IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous Entry in Markets with Adverse Selection


  • Thomas Jeitschko

    () (Department of Economcis, Michigan State University)

  • Anthony Creane

    () (Department of Economcis, Michigan State University)


Since Akerlof's (1970) seminal paper the existence of adverse selection due to asymmetric information about quality is well-understood. Yet two questions remain. First, given the negative implications for trading and welfare, how do such markets come into existence? And second, why have many studies failed to find direct or indirect evidence of adverse selection? In addressing the first question directly we shed some light on the second. We consider a market in which firms make an observable investment that generates products of a quality that becomes known only to the firm. Entry has the tendency to lower prices, which may lead to adverse selection. The implied price collapse limits the amount of entry so that high prices are supported in the market equilibrium, which results in above normal profits. While contributing to our understanding of markets with asymmetric information and adverse selection, the model also provides insight into the question of why markets with adverse selection are empirically hard to identify. The analysis suggests that rather than observing the canonical market collapse, such markets are instead characterized by less entry than would be empirically predicted and above normal profts even in markets with low measures of concentration.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Jeitschko & Anthony Creane, 2009. "Endogenous Entry in Markets with Adverse Selection," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 09/07, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London.
  • Handle: RePEc:hol:holodi:0907

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Wright, Gavin, 1974. "The Political Economy of New Deal Spending: An Econometric Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 30-38, February.
    2. repec:cup:apsrev:v:97:y:2003:i:03:p:471-481_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hauk, William R. & Wacziarg, Romain, 2007. "Small States, Big Pork," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(1), pages 95-106, March.
    4. repec:cup:apsrev:v:60:y:1966:i:03:p:529-547_13 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Wallis, John Joseph, 1998. "The Political Economy of New Deal Spending Revisited, Again: With and without Nevada," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 140-170, April.
    6. Gary Hoover & Paul Pecorino, 2005. "The Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 95-113, April.
    7. Robert A. Moffitt, 2003. "Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number moff03-1, January.
    8. Valentino Larcinese & Leonzio Rizzo & Cecilia Testa, 2005. "Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President," STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series 03, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    9. Brian Knight, 2004. "Legislative Representation, Bargaining Power, and the Distribution of Federal Funds: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," NBER Working Papers 10385, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Brian Knight, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Proposal Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1639-1652, December.
    11. repec:cup:apsrev:v:96:y:2002:i:04:p:767-777_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Atlas, Cary M, et al, 1995. "Slicing the Federal Government Net Spending Pie: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 624-629, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    adverse selection; asymmetric information; entry; entry barriers; investment;

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty


    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:hol:holodi:0907. 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: (Claire Blackman). 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.

    We have no 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.

    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.