IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v66y2018i3p739-760.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should platforms be allowed to charge ad valorem fees?

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu Wang
  • Julian Wright

Abstract

Many platforms that facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers charge ad valorem fees in which fees depend on the transaction price set by sellers. Given these platforms do not incur significant costs that vary with transaction prices, their use of ad valorem fees has been questioned. In this paper, using a model that connects ad valorem fees to third‐degree price discrimination, we evaluate the welfare consequences of banning such fees. We find the use of ad valorem fees generally increases welfare, including for calibrated versions of the model based on data from Amazon's marketplace and Visa's signature debit cards.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2018. "Should platforms be allowed to charge ad valorem fees?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 739-760, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:66:y:2018:i:3:p:739-760
    DOI: 10.1111/joie.12180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12180
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joie.12180?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malueg, David A. & Schwartz, Marius, 1994. "Parallel imports, demand dispersion, and international price discrimination," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 167-195, November.
    2. Judith Chevalier & Austan Goolsbee, 2003. "Measuring Prices and Price Competition Online: Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 203-222, June.
    3. Simon Cowan, 2007. "The welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination with nonlinear demand functions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 419-428, June.
    4. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    5. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2012. "Regulated Prices, Rent Seeking, and Consumer Surplus," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 160-186.
    6. Brennan, Geoffrey & Buchanan, James M., 1977. "Towards a tax constitution for Leviathan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 255-273, December.
    7. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2015. "Differential pricing when costs differ: a welfare analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 442-460, June.
    8. Schmalensee, Richard, 1981. "Output and Welfare Implications of Monopolistic Third-Degree Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(1), pages 242-247, March.
    9. Simon Cowan, 2016. "Welfare-increasing third-degree price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 326-340, May.
    10. E. Glen Weyl & Michal Fabinger, 2013. "Pass-Through as an Economic Tool: Principles of Incidence under Imperfect Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 528-583.
    11. Iñaki Aguirre, 2008. "Output and misallocation effects in monopolistic third-degree price discrimination," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(11), pages 1-11.
    12. Justin P. Johnson, 2017. "The Agency Model and MFN Clauses," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(3), pages 1151-1185.
    13. Layson, Stephen K, 1994. "Market Opening under Third-Degree Price Discrimination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 335-340, September.
    14. Iñaki Aguirre, 2006. "Monopolistic price discrimination and output effect under conditions of constant elasticity demand," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(23), pages 1-6.
    15. Schwartz, Marius, 1990. "Third-Degree Price Discrimination and Output: Generalizing a Welfare Result," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1259-1262, December.
    16. Varian, Hal R, 1985. "Price Discrimination and Social Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 870-875, September.
    17. Wang, Zhu & Wolman, Alexander L., 2016. "Payment choice and currency use: Insights from two billion retail transactions," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 94-115.
    18. Oz Shy & Zhu Wang, 2011. "Why Do Payment Card Networks Charge Proportional Fees?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1575-1590, June.
    19. Nahata, Babu & Ostaszewski, Krzysztof & Sahoo, P K, 1990. "Direction of Price Changes in Third-Degree Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1254-1258, December.
    20. Liran Einav & Theresa Kuchler & Jonathan Levin & Neel Sundaresan, 2015. "Assessing Sale Strategies in Online Markets Using Matched Listings," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 215-247, May.
    21. Gaudin, Germain & White, Alexander, 2014. "On the antitrust economics of the electronic books industry," DICE Discussion Papers 147 [rev.], Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    22. Brennan, Geoffrey & Buchanan, James M., 1978. "Tax instruments as constraints on the disposition of public revenues," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 301-318, June.
    23. Iñaki Aguirre & Simon Cowan & John Vickers, 2010. "Monopoly Price Discrimination and Demand Curvature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1601-1615, 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. Yassine Lefouili & Leonardo Madio, 2022. "The economics of platform liability," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 319-351, June.
    2. Yao Tang & Xu Guan, 2022. "Seller Organization and Percentage Fee Design in the Daily Deal Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1287-1302, December.
    3. Poddar, Sangita & Banerjee (Chatterjee), Tanmoyee, 2024. "Hybrid role of two-sided platform with one-sided congestion," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 83-98.
    4. Doh-Shin Jeon & Yassine Lefouili & Leonardo Madio, 2021. "Platform Liability and Innovation," Working Papers 21-05, NET Institute.
    5. Tetsuya Shinkai & Naoshi Doi, 2023. "Price and quality decision of a monopoly platform for transaction with shipping," Discussion Paper Series 252-2, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jul 2023.
    6. Mark J. Tremblay, 2020. "The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination," Working Papers 20-10, NET Institute.
    7. Borys Grochulski & Zhu Wang, 2024. "Real Estate Commissions and Homebuying," Working Paper 24-01, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    8. Ding, Rong & Ko, Chiu Yu & Shen, Bo, 2022. "Partial compatibility in two-sided markets: Equilibrium and welfare analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Sangita Poddar & Tanmoyee Banerjee (Chatterjee) & Swapnendu Banerjee, 2024. "A theoretical analysis on two‐sided duopoly platforms and tax regimes," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 20(1), pages 88-119, March.

