Access Pricing: A Comparison Between Full Deregulation and Two Alternative Instruments of Access Price Regulation, Cost-Based and Retail-Minus
In this paper we compare two instruments of access price regulation, cost-based and retail-minus, with the full deregulation hypothesis. We consider an upstream monopolist firm that sells a vital input to an independent firm and to a subsidiary firm in the downstream market. We conclude that the retail-minus regulation avoids foreclosure and leads to better results than cost-based regulation in terms of investment level and consumer surplus. Moreover, retail-minus regulation allows a higher consumer surplus than deregulation of access price as long as the regulator carefully defines the retail-minus instrument. We also compare retail-minus regulation with the Efficient Component Pricing Rule and we conclude that the two mechanisms can lead to different results.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.fep.up.pt/Email:
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:por:cetedp:0603. 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: (Ana Bonanca)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.