IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecj/ac2003/98.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Damaged Durable Goods

Author

Listed:
  • Hahn, Jong-Hee

    (Keele University)

Abstract

A durable-goods monopolist may use quality degradation as a commitment not to lower price in the future. The introduction of damaged goods expedites low-valuation consumers' future demands, and helps the firm to mitigate the Coasian time-consistency problem. In such a case, damaged goods are more likely to be observed relative to the static setting where only the price-discrimination aspect of quality degradation is in effect. However, it is more likely to reduce welfare by inducing low-valuation buyers to buy the low-quality good early rather than to wait and buy the high-quality good later. So, quality degradation of durable goods is more likely to occur but less promising to the society, relative to the case of non-durable goods where damaged goods are rarely observed but more likely to be Pareto-improving.

Suggested Citation

  • Hahn, Jong-Hee, 2003. "Damaged Durable Goods," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2003 98, Royal Economic Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecj:ac2003:98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/res2003/Hahn.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond J. Deneckere & R. Preston McAfee, 1996. "Damaged Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 149-174, June.
    2. Choi, Jay Pil, 1994. "Network Externality, Compatibility Choice, and Planned Obsolescence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 167-182, June.
    3. Brian Kahin & Hal R. Varian (ed.), 2000. "Internet Publishing and Beyond: The Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual Property," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611597, December.
    4. Hahn, Jong-Hee, 2004. "The welfare effect of quality degradation in the presence of network externalities," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 535-552, December.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1998. "Upgrades, Tradeins, and Buybacks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 235-258, Summer.
    6. Lisa N. Takeyama, 2002. "Strategic Vertical Differentiation and Durable Goods Monopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 43-56, March.
    7. Bulow, Jeremy I, 1982. "Durable-Goods Monopolists," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(2), pages 314-332, April.
    8. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    9. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    10. Bagnoli, Mark & Salant, Stephen W & Swierzbinski, Joseph E, 1995. "Intertemporal Self-Selection with Multiple Buyers," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(3), pages 513-526, May.
    11. In Ho Lee & Jonghwa Lee, 1998. "A Theory of Economic Obsolescence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 383-401, September.
    12. Glenn Ellison & Drew Fudenberg, 2000. "The Neo-Luddite's Lament: Excessive Upgrades in the Software Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 253-272, Summer.
    13. Bagnoli, Mark & Salant, Stephen W & Swierzbinski, Joseph E, 1989. "Durable-Goods Monopoly with Discrete Demand," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1459-1478, December.
    14. Nancy L. Stokey, 1981. "Rational Expectations and Durable Goods Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(1), pages 112-128, Spring.
    15. Jeremy Bulow, 1986. "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(4), pages 729-749.
    16. von der Fehr, Nils-Henrik Morch & Kuhn, Kai-Uwe, 1995. "Coase versus Pacman: Who Eats Whom in the Durable-Goods Monopoly?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 785-812, August.
    17. Butz, David A, 1990. "Durable-Good Monopoly and Best-Price Provisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1062-1076, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ali K. Parlaktürk, 2012. "The Value of Product Variety When Selling to Strategic Consumers," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 371-385, July.
    2. Ding, Yucheng, 2014. "Why Branded Firm may Benefit from Counterfeit Competition," MPRA Paper 52933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Beccuti, Juan & Möller, Marc, 2021. "Screening by mode of trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 400-420.
    4. Stefan Buehler & Nicolas Eschenbaum, 2021. "Dynamic Monopoly Pricing With Multiple Varieties: Trading Up," Papers 2108.07146, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    5. Gergely Csorba & Jong‐Hee Hahn, 2006. "Functional Degradation And Asymmetric Network Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 253-268, June.
    6. S. Nageeb Ali & Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner, 2023. "Sequential Veto Bargaining With Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(4), pages 1527-1562, July.
    7. S. Nageeb Ali & Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner, 2022. "Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information," Papers 2202.02462, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    8. Hasan Cavusoglu & Huseyin Cavusoglu & Xianjun Geng, 2020. "Bloatware and Jailbreaking: Strategic Impacts of Consumer-Initiated Modification of Technology Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 240-257, March.
    9. Mahdi Mahmoudzadeh, 2020. "On the Non‐Equivalence of Trade‐ins and Upgrades in the Presence of Framing Effect: Experimental Evidence and Implications for Theory," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 330-352, February.
    10. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19111 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Francesco Nava & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2019. "Differentiated Durable Goods Monopoly: A Robust Coase Conjecture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1930-1968, May.
    12. Jay Pil Choi & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2010. "Net neutrality and investment incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 446-471, September.
    13. Brzustowski, Thomas & Georgiadis Harris, Alkis & Szentes, Balázs, 2023. "Smart contracts and the Coase conjecture," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117950, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. McAfee, R. Preston, 2007. "Pricing Damaged Goods," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 1, pages 1-19.
    15. Choi, Jay & Kim, Byung-Cheol, 2008. "Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives," Working Paper Series 19111, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    16. Saracho, Ana I., 2011. "Licensing information goods," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-199, March.
    17. Jong-Hee Hahn, 2004. "Durable Goods Monopoly with Endogenous Quality," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 665, Econometric Society.
    18. Jay Pil Choi & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2010. "Net neutrality and investment incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 446-471, September.

