Pio Baake

Vertical product differentiation, network externalities, and compatibility decisions

Abstract We analyse the subgame perfect equilibrium of a four-stage game in a model of vertical product differentiation, where the consumer’s evaluation of a product depends on its inherent quality and on its network’s size. First, two firms choose their product’s inherent quality. Then they may mutually agree on providing an adapter before competing in prices. Finally, consumers buy. We find that, despite the high quality firm’s preference for incompatibility, an adapter is always provided in equilibrium. Social welfare is greater than without an adapter and can be improved by regulating compatibility only in those cases where qualities are differentiated too much.

On the economics of Internet peering

We discuss economic rationales behind peering decisions in the Internet. In the first part of the paper we analyze the decision about a bilateral peering agreement between two commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) who are in Cournot competition. In the second part we discuss multilateral peering between commercial ISPs and an academic research network (ARN). The latter is organized as a club of academic institutions who share the cost of their network. It is discussed whether peering threatens the existence of the ARN and under what circumstances a commercial ISP would want to use strategic pricing to win all ARN‐members as customers.

Explaining cross-supplies

Cross-supplies describe the phenomenon that two or more firms in the same industry supply each other with their final products. A prominent example is the cooperation in the European flat-glass industry, which was recently criticized by the European Commission. In a simple model we attempt to explain what incentives firms may have to use cross-supplies (instead of producing the goods themselves) and what welfare effects cross-supplies have if they are used. Contrary to the ruling of the European Commission we find that cross-supplies improve welfare whenever they are employed. Furthermore, for a large range of parameters, they even benefit consumers.

Vertical Foreclosure versus Downstream Competition with Capital Precommitment

The recent literature on vertical foreclosure suggests that vertical integration can have the anticompetitive effect of enabling an upstream firm to commit to restricting output to downstream firms at the monopoly level. We allow the upstream firm to make an ex-ante capital precommitment. We show that, if integration is outlawed, the upstream firm will distort capital downward as an alternative device to restrict output. We show that this alternative may be socially less efficient than vertical integration.

Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure with Convex Downstream Costs

In a framework with an upstream monopoly and a downstream duopoly, we analyze the impact of convex costs on the downstream level. In constrast to the case of constant marginal costs, vertical integration does not imply complete market foreclosure. While the nonintegrated downstream ¯rm receives a strictly positive amount of the intermediate good, the downstream allocation is ine±cient. However, a parametrized example indicates that competition at the downstream level may increase aggregate welfare.

Price Caps, Rate of Return Constraints and Universal Service Obligations

This paper evaluates the effects of modifying price cap regulation when firms are allowed to use non-linear tariffs. We consider a stylized network industry and analyze price cap regulation combined with rate of return regulation and with a universal service obligation. While both modifications can increase aggregate welfare by reducing the pricing distortions under price cap regulation, a universal service obligation is welfare superior if the firm’s profits and the size of its network are held constant.

Upfront Payments and Listing Decisions

We analyze the listing decisions of a retailer who may ask her suppliers to make upfront payments in order to be listed. We consider a sequential game with upfront payments being negotiated before short-term delivery contracts. We show that the retailer is more likely to use upfront payments the higher her bargaining power and the higher the number of potential suppliers. Upfront payments tend to lower the number of products offered by the retailer when the products are rather close substitutes. However, upfront payments can increase social welfare if they ameliorate inefficient listing decisions implied by short-term contracts only.

Accidents, Liability Obligations and Monopolized Markets for Spare Parts: Profits and Social Welfare

We analyze the effects of accidents and liability obligations on the incentives of car manufacturers to monopolize the markets for their spare parts. We show that monopolized markets for spare parts lead to higher overall expenditures for consumers. Furthermore, while the manufacturers invest more in order to offer cars with higher qualities, monopolization tends to reduce social welfare. Key for these results is the observation that high prices for spare parts entail a negative external effect inasmuch as liability obligations imply that consumers of competing products have to pay the high prices as well.

Collusive intra-industry trade in identical commodities

Collusive Intra-Industry Trade in Identical Commodities. — A homogenous-goods Cournot model with two countries and two firms is analyzed. Firms may collude by monopolizing their domestic markets, but they may also engage in collusive intra-industry trade. It turns out that, though such trade is costly because of transportation costs, firms might indeed trade since this enlarges the scope of successful collusion. Hence, intra-industry trade in homogenous goods is not a reliable indicator of competition.

Accidents, Liability Obligations and Monopolized Markets for Spare Parts

Abstract We analyze the effects of accidents and liability obligations on the incentives of car manufacturers to monopolize the markets for their spare parts. We show that monopolized markets for spare parts lead to inefficiently high prices for spare parts. Furthermore, monopolization induces the manufacturers to choose inefficiently high qualities. The key for these results is the observation that high prices for spare parts entail a negative external effect inasmuch as liability obligations imply that consumers of competing products have to pay the high prices as well.