    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:ehu:ikerla:11103 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Iñaki Aguirre & Simon G. Cowan, 2015. "Monopoly price discrimination with constant elasticity demand," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 329-340, October.
    3. Felipe Avilés-Lucero & Andre Boik, 2018. "Wholesale most-favored-nation clauses and price discrimination with negative consumption externalities: equivalence results," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 266-291, December.
    4. Li, Youping & Zhang, Jianhu, 2024. "The welfare effects of input price discrimination revisited," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Jong-Hee Hahn & Chan KIm, 2018. "Input price discrimination with differentiated final products," Working papers 2018rwp-118, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    6. Simon Cowan, 2016. "Welfare-increasing third-degree price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 326-340, May.
    7. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2015. "Differential pricing when costs differ: a welfare analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 442-460, June.
    8. Markus Dertwinkel‐Kalt & Christian Wey, 2023. "Third‐Degree Price Discrimination in Oligopoly when Markets are Covered," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 464-490, June.
    9. Tremblay, Mark J., 2019. "Pareto price discrimination," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Adachi, Takanori, 2023. "A sufficient statistics approach for welfare analysis of oligopolistic third‐degree price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    11. Zhu Wang & Julian Wright, 2017. "Ad valorem platform fees, indirect taxes, and efficient price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 467-484, May.
    12. Takanori Adachi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2014. "The Welfare Effects Of Third-Degree Price Discrimination In A Differentiated Oligopoly," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(3), pages 1231-1244, July.
    13. Aguirre, Iñaki, 2019. "Oligopoly price discrimination, competitive pressure and total output," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-16.
    14. repec:ehu:ikerla:6547 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:ehu:ikerla:6233 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Aguirre Pérez, Iñaki, 2009. "Joan Robinson Was Almost Right: Output under Third-Degree Price Discrimination," IKERLANAK 2009-38, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    17. repec:ehu:ikerla:6509 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:ehu:ikerla:14747 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Iñaki Aguirre & Simon Cowan & John Vickers, 2010. "Monopoly Price Discrimination and Demand Curvature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1601-1615, September.
    20. Simon GB Cowan & Simon Cowan, 2008. "When does third-degree price discrimination reduce social welfare, and when does it raise it?," Economics Series Working Papers 410, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    21. Romain Lestage, 2021. "Input price discrimination and non-controlling vertical shareholding," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 226-250, June.
    22. Miklós-Thal, Jeanine & Shaffer, Greg, 2021. "Third-degree price discrimination in oligopoly with endogenous input costs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    23. Takanori ADACHI, 2022. "Recent Advances in the Theory of Third-Degree Price Discrimination: A Brief Survey," Discussion papers e-22-006, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    24. Dirk Bergemann & Benjamin Brooks & Stephen Morris, 2015. "The Limits of Price Discrimination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 921-957, March.
    25. Einer Elhauge & Barry Nalebuff, 2017. "The Welfare Effects of Metering Ties," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 68-104.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy

    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:bla:jindec:v:66:y:2018:i:3:p:739-760. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    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.