    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. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    2. Francesco Nava & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2019. "Differentiated Durable Goods Monopoly: A Robust Coase Conjecture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1930-1968, May.
    3. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel, 2007. "Durable Goods, Innovation and Network Externalities," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-086, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Jong-Hee Hahn, 2004. "Durable Goods Monopoly with Endogenous Quality," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 665, Econometric Society.
    5. Gerstle, Ari D. & Waldman, Michael, 2016. "Mergers in durable-goods industries: A re-examination of market power and welfare effects," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 677-692.
    6. Kumar, Praveen, 2006. "Intertemporal price-quality discrimination and the Coase conjecture," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(7-8), pages 896-940, November.
    7. Waldman, Michael, 1997. "Eliminating the Market for Secondhand Goods: An Alternative Explanation for Leasing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 61-92, April.
    8. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
    9. Utaka, Atsuo, 2008. "Pricing strategy, quality signaling, and entry deterrence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 878-888, July.
    10. Qiu-Hong Wang & Kai-Lung Hui, 2017. "Technology Mergers and Acquisitions in the Presence of an Installed Base: A Strategic Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 46-63, March.
    11. Hoppe, Heidrun C. & Lee, In Ho, 2003. "Entry deterrence and innovation in durable-goods monopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1011-1036, December.
    12. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2007. "Quality Upgrades and the (loss) of Market Power in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 18, Portuguese Competition Authority.
    13. Edward Kutsoati & Jan Zabojnik, 2001. "Durable Goods Monopoly, Learning-by-doing and "Sleeping Patents"," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0105, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    14. Tian Xia & Richard Sexton, 2010. "Brand or Variety Choices and Periodic Sales as Substitute Instruments for Monopoly Price Discrimination," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 333-349, June.
    15. Anton, James J. & Biglaiser, Gary, 2013. "Quality, upgrades and equilibrium in a dynamic monopoly market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1179-1212.
    16. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Efficient Upgrading in Durable Network Goods: Is Commitment Always Good?," Economic Research Papers 270543, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    17. Eric Brouillat, 2015. "Live fast, die young? Investigating product life spans and obsolescence in an agent-based model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 447-473, April.
    18. Atsuo Utaka, 2015. "High Price Strategy and Quality Signalling," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(3), pages 408-420, September.
    19. Eric Brouillat, 2011. "Durability of consumption goods and market competition: an agent-based modelling," Post-Print hal-00780254, HAL.
    20. Chi, Woody Chih-Yi, 1999. "Quality choice and the Coase problem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 107-115, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    damaged goods; quality degradation; durable-good monopoly;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    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:ecj:ac2003:98. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.