IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Price regulation of pluralistic markets subject to provider collusion


  • Roberta Longo

    (Dipartimento di Teoria Economica e Metodi Quantitativi per le Scelte Politiche, University La Sapienza of Rome, Paizzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma Italy and Centre for Healthy Economics, University of York, UK.)

  • Marisa Miraldo

    (Imperial College Business School, Imperial College of London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ UK)

  • Andrew Street

    (Centre for Healthy Economics, University of York, UK.)


We analyse incentives for collusive behaviour when heterogeneous providers are faced with regulated prices under two forms of yardstick competition, namely discriminatory and uniform schemes. Providers are heterogeneous in the degree to which their interests correspond to those of the regulator, with close correspondence labelled altruism. Deviation of interests may arise as a result of de-nationalisation or when private providers enter predominantly public markets. We assess how provider strategies and incentives to collude relate to provider characteristics and across different market structures. We differentiate between “pure” markets with either only self-interested providers or with only altruistic providers and “pluralistic” markets with a mix of provider type. We find that the incentive for collusion under a discriminatory scheme increases in the degree to which markets are self-interested whereas under a uniform scheme the likelihood increases in the degree of provider homogeneity. Providers’ choice of cost also depends on the yardstick scheme and market structure. In general, costs are higher under the uniform scheme, reflecting its weaker incentives. In a pluralistic market under the discriminatory scheme each provider’s choice of cost is decreasing in the degree of the other provider’s altruism, so a self-interested provider will operate at a lower cost than an altruistic provider. Under the uniform scheme providers always choose to operate at the same cost. The prospect of defection serves to moderate the chosen level of operating cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta Longo & Marisa Miraldo & Andrew Street, 2008. "Price regulation of pluralistic markets subject to provider collusion," Working Papers 045cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:45cherp

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Tangeras, Thomas P., 2002. "Collusion-proof yardstick competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 231-254, February.
    2. Glaeser, Edward L. & Shleifer, Andrei, 2001. "Not-for-profit entrepreneurs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 99-115, July.
    3. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Jonas Schreyögg & Tom Stargardt & Oliver Tiemann & Reinhard Busse, 2006. "Methods to determine reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups (DRG): A comparison of nine European countries," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 215-223, August.
    5. Stephen Davies & Matthew Olczak, 2008. "Tacit versus Overt Collusion Firm Asymmetries and Numbers: What’s the Evidence?," Working Papers 08-32, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
    6. Barla, Philippe, 2000. "Firm size inequality and market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 693-722, July.
    7. Potters, Jan & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "Collusion under yardstick competition: an experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 1017-1038, September.
    8. Ma, Ching-to Albert, 1994. "Health Care Payment Systems: Cost and Quality Incentives," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 93-112, Spring.
    9. Mónica Duarte Oliveira & Carlos Gouveia Pinto, 2005. "Health care reform in Portugal: an evaluation of the NHS experience," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 203-220.
    10. Rothschild, R., 1999. "Cartel stability when costs are heterogeneous," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 717-734, July.
    11. Susan Rose-Ackerman, 1996. "Altruism, Nonprofits, and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 701-728, June.
    12. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, July.
    13. repec:hrv:faseco:33078971 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Compte, Olivier & Jenny, Frederic & Rey, Patrick, 2002. "Capacity constraints, mergers and collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-29, January.
    15. Pope, Gregory C., 1989. "Hospital nonprice competition and medicare reimbursement policy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 147-172, June.
    16. Andrew Street & Kirsi Vitikainen & Afsaneh Bjorvatn & Anne Hvenegaard, 2007. "Introducing activity-based financing: a review of experience in Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Working Papers 030cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. Boardman, Anthony & Freedman, Ruth & Eckel, Catherine, 1986. "The price of government ownership : A study of the Domtar takeover," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 269-285, December.
    18. Helder Vasconcelos, 2005. "Tacit Collusion, Cost Asymmetries, and Mergers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 39-62, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Martin Janíčko & Ivo Koubek, 2012. "Informační asymetrie a systém dvojího standardu ve vztahu zdravotník - pacient
      [Information Assymetry and Double Standard in the Doctor-Patient Relationship]
      ," Politická ekonomie, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2012(3), pages 362-379.
    2. Jana Chvalkovská & Petr Janský & Jiří Skuhrovec, 2012. "Listinné akcie na majitele a veřejné zakázky
      [Bearer Shares in Paper Form and Public Procurement]
      ," Politická ekonomie, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2012(3), pages 349-361.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:chy:respap:45cherp. 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: (Gill Forder). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.