IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/swe/wpaper/2010-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Platform Pricing Structure and Moral Hazard

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Roger

    (School of Economics, The University of New South Wales)

  • Luis I. Vasconcelos

    (Department of Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa)

Abstract

We study pricing by a monopoly platform that matches buyers and sellers in an environment with cross-market externalities. Said platform has no private information, does not set the commodity's price and can only charge trading parties for the transaction. Our innovation consists in introducing moral hazard on the sellers' side and an equilibrium notion of platform reputation in an infinite horizon model. With linear fees the platform can mitigate, but not eliminate, the loss of reputation induced by moral hazard. If lump-sum fees (registration fees) can be levied, moral hazard can be overcome. The upfront payment determines the participation threshold of sellers and extracts them, while (lower) transactions fees provide incentives for good behavior. This breaks the equivalence of lump-sum payments and linear fees (Rochet and Tirole (2006)). We draw implications for the role of subsidies (Caillaud and Jullien (2003)).

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume Roger & Luis I. Vasconcelos, 2010. "Platform Pricing Structure and Moral Hazard," Discussion Papers 2010-28, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    • Handle: RePEc:swe:wpaper:2010-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.economics.unsw.edu.au/RePEc/papers/2010-28.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guillaume Roger & Luís Vasconcelos, 2014. "Platform Pricing Structure and Moral Hazard," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 527-547, September.
    2. repec:adr:anecst:y:2000:i:59:p:02 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ettore Damiano & Hao Li, 2007. "Price discrimination and efficient matching," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(2), pages 243-263, February.
    4. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    5. Hanna Halaburda & Mikolaj Jan Piskorski, 2010. "Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Search Platforms," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-098, Harvard Business School, revised Jan 2013.
    6. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    7. Andrei Hagiu, 2006. "Pricing and Commitment by Two-Sided Platforms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 720-737, Autumn.
    8. Juan D. Carrillo, 2000. "Corruption in Hierarchies," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 59, pages 37-61.
    9. Bolt, Wilko & Tieman, Alexander F., 2008. "Heavily skewed pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1250-1255, September.
    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. Sirong Luo & Radha Mookerjee & Dengpan Liu, 2021. "The Effects of Auction‐based Pricing Mechanisms and Social Characteristics on Microloan Performance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(2), pages 311-329, February.
    2. Guillaume Roger & Luís Vasconcelos, 2014. "Platform Pricing Structure and Moral Hazard," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 527-547, September.
    3. repec:esx:essedp:738 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Xueke Du & Rui Dong & Wenli Li & Yibo Jia & Lirong Chen, 2019. "Online Reviews Matter: How Can Platforms Benefit from Online Reviews?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Carmelo Cennamo & Juan Santaló, 2019. "Generativity Tension and Value Creation in Platform Ecosystems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 617-641, May.
    6. Aoyagi, Masaki & Yoo, Seung Han, 2022. "Matching strategic agents on a two-sided platform," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 271-296.
    7. Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "Two-part tariff competition between two-sided platforms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 168-180.
    8. Adrien Querbes, 2018. "Banned from the sharing economy: an agent-based model of a peer-to-peer marketplace for consumer goods and services," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 633-665, August.
    9. Roß Wiebke & Weghake Jens, 2015. "10 Jahre YouTube: Von dem Aufstieg einer Plattform und der Entwicklung neuer Märkte zum Kollateralschaden einer Google-Regulierung? / 10 Years YouTube: From the Arising of a Platform and the Developme," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 195-220, January.

    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. repec:esx:essedp:738 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Heiko Karle & Martin Peitz & Markus Reisinger, 2020. "Segmentation versus Agglomeration: Competition between Platforms with Competitive Sellers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2329-2374.
    3. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Chokri Aloui & Khaïreddine Jebsi, 2010. "Optimal pricing of a two-sided monopoly platform with a one-sided congestion effect," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 57(4), pages 423-439, December.
    5. Wang, Jin, 2021. "Do birds of a feather flock together? Platform’s quality screening and end-users’ choices theory and empirical study of online trading platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Reisinger, Markus, 2014. "Two-part tariff competition between two-sided platforms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 168-180.
    7. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2013. "The Antitrust Analysis of Multi-Sided Platform Businesses," NBER Working Papers 18783, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Pinar Ozcan & Filipe M. Santos, 2015. "The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1486-1512, October.
    10. Gabriel Garber & Márcio Issao Nakane, 2016. "Commercial platforms with heterogeneous participants," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2016_02, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    11. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    12. Pierre ANDREOLETTI & Pierre GAZE & Maxime MENUET, 2015. "Can a Platform Make Profit with Consumers' Mobility? A Two-Sided Monopoly Model with Random Endogenous Side-Switching," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 1969, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    13. Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen & Bjørn Olav Johansen & Teis Lunde Lømo, 2018. "Resale Price Maintenance In Two‐Sided Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 570-609, September.
    14. Bruno Jullien & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Platform Competition under Dispersed Information," Discussion Papers 1568, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    15. Aoyagi, Masaki & Yoo, Seung Han, 2022. "Matching strategic agents on a two-sided platform," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 271-296.
    16. Burcu Tan & Edward G. Anderson, Jr. & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2020. "Platform Pricing and Investment to Drive Third-Party Value Creation in Two-Sided Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 217-239, March.
    17. Tang, Hua & Chen, Jing & Ai, Xingzheng & Li, Xiaojing & He, Haojia, 2023. "First-party content decision under competitive hardware/software platforms: Free vs. charge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 1068-1083.
    18. repec:hrv:faseco:4589709 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Sülzle, Kai, 2009. "Duopolistic competition between independent and collaborative business-to-business marketplaces," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 615-624, September.
    20. Carrillo, Juan D. & Tan, Guofu, 2021. "Platform competition with complementary products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    21. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro, 2013. "Platform Pricing under Dispersed Information," IDEI Working Papers 793, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    22. Goos Maarten & Van Cayseele Patrick & Willekens Bert, 2014. "Platform Pricing in Matching Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 437-457, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Platforms; Two-Sided Markets; Reputation; Moral Hazard;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:swe:wpaper:2010-28. 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: Hongyi Li (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/senswau.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.