IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bap/journl/110103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gun Buybacks and Firm Behavior: Do Buyback Programs Really Reduce the Number of Guns?

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory E. Goering

    (Department of Economics, University of Alaska, USA)

Abstract

We suppose that guns or firearms are subject to an anticipated future buyback program undertaken by the government. A simple linear demand durable-goods monopoly model is then analyzed where the durable-good manufactured is a firearm that lasts for two-periods. The model is calibrated so that buyers are indifferent between selling (participating in the buyback program) or holding the gun in the future period. This allows us to focus solely on the firm¡¯s behavior. We find, among other things, that if the firm can credibly commit to its current buyers the anticipated buyback has no impact on the future stock of guns. In this case, the firm simply increases its production of new firearms after the buyback, and offsets all the units collected and destroyed by the government. However, in contrast, we show that if the seller cannot commit to these buyers, the future stock is indeed reduced (but by only one-half of the buyback program level). Thus, any anticipated (repeated) buyback¡¯s impact on future stock levels of firearms depends critically on the commit ability of the durable-goods manufacturer, independent of the buyers¡¯ reselling and arbitrage activities. Moreover, regardless of commitment ability, the model suggests the imperfectly competitive firms may, at least partially, counteract the buyback program, making any governmental buyback less effective at reducing future firearm stocks than expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory E. Goering, 2011. "Gun Buybacks and Firm Behavior: Do Buyback Programs Really Reduce the Number of Guns?," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 1, pages 31-42, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bap:journl:110103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bapress.ca/Journal/Gun%20Buybacks%20and%20Firm%20Behavior--%20Do%20Buyback%20Programs%20Really%20Reduce%20the%20Number%20of%20Guns.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mullin, Wallace P., 2001. "Will gun buyback programs increase the quantity of guns?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 87-102, March.
    2. Wang‐Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, 2010. "The Australian Firearms Buyback And Its Effect On Gun Deaths," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(1), pages 65-79, January.
    3. Christine Neill, 2010. "Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 12(2), pages 462-508.
    4. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
    5. Butz, David A, 1990. "Durable-Good Monopoly and Best-Price Provisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1062-1076, December.
    6. Bulow, Jeremy I, 1982. "Durable-Goods Monopolists," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(2), pages 314-332, April.
    7. Gregory Goering & Michael Pippenger, 2002. "Durable Goods Monopoly and Forward Markets," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 271-282.
    8. Goering, Gregory E., 1992. "Oligopolies and product durability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 55-63, March.
    9. Jeremy Bulow, 1986. "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(4), pages 729-749.
    10. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Goering, Gregory E., 2008. "Socially concerned firms and the provision of durable goods," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 575-583, May.
    2. Goering, Gregory E. & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2012. "Durable goods produced by state owned enterprises," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 893-899.
    3. Gregory E. Goering, 2010. "Corporate social responsibility, durable-goods and firm profitability," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 489-496.
    4. Gregory E. Goering, 2012. "Taxation and Durable-Goods Monopoly: Does a Current Tax Influence Firm Behavior?," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 20-28, August.
    5. Goering, Gregory E., 2007. "Durability choice with differentiated products," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 105-112, June.
    6. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    7. Gerstle, Ari D. & Waldman, Michael, 2016. "Mergers in durable-goods industries: A re-examination of market power and welfare effects," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 677-692.
    8. Gregory E. Goering, 2010. "Durability Choice And The Piracy For Profit Of Goods," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 282-301, May.
    9. Sagasta, Amagoia & Saracho, Ana I., 2008. "Mergers in durable goods industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 691-701, December.
    10. Fethke, Gary & Jagannathan, Raj, 2000. "Why would a durable good monopolist also produce a cost-inefficient nondurable good?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 793-812, July.
    11. Galiani, Sebastian & Jaitman, Laura & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2020. "Crime and durable goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 146-163.
    12. Pangburn, Michael S. & Stavrulaki, Euthemia, 2014. "Take back costs and product durability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 175-184.
    13. Tian Xia & Richard Sexton, 2010. "Brand or Variety Choices and Periodic Sales as Substitute Instruments for Monopoly Price Discrimination," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 333-349, June.
    14. Stefan Ambec & Corinne Langinier & Stéphane Lemarié, 2008. "Incentives to Reduce Crop Trait Durability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 379-391.
    15. Adriano A. Rampini, 2019. "Financing Durable Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(2), pages 664-701, February.
    16. Jong‐Hee Hahn, 2006. "Damaged durable goods," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 121-133, March.
    17. Gregory E. Goering, 2007. "Durable‐Goods Monopoly With Maintenance," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 231-246, July.
    18. Francesco Nava & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2019. "Differentiated Durable Goods Monopoly: A Robust Coase Conjecture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1930-1968, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monopoly; Durable goods; Gun buybacks;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design

    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:bap:journl:110103. 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: Carlson (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.bapress.ca .

    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.