IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Asymmetric information in the regulation of the access to markets

Listed author(s):
  • Ghislandi, Simone

    ()

  • Kuhn, Michael

    ()

It is frequently argued that the high costs of clinical trials prior to the admission of new pharmaceuticals are stifling innovation. At the same time, regulation of the access to markets is often justified on the basis of consumers` inability to detect the true quality of a product. We examine these arguments from an information economic perspective by setting a framework where the incentives to invest in R&D are influenced by the information structure prevailing when the product is launched in the market at a later stage. In this setting, by changing the information structure, regulation (or the lack of) can thus indirectly affect R&D efforts. More formally, we construct a moral hazard - cum - adverse selection model in which a pharmaceutical firm exerts an unobservable effort towards developing an innovative (high quality) drug (moral hazard) and then announces the (unobservable) quality outcome to an uninformed regulator and/or consumers (adverse selection). We compare the outcomes in regard to innovation effort and expected welfare under two regimes: (i) regulation, where products undergo a clinical trial designed to ascertain product quality at the point of market access; and (ii) laissez-faire with free entry, where the revelation of quality is left to the market process. Results show that whether or not innovation is greater in the presence of entry regulation crucially depends on the efficacy of the trial in identifying (poor) quality, on the probability that unknown qualities are revealed in the market process, and on the preference and cost structure. The welfare ranking of the two regimes depends on the differential effort incentive and on the net welfare gain from implementing full information instantaneously. For example, in settings of vertical monopoly, vertical differentiation and horizontal differentiation with no variable cost of quality, entry regulation tends to be the preferred regime if the effort incentive under pooling is relatively low and profits do not count too much towards welfare. A complementary numerical Analysis shows how the outcomes vary with the market and cost structure. (authors' abstract)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://epub.wu.ac.at/4886/
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by WU Vienna University of Economics and Business in its series Department of Economics Working Paper Series with number 4886.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2016
Handle: RePEc:wiw:wus005:4886
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria

Web page: http://epub.wu.ac.at

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Dahm, Matthias & González, Paula & Porteiro, Nicolás, 2009. "Trials, tricks and transparency: How disclosure rules affect clinical knowledge," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1141-1153, December.
  2. Patricia M. Danzon & Y. Richard Wang & Liang Wang, 2005. "The impact of price regulation on the launch delay of new drugs-evidence from twenty-five major markets in the 1990s," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 269-292.
  3. Anthony Creane, 2008. "A note on welfare-improving ignorance about quality," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 34(3), pages 585-590, March.
  4. Olson, Mary K., 2008. "The risk we bear: The effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 175-200, March.
  5. Rhodes, Andrew & Wilson, Chris M, 2015. "False Advertising," MPRA Paper 68869, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  6. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Lasagna, Louis, 1991. "Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 107-142, July.
  7. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1986. "Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 796-821, August.
  8. David P. Baron & David Besanko, 1984. "Regulation, Asymmetric Information, and Auditing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 447-470, Winter.
  9. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Bhattacharya & Lorenzo Carbonari, 2008. "Pharmaceutical industry, drug quality and regulation. Evidence from US and Italy," CEIS Research Paper 138, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 16 Dec 2008.
  10. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2012. "Mandatory Versus Voluntary Disclosure of Product Risks," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 360-379.
  11. Economides, Nicholas, 1989. "Quality variations and maximal variety differentiation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 21-29, February.
  12. John A. Vernon, 2005. "Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 1-16.
  13. Livio Garattini & Simone Ghislandi, 2007. "Should we really worry about “launch delays” of new drugs in OECD countries?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(1), pages 1-3, March.
  14. Livio Garattini, 2007. "Should we really worry about “launch delays” of new drugs in OECD countries? Reply to J Cohen," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 171-171, June.
  15. V. Joseph Hotz & Mo Xiao, 2013. "Strategic Information Disclosure: The Case Of Multiattribute Products With Heterogeneous Consumers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 865-881, 01.
  16. Kenneth S. Corts, 2014. "Finite Optimal Penalties for False Advertising," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 661-681, December.
  17. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
  18. David Dranove & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2010. "Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 935-963, December.
  19. Peltzman, Sam, 1973. "An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(5), pages 1049-1091, Sept.-Oct.
  20. Michael Spence, 1977. "Consumer Misperceptions, Product Failure and Producer Liability," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 561-572.
  21. Dan Levin & James Peck & Lixin Ye, 2009. "QUALITY DISCLOSURE AND COMPETITION -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 167-196, 03.
  22. Joseph Golec & John Vernon, 2010. "Financial Effects of Pharmaceutical Price Regulation on R&D Spending by EU versus US Firms," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(8), pages 615-628, August.
  23. Salvatore Piccolo & Piero Tedeschi & Giovanni Ursino, 2015. "How Limiting Deceptive Practices Harms Consumers," DISCE - Working Papers del Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza def023, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
  24. Grabowski, Henry G & Vernon, John M & Thomas, Lacy Glenn, 1978. "Estimating the Effects of Regulation on Innovation: An International Comparative Analysis of the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 133-163, April.
  25. Salvatore Piccolo & Piero Tedeschi & Giovanni Ursino, 2015. "How limiting deceptive practices harms consumers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 611-624, 09.
  26. David Dranove & David Meltzer, 1994. "Do Important Drugs Reach the Market Sooner?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(3), pages 402-423, Autumn.
  27. Oliver Board, 2009. "COMPETITION AND DISCLOSURE -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 197-213, 03.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wus005:4886. 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: (WU Library)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.