IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v19yi1p69-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The non-equivalence of accounting separation and structural separation as regulatory devices

Author

Listed:
  • Hardt, Michael

Abstract

This note addresses the conjecture that accounting separation and structural separation may be viewed as equivalent tools in regulation. Results from a model incorporating informational asymmetries about the network operator's costs are presented as a counter argument. Incentives to misrepresent network operating costs under vertical integration with accounting separation in general differ from those under structural separation. Only if the regulator is able to ensure that the integrated firm's output quantities are based on the published costs and not on the true costs will accounting separation be effective. We argue that this assumption is unlikely to be satisfied. Benefits from structural break-ups exist and need to be compared to the costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hardt, Michael, 0. "The non-equivalence of accounting separation and structural separation as regulatory devices," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 69-72, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:19:y::i:1:p:69-72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030859619592624G
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mancuso, Paolo, 2012. "Regulation and efficiency in transition: The case of telecommunications in Italy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 762-770.
    2. Kennedy, David, 1997. "Merger in the English electricity industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 393-399, March.

    More about this item

    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:eee:telpol:v:19:y::i:1:p:69-72. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.