, 2014. "Impure prosocial motivation in charity provision: Warm-glow charities and implications for public funding," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 50-57.
    12. Giorgio Caselli & Catarina Figueira, 2023. "Monetary policy, ownership structure, and risk‐taking at financial intermediaries," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 58(1), pages 167-191, February.
    13. Brekke, Kurt R. & Siciliani, Luigi & Straume, Odd Rune, 2012. "Quality competition with profit constraints," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 642-659.
    14. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    15. Kitazawa, Yoshitsugu, 2001. "Exponential regression of dynamic panel data models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 7-13, October.
    16. Jessica M. Mc Lay & Roy Lay-Yee & Barry J. Milne & Peter Davis, 2015. "Regression-Style Models for Parameter Estimation in Dynamic Microsimulation: An Empirical Performance Assessment," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(2), pages 83-127.
    17. Heng, Dyna, 2011. "Capital flows and real exchange rate: does financial development matter?," MPRA Paper 48553, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2012.
    18. William Greene, 2001. "Estimating Econometric Models With Fixed Effects," Working Papers 01-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    19. Stavros E. Arvanitis & Theodoros V. Stamatopoulos & Dimitris Terzakis, 2018. "Is There a Non-linear Relationship of Market Value with Cash and Ownership?," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 68(1), pages 3-25, January-M.
    20. Nigel Driffield & Sourafel Girma, 2003. "Regional Foreign Direct Investment and Wage Spillovers: Plant Level Evidence from the UK Electronics Industry," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 65(4), pages 453-474, September.

    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:cge:wacage:45. 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: Jane Snape (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.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.